What is the argument against a shrinking population...

>don't have kids, overpopulation
>our population is too small, we need more people
????????????????

astronomy*

Here it is explained with candy.

It's 6 mins long but if you can watch it, you'll have your answer clear as day.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Literally because of internalised interest in the economy. Interest in the banking sense.
The economy MUST grow or it collapses

Because future generations would be crushed by the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. That's already going to happen but it would be much worse with a shrinking population. America decided to build its welfare program around a model that relies on infinite growth to sustain itself.

Shrinking population is good as long as you are not retardedly importing fucking muslims like the europoors. For japan downsizing is an absolute necessity.

State-funded retirement is a pyramid scheme
Boomers are desperate that it will crash, so they are willing to believe Yussuf and Bomkassa will pay taxes for them.

Because Mr. Goldstein needs as many part time workers as possible that make 7.25/Hr so he can buy his personal jet this year

>shrinking population
It could be self-reinforcing. There are a lot of old people to support (and lots of people out of the workforce too). The lower the birth rate, the shittier the economy (at least temporarily), which can make people not want to have children. Nowadays, most people do not take care of their parents when they become old. Children are extremely expensive and many would rather save for retirement instead.

Changing social policies to promote families, and then providing for and educating all those children, would be very expensive. Immigration is a cheaper, short-term solution.

There's probably a long-term security aspect too. A shrinking population can make a nation less powerful (probably the case for most western nations). The west is rather small in the world and A LOT of people hate us.

Maybe our elite know that western culture is dying (or at least not self-sustaining anymore) or unsuitable for their purposes (maybe more the case in Europe) and wish to transform it using immigration somehow.

But the main reason it happens is probably just because it makes corporations and the banks happy. It drives down the price of labor. It makes people borrow more money. And the government bails them out when something goes wrong. Welfare is also everybody paying to minimize the damage done by schemes like this. Just the concession the ""leftist"" parties make to their capitalist overlords.

The ones shrinking are whites and other civilised peoples, while others make up the difference.

Less people is good, just not less civilised people.

Most boomers and gen-x's are going to die on the street. So many of them have no personal retirement and are in massive debt. SS isn't going to save them.

The reason you see civilized populations shrinking is because the economic cost of child rearing is higher in civilized societies. This is why latinos and blacks have higher birth rates, they don't pay the full cost of child rearing because of welfare, and they don't worry about large expenses like tutoring, college education, health care.

this.

(because too many abortions now Social Security won't balance)

Add poor whites to this too.

When we go on about white births, it's really the white middle class.

They do the same in Britain. Chavs have kids. I come from poor areas and a few of the girls I grew up with are single mums with a couple of kids. It's not poor birth rate that is the problem. It's the middle class.

The middle is being gutted financially, they simply can't afford it. And this is why you see articles now that say to "have it all" you need to have no kids. It's one of the only ways they can cling on to their gentrified lifestyle. Basically the next boomers.

Because if the middle class don't have kids, who's the next middle class?

Every human being in modern civilization is represented by their income and their debt.

It's very important to (((some people))) that there always be an ever growing population in every country to supply more taxes to their government and more debt to financial institutions.

Remember, credit card debt alone is close to 1 trillion dollars in the US alone. And CC companies could make close to 20% on that debt. They NEED more consumers, more debtors.

A shrinking population is a shrinking income for (((these people))). They'll do anything, import anyone, to keep the numbers going up. TRILLIONS of dollars are on the line.

quality of life and development in a capitalist system is based on investment. if your country is projected to have a labour decline, nobody would invest to develop it. if you're the government, that means you won't be able to buy mansions and private jets. you'd be inclined to make sure there's investment in your country during your term - whatever happens after isn't your problem.

Boomers will raid every penny out of Social Security before they die just to fuck us over even more. I can already see them begging for increased payouts and increased payroll taxes once most of them retire and realize maybe they should have saved for retirement. Politicians will do it because they fuckers have high voter turnout.

Wait why was welfare even invented? Who invented it. I swear to god if they are them.

Societies have always taken care of their elderly, there's no good reason to change that.

This. Childhood survival rates are also a variable. In poorer countries and communities, it's not unusual to see only 50% of kids make it to age 12.

>he doesn't cares about Mr. Nosebergstein's holds in the stock market that depend on cheap labor

You're a problematic xenophobic bigot.

The world is already having a problem with overpopulation so a shrinking population isn't necessarily a bad thing.

My entire life, growing up - through media, entertainment and even school - the narrative was that overpopulation is a serious problem, and it was the responsibility of all people to be "sensible". Basically have less children, don't consume as much.

But now, in less than 10 years they're moving to overpopulate the world with niggers and other filth, because all of this was just to subjugate the west and it's people, to hamstring us.

this.

Of course. And we'll need more working aged immigrants to fill the gap, surely that will fix it in a country of 300 million.

I'm really glad boomers spent their money on cheap shit from China and loans for new cars instead of investing here or saving it. Oh boy, we're going to be fucked in 20 years, it won't matter what our demographics look like

I don't know what the argument is but from where I'm standing it make about as much sense as saying that third world children need to go to my parent's house because me and my siblings are out.

Well it is right simple, less people means higher standard of living. More room for everyone, lower cost of waterfront housing, instead of having to drill for hard to get to oil, the easier to access is enough, so lower fuel costs. Traffic and air pollution much less. Start reducing the population, and you can start razing the dump housing, since there will be better areas available to live in and so on.

The top 10% of the population becomes less wealthy and less powerful. That's literally the only reason.

Quality > Quantity.

All hail the technocracy.

It's why Japan is so badass atm and why my weeb ass wants so desperately to go there.

We lay into them constantly for not following the rest of us off the cliff, though.

The families took care of the elderly. Now the state is going bankrupt doing it. I say put it on the family.

>John Oliver and everyone else is trying to convince me that we need more immigrants because of a shrinking population, but never explain why that would be a bad thing.

Yea, what's up wit that? I would have thought fewer people means less pollution.

>What is the argument against a shrinking population?

our economy is a pyramid scheme that collapses without constant growth
basically what our glorious leaders are doing with this forced "refugee" crisis is postponing the inevitable collapse

we need a smaller population, these late night jews ruining our lands

>Pepe save us from the shills

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

Agin, it's that powerful too 10%, the wealthy and elite, that lose their power and influence. Hence the virulent propaganda against it.

It always was on the family. You needed ten sons to help you with farm work and ensure you were fed and housed when you were too old to work.

The whole point was to replace whites, that's what's up with it.

Coercive migration is the issue
Not discussed in these wars.

>replace whites

IT'S NOT YOUR COUNTRY, IT NEVER WAS!!!

t. John Stuart Leibowitz

There's no argument against it, but the older generations have burdened the future generations into national debt which can't be repayed if the population shrinks and also since the older generation didn't care to educate the young about family values and a sense of community and didn't have many kids anyway, unless there's enough workers the old people won't have enough people to care about them to take care of them once they're 80 and shitting their diapers.

Is the point where there exists a massive excess of elderly with no one to care for them the point of total social breakdown?

>tfw this video explains why nationalism is the ultimate redpill

The only way to make it safe for your country to depopulate is to create strict border policies and maintain a healthy military.

The dirty and impoverished masses will claw with all their might, and climb upon the bodies of their own for the chance to escape into the haven you have created.

What do we do with all these dead old people?

We don't have enough room in the graveyards and nowhere to spread the ashes.

They better come up with something quick otherwise I'm letting them rot in the next abandon building down the street.

The only real problem with a shrinking population is short term, when you have tons of old people but not as many young people.

Once the old people die, the system is fixed and you have successfully downsized.

Pretty much. Giving people the ability to run when the going gets tough is exacerbating the problems the world faces.

Oh you're talented and driven? Move to the west.

>population shrinks
>wages go up
>2 parent working homes become 1 parent working homes
>white start to have more kids
its literally a cycle that they dont want they dont want more white people they want less thats why this reverse eugenics program is being continued where successful whites are outbred by retarded niggers

>the world is overpopulated!
>we need more immigrants for population!
lol liberals

The real "problem" is gross economic growth, which banks need in order to increase profits. This ignores the reality that annual growth of 4-5% is really an exception in the larger historical picture.

Here in Canada too. Fuck do we have it bad in our cities. I don't think whites have been a majority for a while now.

(((banks)))

>population shrinks
>wages go up
Haha shit, I never thought about it that way. Population decline reduces the labor supply, giving workers the upper hand. No wonder (((they))) don't want it to happen. And it's even better for them if the population growth is driven by slave races.

So the older generations get literally what they deserve. What's the problem?

Ah yes, what could I have been thinking?

The picture I'm getting here is the Jews want our population to keep growing.

But of course we knew that, because the Jews are the ones pushing for refugees and floods of immigrants (legal and illegal).

That's dumb. Stop looking at the world from a racist lens ALL THE TIME.

Lets see how the boomer generation benefits more immigrants: more people they can tax... the more property prices go up ... the cheaper they can afford to hire low/high skilled workers.

Whites don't have kids, hence the need for immigrants... don't worry. Those immigrants will stop having kids and the cycle will continue until this 'bubble' bursts catastrophically.

>Because future generations would be crushed by the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

absolutely nailed it

the overall market would adapt in some interesting ways, consumer goods would get hit, but engineering, robotics and software would flourish as the labor shortage forced more automation

wages would probably be dramatically forced up, and housing costs would begin a long slow decline. it wouldn't be the end of the world

the government gets completely fucked however as it promised to pay boomers luxuriously to go on their yacht rides and sit around for 25 years in their slippers despite being selfish retards who didn't have enough kids

That's what he's saying user. It was always on the family to take care of their elderly, but now the state is being saddled with that burden and it can't survive much longer.

Pretty much, but there is a lot of pressure from big businesses that need to continue growing profits for domestic sales.

>The great population loss brought favourable results to the surviving peasants in England and Western Europe. There was increased social mobility, as depopulation further eroded the peasants' already weakened obligations to remain on their traditional holdings. Feudalism never recovered. Land was plentiful, wages high, and serfdom had all but disappeared. It was possible to move about and rise higher in life. Younger sons and women especially benefited.[24] As population growth resumed however, the peasants again faced deprivation and famine.

Really makes you think

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death

What part of China are you from? How's Toronto this time of year?

The only people that don't benefit from a shrinking population are the super rich. They get diminished returns because there are less laborers (cost of labor goes up) and less consumers (demand goes down).

We already figured out who shills for mass immigration. Slightly less population density wouldn't affect the average citizen all that much, unless you count less traffic, pollution, and acreage destroyed by industrial farming. It affects them because they feel the need to constantly be growing, so they treat the country like a corporation and hire lobbyists/media outlets to shill on their behalf. That's globalism in a nutshell.

>What's the problem?

They don't want to get what they deserve.

More

Somebody start a global pandemic while I move up to Alaska and wait it out.

i thought that sinking population was the end game of the librals/climate change people.

Simple solution is to replace payroll tax with other taxes. Maybe even a bit of tariffs now and tgen

What did the old people of the past do? Just live with a family member?

It's nothing but "muh shekels" - the entire world's overpopulated with the majority of it coming from the parts of the world which have nothing to offer.

Fucking's never going to go out of style folks. Nations like Japan are having a population drop because their quality of life is dogshit. Fuck, I wish the US population was split in half.

The capital is what produces the means to care for the old, not people. More people, just lead to more old people eventually. Better to maximize production per capita to have the means to care for the old. Not necessarily via regressive payroll tax

I think you just made me realize why global warming is being shilled so hard.

If it goes unchecked it will drastically reduce the global population, especially the poor masses, and deplete the pool of drone workers the elite can move in to do their jobs for pennies an hour.

There is nothing wrong with a shrinking population. We've just been memed by the Jews into believing that anything other than constant growth is worse than the Holocaust. Funnily enough, the people who benefit the most from this arrangement are the Jews. Really makes you think...

>What did the old people of the past do?
they died.

This is pretty much it.

Global warming regulation also allows for governments to have more control over corporations.

Exactly. Our country had a tenth of the current population in 1750 and half the population in 1900. There is no reason to fill the country with third-worlders for the sake of propping up delusional economics. African countries have large populations and they all suck. Bangladesh has a massive population. Etc. This delusional economic thinking pisses me off like nothing else. Our culture and people are far more important than any short-termist economics that the turbocucks masturbate about in their spreadsheets.

now i want gum

I guess chavs become the next middle class?

Population growth is economic growth. We need population growth and productivity growth to avoid annihilation at the hands of China or the Islamic Caliphate.

All you need to read is >pic related

>What is the argument against a shrinking population?

Big business won't have as many desperate wageslaves to exploit, government won't have a big enough tax base for their endless programs, and boomers won't get their fat state-funded retirement checks.
Automation, a worthless education system, waves of Third Worlders, race riots and an overall dead economy are going to kill us all. Basically there's going to be a ton of blood, suffering and death about 20 years from now.
If you're suicidal I'd suggest getting it over with soon. There isn't anything worth staying around for nowadays and there certainly won't be anything worth it in the 2020s or 2030s.

Jack's heart repair is more about medical tech tbqh, and we have the tech unlike in the past. If no one paid for Jack's repairs, it means there would be doctors and nurses out of work because there are no Jacks to repair. I.e. a lot of the funds go round and round rather than needing to come in from the outside as "new" funds. Removing one million people from the economy doesn't really change anything as long as the economy adjusts proportionately. The obvious thing that would be affected is real estate value because there would be empty buildings. Then again, in that situation you would just pull down older buildings with defects if you wanted to keep the market buzzing.

Wars aren't won by the number of soldiers anymore. If you have nukes, nobody will fuck with you on a large scale, and if you implement strict border control, they won't be able to fuck with you on a small scale (terrorism) either.

>if you wanted to keep the market buzzing.
Why is this necessary? If the houses are there, why do we need to build them? It seems like digging a hole just to fill it up again.

It's bad because society has institutionalized intergenerational theft. So unless the young outnumber the old by significant margins, the burden becomes too much to bear for the young.

>quantity over quality
go back to the jungle nigger

youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI

Most soldiers play a support role. You still need manpower but most are logistic officials, and mechanics, and information security guys.

>assertion
>assertion

Explain your reasoning, you blue-pilled mongoloid. Don't you fucking dare resort to an appeal to authority when you try to explain why population growth always resorts in economic growth.

> (OP)>population shrinks>wages go up>2 parent working homes become 1 parent working homes>white start to have more kids

Btw, this is why kicking out the illegals here in the U.S. would be so terrific for the middle class. Get rid of 15 MILLION illegals, plus kick out some of the visa workers they brought in, to lower the wages of the U.S. workers, and instantly, unemployment goes way down, wages and benefits go way up, and the piece of the pie the super rich shrinks, lowering the wealth inequality. Shillary's shekel counting super rich that brought her years ago, are terrified at the idea of this happening. Add to this, redoing the crooked so called free trade agreements that let everyone flood our markets with crap, while they block our exporting to them, and things turn around for the poor and middle class.

Wake up people and vote Trump!!!!!

Results* I'm drunk, apologies

>abortion
DID YOU FIGURE IT OUT YET

Good post discount America

Yes, the total economy would shrink, but that's a red herring. Especially for smaller countries. It's all about per capita. There is literally no reason for Finland to have 5 or 10 million people (or any specific number) instead of say 3 million just because a larger population means the total economy is larger. It makes no sense anyway to have a large population in a northern country like this because it means more expenditure on energy production and maintenance etc. when a lot of people (the third-worlders specifically) could just stay in warmer climates where they don't have to artifically heat their countries and waste resources in the winter. Because it is a total waste when the third-worlders really don't belong or need to be here.

There was some lunatic EU study that compared different EU countries to Germany by surface and population alone, and according to it Finland could fit in who knows how many tens of millions of people. The idea is of course laughable when nature and climate are taken into account. By the same logic they could fill up Sahara because there is space there. Duh. But this is the level of asshattery in some corners of le brave new Eurafrica.

True, it isn't necessary per se, but there are benefits. It would make some in the financial sector relax, knowing the value of property doesn't just vanish. It would also enable to clear out buildings that were built with materials that aren't up to today's health and safety standards, and when the population is smaller, it's easy to just get rid of all such buildings and develop better ones with better materials and designs and services.

"growth" is one of the biggest bluepills we are fed on a daily basis

It's not just about income though. It's about culture. And networking. That's what the middle class has also been about.

Without that, we get not only economic stagnation, but cultural stagnation too.

Automation and other development covers for a lot. I don't think the issue is as bad as is often claimed. At this point a reasonable standard of life can be provided to old people in this country even if they live on basic state pension alone. My grandmother lived perfectly comfortably on it. So just slice a percentage of all pensions above a certain amount and call it a pension luxury tax. 70-year olds aren't going in the streets to protest they can't buy all the expensive items and luxurious vacations they want or bequeath as much money as they could without the tax. Some would grumble for a moment and then say fuck it, it needs to be done, and it's not that big of a sacrifice.

Also, have old people's homes close to relatively busy areas and regular information in the media about old people's issues so volunteers can easily (and think to!) drop by at old people's homes to chat with them and give a helping hand. Humans are programmed to help each other, but modern society with its faceless bureaucratic structures alienates people from each other. I feel like old people get worse treatment today than they would in a situation of population decrease that would increase the ratio of old people per working-age people and youth. I don't believe for a second old people would just be dumped to the ditch on their own. It's like when people rebuild countries after wars, a common cause.

>tax base for their endless programs
Just like most things, it is of course beside the point. A smaller population doesn't need as large a tax base to provide the same services as is needed when the pop is larger. It's all proportionate. Bringing aliens in from the outside only means an increase in crime and decrease in societal solidarity along with pulling the cognitive averages of the population down. Destroying culture and nations for the sake of short-termist economics and unsustainable profit margins is cancerous.

That is when your generation has to riot.

I'm from Hongcouver actually. I'm trying to get you cunts to see better... the enemy is spoiled whites; the boomer gen.

Yup. They built a whole industry and created new professions out of it (environmental engineers).

Government = natural parasites.

The politicians and media will push it as "You don't want your grandma to eat cat food and be homeless right, you heartless millennials?" Any opposition will be painted as trying to murder the elderly (even though it's their own fucking fault for not saving for retirement) and no politician will dare to stand up for younger generations because like I said, old people have really high voter turnout.

Social Security unironically triggers the fuck out of me. I contribute 6% from every paycheck to my 401k along with 6% employer match. That's a little less than what is taken from both my paycheck and my employer for my SS contribution, yet it's enough to put me on track to have well over a million dollars when I'm retirement-age. If the SS tax didn't exist, I could either put 12% into my 401k or take home an additional 6% pay. Instead that 6% disappears into a bottomless pit and unless I live to be 100 I have no chance of ever receiving as much as I contribute.

...

These are all from the same youtube channel full of similar top-quality redpills:

A clip that shows the insanity of the current migration policy and offers a proposal on how to fix it. Excellent to redpill even the most bluepilled on the current migration madness (3 minutes).
youtube.com/watch?v=WWnjEhsXWsY

World Becoming More, Not Less Religious: The Future Of Demographics And Religion (7 minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=Zdgzkqsy_z0

Fundamentalism Is As Modern As Secularism: Demographics And Religion Of Muslims, Christians And Jews (2 minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=cgVo9hBbhFk

Religion, Demographic Shifts And Why More Countries Will Resemble Israel (6 minutes)
youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA