94chem said:

---

Chatgpt input:
There is a discussion on texags called Japan "disappearing." Based on the comments in that discussion, give a one paragraph summary on how to solve the world's declining population problem.

Output:
The TexAgs discussion on Japan's demographic challenges highlights concerns about the nation's declining population, with over 30% of its citizens aged 65 or older, economic stagnation, and barriers preventing younger generations from marrying and starting families. Participants emphasize that relying solely on immigration is insufficient to counteract such significant population decreases and stress the importance of preserving unique cultural identities. To address global population decline, a multifaceted approach is suggested: implementing policies that support family growth, such as financial incentives and accessible childcare; promoting gender equality to balance work and family life; and fostering economic conditions conducive to raising children. Additionally, while immigration can alleviate some demographic pressures, it must be managed carefully to maintain social cohesion and respect cultural distinctiveness. Ultimately, understanding and addressing the root causes of declining birth rates, including economic and cultural factors, is crucial for developing effective solutions.

---

Can you summarize this?

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

You white folk married couples that choose not to have children at all or wait until your 30's to have just one child aren't helping keep the "white race" around ...........and especially if that one child is a male.......it won't take any 347 or whatever years to lead to extinction......more like about 5 or 6 generations

4 white couples have 1 child each. and wait till they are 35 and "settled" to do so.2 have boys 2 have girls. Waiting from 20 to 35 nocks out a potential generation and a half.

The 2 boys each marry one of the girls. So we have 2 breeding couples. Fast forward another 35 years with 1 couple having a boy and one having a girl .....and another generation and a half lost and we have 1 breeding couple left and they have a boy at age 35

Oops .....no more breeding females left and adios white folk......and only 70 years passed

---

Ultimately all roads lead to US corporations. Which are evil and want an unending supply of labor. They doubled it when they baited foolish women into the workforce when they had a good stressfree life at home. Now they are stuck and in a situation where working moms/wifes laugh at other stay at home wives!!

And all these evil corporations are led by evil CEOs who are okay with destroying society as long as they can make a buck.

But then who allows this? Everyday brainwashed people (many of whom are on TA) who give the CEO a free pass to do whatever he likes just because he is rich and we all aspire to be like him one day. And as we know, rich people are smart and good. And if anyone objects to these rich CEOs, they must be jealous.

---

Corporations didn't cause that. Society did. What we teach our children did. Progressives did it.

---

Read my last paragraph.
Society allows corps to do whatever they want because society thinks they are successful so must be doing something right. We all want to be successful too.

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

I blame anime

Tom Fox said:

---

Buford T. Justice said:

---

Was just thinking the same thing.
All of those beautiful women around, and the dudes want to play video games, and look at media content.

---

It is the girls that are making that choice. Those dudes would breed them in a millisecond if given the opportunity.

Those chicks are holding out for the ideal mate and aging out. Completely absent of self evaluation and what they can actually land.

---

This is correct.
The earlier poster was simping and blaming men. But you got it right.
Women are delaying because they think they are so awesome that only the top 1% will do even though they themselves are 5s and 6s. They all want 9s or 10s men.

They have a clock that men don't have. They forget this. For men, it is in 70s so irrelevant to this discussion.

The next step is the chick sees that she turned 40, no husband or kids, they get all uptight and post "WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD MEN GONE??" on twitter. Then they devolve into "Men are insecure of strong independent women" which is the go-to argument of sad future cat ladies.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

You white folk married couples that choose not to have children at all or wait until your 30's to have just one child aren't helping keep the "white race" around ...........and especially if that one child is a male.......it won't take any 347 or whatever years to lead to extinction......more like about 5 or 6 generations

4 white couples have 1 child each. and wait till they are 35 and "settled" to do so.2 have boys 2 have girls. Waiting from 20 to 35 nocks out a potential generation and a half.

The 2 boys each marry one of the girls. So we have 2 breeding couples. Fast forward another 35 years with 1 couple having a boy and one having a girl .....and another generation and a half lost and we have 1 breeding couple left and they have a boy at age 35

Oops .....no more breeding females left and adios white folk......and only 70 years passed

---

Ultimately all roads lead to US corporations. Which are evil and want an unending supply of labor. They doubled it when they baited foolish women into the workforce when they had a good stressfree life at home. Now they are stuck and in a situation where working moms/wifes laugh at other stay at home wives!!

And all these evil corporations are led by evil CEOs who are okay with destroying society as long as they can make a buck.

But then who allows this? Everyday brainwashed people (many of whom are on TA) who give the CEO a free pass to do whatever he likes just because he is rich and we all aspire to be like him one day. And as we know, rich people are smart and good. And if anyone objects to these rich CEOs, they must be jealous.

---

Corporations didn't cause that. Society did. What we teach our children did. Progressives did it.

---

Read my last paragraph.
Society allows corps to do whatever they want because society thinks they are successful so must be doing something right. We all want to be successful too.

---

It all goes back to allowing every idiot to vote. Only a fool would believe that a corporation has any other motive than profit. That doesn't mean that the ceo is teaching that same bs to his own children. And corporations should be allowed to maximize profit at the expense of all else. That is the free market. Any corporation that I am invested in better be laser focused on profits and sustainability of the company's market share.

People have to look at what benefits them and pursue that and then accept responsibility for those decisions.

Quote:

---

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures!

---

Which cultures should be retained?
I would argue that the culture of democratic-capitalism has done pretty well at keeping itself going. Japan's one-party, collective nationalism, and state-driven economy is not built to succeed over the long run.

Stmichael said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Basically every country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa has a very big problem on their hands with regards to birth rates. And if the current trend continues, Africa will be right behind the rest of us.

There's a data analyst named Stephen Shaw who is researching this very topic and has done a number of podcast appearances to talk about his findings. The two key insights he has are:

1) Although there are many contributing factors around the world, it is far more likely that a single factor is the underlying cause.

2) While the total birth rate is still in decline, for most areas the number of children per mother has remained fairly steady since the 60s. Which is to say that the decline is largely driven by more people not having children at all.

These two points together suggest that the problem is with women needing to choose between their early career and having children, and entirely too many choosing the former. Considering the cost of living and how difficult it's been to have single income families, it's no wonder we're in this mess.

---

I still have not seen anyone explain why this is "a very big problem".

Are we planning to begin eating humans to feed an ever growing population and so we need more humans as a food supply?

Is there a global labor shortage where we have jobs unfilled and every single person is fully employed or otherwise unavailable?

Are we determining which batches of humans should procreate faster and which should slow down?

Even Elon has not come up with a good, practical reason for more humans outside of "more is better".

---

You're thinking about as far as the front of your nose.

When social security was introduced, there was roughly a 15:1 worker to retiree ratio. Many hands make light work, so the program made sense and worked for a while.

Fast forward to today, and the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Plus we now also have Medicare and a much larger debt to pay off as well. And that's with a taxpaying generation (Gen X and Millennials) that is roughly proportionate to the retiree generation (Boomers.)

If we're stretched this thin now, how bad will it be when the curve inverts and there are more retirees than taxpayers? How much of the labor force will be eaten up by elder care? Who is going to be buying houses, cars, and consumer goods to keep the economy going when no one has kids?

And to make matters worse, with an economy in the ****ter and everyone working just to keep the retirees from losing their healthcare and social security payments, who is going to have time to raise children? Thus, the cycle continues.

---

this in spades, And i say this as one who is 67.

When the lions share of health care dollars is going to help those over 75 eek out a few more years of life at their kids and grandkids expense, We have a huge problem.

The boomer generation and those born during the war are the most selfish generation in US history!

I didn't realize that nearly a quarter off all Japanese men over 50 are unmarried. There have been articles written about the growing divide between the two genders in Japan when it comes to politics. It almost makes sense, because its like these people do not want to interact with each other.

infinity ag said:

---

94chem said:

---

Chatgpt input:
There is a discussion on texags called Japan "disappearing." Based on the comments in that discussion, give a one paragraph summary on how to solve the world's declining population problem.

Output:
The TexAgs discussion on Japan's demographic challenges highlights concerns about the nation's declining population, with over 30% of its citizens aged 65 or older, economic stagnation, and barriers preventing younger generations from marrying and starting families. Participants emphasize that relying solely on immigration is insufficient to counteract such significant population decreases and stress the importance of preserving unique cultural identities. To address global population decline, a multifaceted approach is suggested: implementing policies that support family growth, such as financial incentives and accessible childcare; promoting gender equality to balance work and family life; and fostering economic conditions conducive to raising children. Additionally, while immigration can alleviate some demographic pressures, it must be managed carefully to maintain social cohesion and respect cultural distinctiveness. Ultimately, understanding and addressing the root causes of declining birth rates, including economic and cultural factors, is crucial for developing effective solutions.

---

Can you summarize this?

---

ChatGPT:

Quote:

---

The TexAgs think tank has convened, and today's crisis: Japan is running low on babies, which is apparently everyone's problem except, you know, the Japanese. Elon Musk, the world's most prolific tech bro and part-time fertility consultant, declares that immigration can't fix thismeanwhile, half of the forum is still debating whether anime or sushi is to blame. As usual, the discussion rapidly veers into wild speculation, misplaced nostalgia, and at least one guy suggesting the solution is "more cowboys."

---

Get better at prompt writing guys.

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

I don't think the correlation of needing more humans to produce more goods exists anymore and hasn't since WWIi. That's one of the major factors of the ever growing underclass of humans that don't contribute at all to producing. Labor participation rate declines hasn't resulted in less **** to buy or food to consume

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

At least the Asian countries are girding for the future. They'll shrink until young folks can afford kids again, at which point a portion will begin having them again.

"The west" has been importing 3rd worlders to keep consumption up, but the result is cultural suicide.

"The elites" are globalists who value homogenized "modernity" where they get the same amenities and culture wherever they go… and they ignorantly assume the service caste are interchangeable cogs whose values don't matter.

I still like Japan's chances of cultural survival far more than Europe's.

---

Agree. I'd pick population shrink over the current culture suicide. Both are catastrophic problems, but the former is easier to come back from.

Study the Middle Ages after the plague. The road map for what happens and how to grow out if it is there.

We should not forget that we have a Bill Gates and WEF, Davos, dominated child bearing policy.
And they are true Malthusians. They have been working very hard at decreasing the population.

Gates himself in a Ted Talk in 2007 said directly that at the time, the earth had about 15% more population then it could legitimate sustain. (As I mentioned Gates is a true Malthusian as are the vast majority of the global elites including the science community. They are the creators of the Climate change scam) Gates went on to say in this Ted talk that this problem (over population) could be dealt with by 'medical mediation and vaccines'.

The point is that in 2007 when the world population was around 6+ billion, Gates thought we needed to cut it at LEAST a billion.

The truth is that this group actually believes the earth should have no more than 2 billion. It has been redundantly stated, you just have to dig to go find it. (As usual)

And the Georgia Guidestones, (that took a missle hit and was destroyed a couple of years back) actually say that the population should be kept at 500 Mil.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/02/us/georgia-guidestones-mystery-cec-cnnphotos/

It was Henry Kissinger who convinced China to go with the one child policy.

Gates has tried to target both India and Africa with his 'medical mediation and vaccines'

There should be some serious investigations done to find out we have declining fertility rates in both men and women.

This covid jab had massive impacts on women, Again buried.

So, it's not just economic factors involved here, there are intentional medical, food and health interventions cause this as well.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

You white folk married couples that choose not to have children at all or wait until your 30's to have just one child aren't helping keep the "white race" around ...........and especially if that one child is a male.......it won't take any 347 or whatever years to lead to extinction......more like about 5 or 6 generations

4 white couples have 1 child each. and wait till they are 35 and "settled" to do so.2 have boys 2 have girls. Waiting from 20 to 35 nocks out a potential generation and a half.

The 2 boys each marry one of the girls. So we have 2 breeding couples. Fast forward another 35 years with 1 couple having a boy and one having a girl .....and another generation and a half lost and we have 1 breeding couple left and they have a boy at age 35

Oops .....no more breeding females left and adios white folk......and only 70 years passed

---

Ultimately all roads lead to US corporations. Which are evil and want an unending supply of labor. They doubled it when they baited foolish women into the workforce when they had a good stressfree life at home. Now they are stuck and in a situation where working moms/wifes laugh at other stay at home wives!!

And all these evil corporations are led by evil CEOs who are okay with destroying society as long as they can make a buck.

But then who allows this? Everyday brainwashed people (many of whom are on TA) who give the CEO a free pass to do whatever he likes just because he is rich and we all aspire to be like him one day. And as we know, rich people are smart and good. And if anyone objects to these rich CEOs, they must be jealous.

---

Corporations didn't cause that. Society did. What we teach our children did. Progressives did it.

---

Read my last paragraph.
Society allows corps to do whatever they want because society thinks they are successful so must be doing something right. We all want to be successful too.

---

Corporations and CEOs didn't invent the feminism movement.

GAC06 said:

---

Better get Elon to Japan

---

Sex-X???

Micah97 said:

---

This is the single most important crisis facing humanity and people rarely talk about it. Wasn't even discussed in the presidential debate. Humanity's head is on the chopping block, the axe is coming down, and we are arguing about global warming when china's population will drop by 50% in the 75 years.

---

I did my part by adding 4 to the world.

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

You white folk married couples that choose not to have children at all or wait until your 30's to have just one child aren't helping keep the "white race" around ...........and especially if that one child is a male.......it won't take any 347 or whatever years to lead to extinction......more like about 5 or 6 generations

4 white couples have 1 child each. and wait till they are 35 and "settled" to do so.2 have boys 2 have girls. Waiting from 20 to 35 nocks out a potential generation and a half.

The 2 boys each marry one of the girls. So we have 2 breeding couples. Fast forward another 35 years with 1 couple having a boy and one having a girl .....and another generation and a half lost and we have 1 breeding couple left and they have a boy at age 35

Oops .....no more breeding females left and adios white folk......and only 70 years passed

---

Ultimately all roads lead to US corporations. Which are evil and want an unending supply of labor. They doubled it when they baited foolish women into the workforce when they had a good stressfree life at home. Now they are stuck and in a situation where working moms/wifes laugh at other stay at home wives!!

And all these evil corporations are led by evil CEOs who are okay with destroying society as long as they can make a buck.

But then who allows this? Everyday brainwashed people (many of whom are on TA) who give the CEO a free pass to do whatever he likes just because he is rich and we all aspire to be like him one day. And as we know, rich people are smart and good. And if anyone objects to these rich CEOs, they must be jealous.

---

Corporations didn't cause that. Society did. What we teach our children did. Progressives did it.

---

Read my last paragraph.
Society allows corps to do whatever they want because society thinks they are successful so must be doing something right. We all want to be successful too.

---

It all goes back to allowing every idiot to vote. Only a fool would believe that a corporation has any other motive than profit. That doesn't mean that the ceo is teaching that same bs to his own children. And corporations should be allowed to maximize profit at the expense of all else. That is the free market. Any corporation that I am invested in better be made red focused on profits and sustainability of the company's market share.

People have to look at what benefits them and pursue that and then accept responsibility for those decisions.

---

Corps and society live in a symbiotic relationship. Both help each other prosper. If a corp thinks they can use societal resources and give nothing back, we are in a situation where we are today. That works only in good times. It fails in bad times. That is where the Government has to step in and apply some rules like hiring locally, increasing taxes as appropriate, in order to force the corp to give, not just take.

"Free Market" in modern language just means corps take take take and make the CEO rich while everyone else loses out.

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

Home life is better than Corp life where someone else has your balls in his hand and your paycheck depends on kissing his/her ass.
Homelife is busy and stressful but you are the boss. You are not a corporate slave.

Beat40 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

You white folk married couples that choose not to have children at all or wait until your 30's to have just one child aren't helping keep the "white race" around ...........and especially if that one child is a male.......it won't take any 347 or whatever years to lead to extinction......more like about 5 or 6 generations

4 white couples have 1 child each. and wait till they are 35 and "settled" to do so.2 have boys 2 have girls. Waiting from 20 to 35 nocks out a potential generation and a half.

The 2 boys each marry one of the girls. So we have 2 breeding couples. Fast forward another 35 years with 1 couple having a boy and one having a girl .....and another generation and a half lost and we have 1 breeding couple left and they have a boy at age 35

Oops .....no more breeding females left and adios white folk......and only 70 years passed

---

Ultimately all roads lead to US corporations. Which are evil and want an unending supply of labor. They doubled it when they baited foolish women into the workforce when they had a good stressfree life at home. Now they are stuck and in a situation where working moms/wifes laugh at other stay at home wives!!

And all these evil corporations are led by evil CEOs who are okay with destroying society as long as they can make a buck.

But then who allows this? Everyday brainwashed people (many of whom are on TA) who give the CEO a free pass to do whatever he likes just because he is rich and we all aspire to be like him one day. And as we know, rich people are smart and good. And if anyone objects to these rich CEOs, they must be jealous.

---

Corporations didn't cause that. Society did. What we teach our children did. Progressives did it.

---

Read my last paragraph.
Society allows corps to do whatever they want because society thinks they are successful so must be doing something right. We all want to be successful too.

---

Corporations and CEOs didn't invent the feminism movement.

---

They sure did fund and encourage and nurture it.
They still do with DEI, just a different name.

Back to topic.

I am not worried about reducing population. It will be fine. Some inconveniences. We need to have a stable population as resources are limited.

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

I know, right. Many women find that the career/daycare route is much less stressful than being at home. I ascribe such ignorance to youth, like when a 17 year old tells me that she never fights with her boyfriend and never will.

OPAG said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Basically every country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa has a very big problem on their hands with regards to birth rates. And if the current trend continues, Africa will be right behind the rest of us.

There's a data analyst named Stephen Shaw who is researching this very topic and has done a number of podcast appearances to talk about his findings. The two key insights he has are:

1) Although there are many contributing factors around the world, it is far more likely that a single factor is the underlying cause.

2) While the total birth rate is still in decline, for most areas the number of children per mother has remained fairly steady since the 60s. Which is to say that the decline is largely driven by more people not having children at all.

These two points together suggest that the problem is with women needing to choose between their early career and having children, and entirely too many choosing the former. Considering the cost of living and how difficult it's been to have single income families, it's no wonder we're in this mess.

---

I still have not seen anyone explain why this is "a very big problem".

Are we planning to begin eating humans to feed an ever growing population and so we need more humans as a food supply?

Is there a global labor shortage where we have jobs unfilled and every single person is fully employed or otherwise unavailable?

Are we determining which batches of humans should procreate faster and which should slow down?

Even Elon has not come up with a good, practical reason for more humans outside of "more is better".

---

You're thinking about as far as the front of your nose.

When social security was introduced, there was roughly a 15:1 worker to retiree ratio. Many hands make light work, so the program made sense and worked for a while.

Fast forward to today, and the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Plus we now also have Medicare and a much larger debt to pay off as well. And that's with a taxpaying generation (Gen X and Millennials) that is roughly proportionate to the retiree generation (Boomers.)

If we're stretched this thin now, how bad will it be when the curve inverts and there are more retirees than taxpayers? How much of the labor force will be eaten up by elder care? Who is going to be buying houses, cars, and consumer goods to keep the economy going when no one has kids?

And to make matters worse, with an economy in the ****ter and everyone working just to keep the retirees from losing their healthcare and social security payments, who is going to have time to raise children? Thus, the cycle continues.

---

this in spades, And i say this as one who is 67.

When the lions share of health care dollars is going to help those over 75 eek out a few more years of life at their kids and grandkids expense, We have a huge problem.

The boomer generation and those born during the war are the most selfish generation in US history!

---

This is a touchy subject. You start straying into things like rationing health care and the like.

But also, there is a strong dis-incentive to self write-off, ending-self if you will, when well past the really quality of life viability point. Its partly religious, partly other things. It usually immediately gets confused with the risk and danger of *imposed* self-ending, but that's a different issue. Yet is kind of weird that the very last years see $$ figures spent you didn't in your whole life and you didn't take trips or get homes with, etc, yet somehow have to throw at those years. Very touchy subject.

94chem said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

I know, right. Many women find that the career/daycare route is much less stressful than being at home. I ascribe such ignorance to youth, like when a 17 year old tells me that she never fights with her boyfriend and never will.

---

That's not the same as happiness. The crop of women that find it less stressful are also less happy than their mothers, and so on. Most also wish they had one more child. Doesn't mean they'd be satisfied if they had one more, but it does mean that the life they've chosen isn't as fulfilling as is claimed.

Chalk it up to whatever you want, but 40 year olds still committed to that lifestyle are just as ignorant because they should be able to recognize all they lost handing their kids over to others and working for a paycheck while hoping to have enough vacation time to spend before their kids leave the house.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

You white folk married couples that choose not to have children at all or wait until your 30's to have just one child aren't helping keep the "white race" around ...........and especially if that one child is a male.......it won't take any 347 or whatever years to lead to extinction......more like about 5 or 6 generations

4 white couples have 1 child each. and wait till they are 35 and "settled" to do so.2 have boys 2 have girls. Waiting from 20 to 35 nocks out a potential generation and a half.

The 2 boys each marry one of the girls. So we have 2 breeding couples. Fast forward another 35 years with 1 couple having a boy and one having a girl .....and another generation and a half lost and we have 1 breeding couple left and they have a boy at age 35

Oops .....no more breeding females left and adios white folk......and only 70 years passed

---

Ultimately all roads lead to US corporations. Which are evil and want an unending supply of labor. They doubled it when they baited foolish women into the workforce when they had a good stressfree life at home. Now they are stuck and in a situation where working moms/wifes laugh at other stay at home wives!!

And all these evil corporations are led by evil CEOs who are okay with destroying society as long as they can make a buck.

But then who allows this? Everyday brainwashed people (many of whom are on TA) who give the CEO a free pass to do whatever he likes just because he is rich and we all aspire to be like him one day. And as we know, rich people are smart and good. And if anyone objects to these rich CEOs, they must be jealous.

---

Corporations didn't cause that. Society did. What we teach our children did. Progressives did it.

---

Read my last paragraph.
Society allows corps to do whatever they want because society thinks they are successful so must be doing something right. We all want to be successful too.

---

It all goes back to allowing every idiot to vote. Only a fool would believe that a corporation has any other motive than profit. That doesn't mean that the ceo is teaching that same bs to his own children. And corporations should be allowed to maximize profit at the expense of all else. That is the free market. Any corporation that I am invested in better be made red focused on profits and sustainability of the company's market share.

People have to look at what benefits them and pursue that and then accept responsibility for those decisions.

---

Corps and society live in a symbiotic relationship. Both help each other prosper. If a corp thinks they can use societal resources and give nothing back, we are in a situation where we are today. That works only in good times. It fails in bad times. That is where the Government has to step in and apply some rules like hiring locally, increasing taxes as appropriate, in order to force the corp to give, not just take.

"Free Market" in modern language just means corps take take take and make the CEO rich while everyone else loses out.

---

You are a sharp guy and make some valid points. Your system only works if the government and the people in charge are altruistic. I hate to break it to you but they are not and will never be again in America.

Just like in politics today, we're are polarized and the choice for how to model society is binary. Your attempted middle ground solution will lead to a tyranny of the majority that largely eliminates meritocracy and leads to socialism. Europe is farther along that path but we are on it.

Conversely free market capitalism prioritizes merit and will lead to a bifurcation of society with a very small ultra wealthy elite that adds a small number of exceptional individuals to its ranks and a large segment of poor wage slaves.

At this point in our democracy's arc it is an either or choice. We are no longer enough alike our fellow citizens to employ your model.

And if you are young, smart, attractive, healthy, and hard working, who wouldn't pick laissez faire capitalism. You might not make it, but you at least had an admission ticket to take your shot. The other option is participation trophy mediocrity where the government picks the winners and losers.

titan said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Basically every country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa has a very big problem on their hands with regards to birth rates. And if the current trend continues, Africa will be right behind the rest of us.

There's a data analyst named Stephen Shaw who is researching this very topic and has done a number of podcast appearances to talk about his findings. The two key insights he has are:

1) Although there are many contributing factors around the world, it is far more likely that a single factor is the underlying cause.

2) While the total birth rate is still in decline, for most areas the number of children per mother has remained fairly steady since the 60s. Which is to say that the decline is largely driven by more people not having children at all.

These two points together suggest that the problem is with women needing to choose between their early career and having children, and entirely too many choosing the former. Considering the cost of living and how difficult it's been to have single income families, it's no wonder we're in this mess.

---

I still have not seen anyone explain why this is "a very big problem".

Are we planning to begin eating humans to feed an ever growing population and so we need more humans as a food supply?

Is there a global labor shortage where we have jobs unfilled and every single person is fully employed or otherwise unavailable?

Are we determining which batches of humans should procreate faster and which should slow down?

Even Elon has not come up with a good, practical reason for more humans outside of "more is better".

---

You're thinking about as far as the front of your nose.

When social security was introduced, there was roughly a 15:1 worker to retiree ratio. Many hands make light work, so the program made sense and worked for a while.

Fast forward to today, and the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Plus we now also have Medicare and a much larger debt to pay off as well. And that's with a taxpaying generation (Gen X and Millennials) that is roughly proportionate to the retiree generation (Boomers.)

If we're stretched this thin now, how bad will it be when the curve inverts and there are more retirees than taxpayers? How much of the labor force will be eaten up by elder care? Who is going to be buying houses, cars, and consumer goods to keep the economy going when no one has kids?

And to make matters worse, with an economy in the ****ter and everyone working just to keep the retirees from losing their healthcare and social security payments, who is going to have time to raise children? Thus, the cycle continues.

---

this in spades, And i say this as one who is 67.

When the lions share of health care dollars is going to help those over 75 eek out a few more years of life at their kids and grandkids expense, We have a huge problem.

The boomer generation and those born during the war are the most selfish generation in US history!

---

This is a touchy subject. You start straying into things like rationing health care and the like.

---

That has to happen with population decline. Humans provide the service. Lots of olds do nothing but consume and not enough young people to produce and provide the services. Population decline is bad and will lead to degradation of standard of living.

Logos Stick said:

---

titan said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Basically every country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa has a very big problem on their hands with regards to birth rates. And if the current trend continues, Africa will be right behind the rest of us.

There's a data analyst named Stephen Shaw who is researching this very topic and has done a number of podcast appearances to talk about his findings. The two key insights he has are:

1) Although there are many contributing factors around the world, it is far more likely that a single factor is the underlying cause.

2) While the total birth rate is still in decline, for most areas the number of children per mother has remained fairly steady since the 60s. Which is to say that the decline is largely driven by more people not having children at all.

These two points together suggest that the problem is with women needing to choose between their early career and having children, and entirely too many choosing the former. Considering the cost of living and how difficult it's been to have single income families, it's no wonder we're in this mess.

---

I still have not seen anyone explain why this is "a very big problem".

Are we planning to begin eating humans to feed an ever growing population and so we need more humans as a food supply?

Is there a global labor shortage where we have jobs unfilled and every single person is fully employed or otherwise unavailable?

Are we determining which batches of humans should procreate faster and which should slow down?

Even Elon has not come up with a good, practical reason for more humans outside of "more is better".

---

You're thinking about as far as the front of your nose.

When social security was introduced, there was roughly a 15:1 worker to retiree ratio. Many hands make light work, so the program made sense and worked for a while.

Fast forward to today, and the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Plus we now also have Medicare and a much larger debt to pay off as well. And that's with a taxpaying generation (Gen X and Millennials) that is roughly proportionate to the retiree generation (Boomers.)

If we're stretched this thin now, how bad will it be when the curve inverts and there are more retirees than taxpayers? How much of the labor force will be eaten up by elder care? Who is going to be buying houses, cars, and consumer goods to keep the economy going when no one has kids?

And to make matters worse, with an economy in the ****ter and everyone working just to keep the retirees from losing their healthcare and social security payments, who is going to have time to raise children? Thus, the cycle continues.

---

this in spades, And i say this as one who is 67.

When the lions share of health care dollars is going to help those over 75 eek out a few more years of life at their kids and grandkids expense, We have a huge problem.

The boomer generation and those born during the war are the most selfish generation in US history!

---

This is a touchy subject. You start straying into things like rationing health care and the like.

---

That has to happen with population decline. Humans provide the service. Lots of olds do nothing but consume and not enough young people to produce and provide the services. Population decline is bad and will lead to degradation of standard of living.

---

True. But I am not talking about when conditions force things, I am talking about the dis incentives to `choosing departure' when have reached that special just nothing much to it stage rather than bankrupting your estate, kids or even the taxpayers. What OPAG was referring to. Also, again the spending of $$$ numbers you never allowed yourself when life was wholesome. Just strange.

infinity ag said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

Home life is better than Corp life where someone else has your balls in his hand and your paycheck depends on kissing his/her ass.
Homelife is busy and stressful but you are the boss. You are not a corporate slave.

---

I somewhat agree that home life is better than Corp life but if you think that the stay at home spouse is the boss and isn't dependent on someone else for a paycheck (ie the other spouse) then I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture. I will concede that the stay at home spouse can generally run the house how they see fit (thus making them their own "boss") but they are still dependent on someone else for a paycheck and have to kiss a little @$$ or at least get along and compromise with them (granted they should want to do this because they chose each other as partners but many choose unwisely). There is more dynamics involved with a host of different possibilities but I think you can see what I am saying.

Well it is touchy subject, But I also look at it honestly and objectively.

Personally speaking, both my dad and my mom had well over 1 million spent on when they were in their late seventies early 80's.

My dad survived a cerebral hemorrhage at 81. He would of surely died fairly quickly after this with out extreme medical intervention that basically bought him 6 more years of 'life' confined to a chair and not able have a coherent conversation. Those cost were 10 times more then he had paid in to the system and that does not include the SS he collected for those 21 years that was also well over any interest rate that he would of had from a private investment fund if the money he put into SS had been invested into that. He paid the max.

It was a great investment for him and my mom.

Now i have seen this type scenario play out more often then not in others.

Then add the aspect if my dad had needed assisted living or nursing care facilities then any inheritance that they had worked hard to pass down to their kids would of been absorbed as well.

So though it is a touchy subject, it is a critical one. My generation is eating my children and grandchildren's bread! I my self will not do that. Why should I? Quality of life vs quantity of life all day long for me>

As long as I am not a burden to my family and an can contribute something to others and serve the Lord, I am more willing to hang around.

Yet, I am follower of Jesus, I am not afraid of death at all. For me, "to live is Christ, to die is gain".This is not my permanent home. and why some people fight and scrap for every breath of life even when living in pain or being a big burden on your kids or society, is not just something I understand.

13B said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

Home life is better than Corp life where someone else has your balls in his hand and your paycheck depends on kissing his/her ass.
Homelife is busy and stressful but you are the boss. You are not a corporate slave.

---

I somewhat agree that home life is better than Corp life but if you think that the stay at home spouse is the boss and isn't dependent on someone else for a paycheck (ie the other spouse) then I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture. I will concede that the stay at home spouse can generally run the house how they see fit (thus making them their own "boss") but they are still dependent on someone else for a paycheck and have to kiss a little @$$ or at least get along and compromise with them (granted they should want to do this because they chose each other as partners but many choose unwisely). There is more dynamics involved with a host of different possibilities but I think you can see what I am saying.

---

Hence why feminism was persuasive to so many women.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Too many people on this rock as is.

---

You probably haven't spent much time on the CO/Utah Border, in Wyoming, or many areas of the Midwest. There's a ton of open, undeveloped land. It feels like it stretches on forever.

13B said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

Home life is better than Corp life where someone else has your balls in his hand and your paycheck depends on kissing his/her ass.
Homelife is busy and stressful but you are the boss. You are not a corporate slave.

---

I somewhat agree that home life is better than Corp life but if you think that the stay at home spouse is the boss and isn't dependent on someone else for a paycheck (ie the other spouse) then I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture. I will concede that the stay at home spouse can generally run the house how they see fit (thus making them their own "boss") but they are still dependent on someone else for a paycheck and have to kiss a little @$$ or at least get along and compromise with them (granted they should want to do this because they chose each other as partners but many choose unwisely). There is more dynamics involved with a host of different possibilities but I think you can see what I am saying.

---

OK, I will agree with what you say.
But men are simple creatures. Feed them, F them, don't give them too much lip, and they are good and are very likely to go above and beyond.

But bottomline - home life better than corporate life for 99% people. Unless you are at the top like Musk. But then his life is also hell since he ultimately is responsible if the company goes down.

Logos Stick said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

This has been posted before, but it's a reminder that population collapse is probably the number one global issue and it's mostly ignored. Zeihan has started talking about it much more in his vids.

It still takes humans to manufacture product and provide services.

Quote:

---

Japan's baby count crashed to a new low of 720,988 in 2024, down 5% from last year marking 9 straight years of decline.

...

With 30% of Japan over 65, youth locked out of marriage, and a crushing recession, Yoshida says Japan could be the first to disappear.

---

Many countries are disappearing.

Immigration cannot solve billions in population collapse. It simply isn’t physically possible.

More importantly, we should not lose entire, distinct cultures! https://t.co/LsLp5k95Ak

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025

---

Yoshida is extending a less than a decade trend to 700 years? That is not defensible from a statistical standpoint.

---

Yeah that assumption deserves ridicule.

1. Population decreases
2. Less competition for housing and goods
3. More prosperity per person
4. More kids because you now have home and goods.

It is a feedback mechanism.

---

If population decreases, there will be fewer goods. It takes humans to produce goods. Thus, there will not be less competition because the ratio is not changed.

---

Not true. If you have 1 acre of land and 10 people. Then you have 1 acre of land for 5 people. Under which scenario is land going to be cheaper?

infinity ag said:

---

13B said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Stressfree life at home lol. Ok.

---

Home life is better than Corp life where someone else has your balls in his hand and your paycheck depends on kissing his/her ass.
Homelife is busy and stressful but you are the boss. You are not a corporate slave.

---

I somewhat agree that home life is better than Corp life but if you think that the stay at home spouse is the boss and isn't dependent on someone else for a paycheck (ie the other spouse) then I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture. I will concede that the stay at home spouse can generally run the house how they see fit (thus making them their own "boss") but they are still dependent on someone else for a paycheck and have to kiss a little @$$ or at least get along and compromise with them (granted they should want to do this because they chose each other as partners but many choose unwisely). There is more dynamics involved with a host of different possibilities but I think you can see what I am saying.

---

OK, I will agree with what you say.
But men are simple creatures. Feed them, F them, don't give them too much lip, and they are good and are very likely to go above and beyond.

---

Again, perfectly stated.