Comments by "IIIRattleHeadIII" (@badass6300) on "The Population Collapse: Why No One Wants Kids Anymore" video.

The problem isn't that there will be fewer people, but that there will be many more older people than young ones. If you think taking care of children is expensive, just wait until you have to take care of old retired people, be it directly or indirectly through taxes. And with the current birth rates in europe and north america, in the future young people will have to take care of 3-7 old people per 1 young person. That is catastrophic.
411
@Peter-mj6lz again the problem is not weather we have 1 billion or 100 billion people, the problem is that we will have 70-80%+ of the population be old retired people of 65-100 years old.
21
Yeah, too bad people are very incompatible nowadays.
18
@Peter-mj6lz can you rephrase yourself, not sure what you said exactly. But if you are asking how long it would take for this to happen? It's already happening and it will get as bad as I'm describing it in about 80-200 years depending on the birth rate of the country. The lower, the faster.
13
Young people will have to take care for 4-7 retired old people, be it directly or indirectly through absurd taxes... enjoy that.
10
@nzkingpin At one point they become not functioning, so no matter how much they or everyone wants them to work, they can't.
4
@kngxn There won't be last generation of old people, with the current birth rates there will always be a ton of old people relative to the young population. Also with a lower population there will be less demand for production, so fewer jobs. The problem with how companies treat and pay their workers comes from the lack of physical consequence for them doing so.
4
@jameshowardwilliamson5043 I'm saying it will happen within the next 80-200 years with the current birth rates.
3
@jameshowardwilliamson5043 that's some nasty ww2 moustached tactics right there.
3
@KateeAngel Money isn't that important compared to production. Production is king. And if you don't have enough young people, there won't be enough of them to care for the old with all the money in the world.
2
@MyRedmamba With the current birth rates at some point there will not be enough production for all the money in the world to get it for you, people will start keeping it for themselves.
2
@mcculloughmethod6912 Tell that to the boomer ran governments. Also this problem will become big in 80-200 years if the birth rates don't improve, not right now. But in 40 years it will be have become a real problem.
2
@onionfarmer3044 I'd rather invest in German and Spanish health care. Especially the Spaniards with their almost Japan levels of birth per woman.
2
@MyRedmamba Sure, but in 80-200 years the production wouldn't be enough for money to matter, so you'll have to produce for yourself at all ages.
2
@kitataki2296 very much so. I hope automation helps us, but we will have to see if we manage to advance it enough in time and then who will own it? Corporations? worse, the governments? So the ownership of said AI/automation will have to be solved or we will get bread crumbs.
2
@Kyiverdam True
2
@minigunner1218 The silent generation had as many kids as the previous generations, the difference is that due to modern medicine the babies didn't die. Until the 1940s/1950s you needed to have 6-9 kids if 1-3 of them were to survive. Infant mortality dropped significantly. My grandpa had 5 bigger brothers and a younger sister, out of the 7 of them, only he, his sister and the oldest brother survived infancy. He was born in 1941. 4 of his older brothers died before he was even born. That's why africa has a ton of kids too, but we gave them modern medicine(it starts with V, but youtube will delete the comment it I even spell the word) and now their babies don't die, but they still procreate like they do.
2
@PostMillMan and it only speeds up exponentially.
2
@liljohnnyjoker Most people don't have retirement plans and the pensions, at least in Europe are laughable.
2
@liljohnnyjoker From what I read most Americans don't actually do that. No 401ks, no roth IRAs or whatever, most do the bare minimum. And again what's the point of money if you can't buy anything with it.
2
@elijean-baptiste3122 Then the authoritarian governments will choose for you and since they are always ran by old people, you know their choice.
1
@roykapoor-i6n we'll have to see about that.
1
@rathelmmc3194 You can take loans against it, but yes, assets are not income.
1
@rathelmmc3194 That's wrong.
1
@rathelmmc3194 Most likely it will collapse yes.
1
@Flburr99 yup and on top of that they'll also have to take care of their kids.
1
@benjaminmeusburger4254 The majority of people over the age of 70 can barely take care of themselves. My grandma is 85 and a few other 70+ year old relatives and can still take care of themselves, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people are like that. Data points aren't a statistic.
1
@caseysweat9449 hopefully, but who will pay for them?
1
@redhedkev1 Will watch
1
@abrin5508 yup, and in time the numbers will invert if the birth rates don't increase. Hopefully automation is in full force by then, but then we need to solve the ownership of said automation. Bread crumbs are not something I want.
1
@minigunner1218 It was a factor, but a small one. My country was on the losing side of WW2 and we still had a baby boom, but we "corrected" it faster. Now we are half of the population(also due to m!gration) that we were 30 years ago and we have an aging population. Right now we have top 4 birth rate in the EU, but still way below replacement and people leaving for other countries doesn't help either.
1
@ankan1627 It's not simply a supply and demand issue, it's an oligopoly issue. My country halved in population in the last 35 years and we built 3-4x more homes, but they went from 2-4x median yearly salaries in the 90s to 9-12x median salaries today, while 60% of the homes are empty in the capital and big cities. They buy out, or straight up build the homes and use software algorithms with regional income data to price the rent or mortgage maximum possible for two median incomes. But yes, I think taxes are too high nowadays.
1
@bro918 Let's hope you are correct.
1
@tinyliny4ever Exactly correct. If we wanted to reduce population levels it must be done with a birth rate of 1.8-1.9, anything under that causes massive demographic issues and the problem is most countries are hovering around 1-1.5. And now we need at least a 2.5 birth rate to fix things for the next 3-4 decades, but the way things are going the birth rate will only go down it seems.
1
@bbferreira78 You can't tax the rich. Also taxes harm the regular person more than the rich.
1
@chibu3212 Yup. Otherwise sure we can reduce the total number of people, that will only impact technological advancement and production, but it will not cause us problems As long as the age demographic is good.
1
@s1n4m1n true
1
@liljohnnyjoker I have good job that I like, soon I will have my final material purchase that is not a home, and even now while buying crap I spend no more than 70% of my salary. The problem is that I can't afford a home. A 30 year loan is an absolute nightmare.
1
@liljohnnyjoker Here a 48-54m^2 apartment starts at 250 000... yay... And everyone moved to the three biggest cities, so unless you want to live in solitude, assuming your job can/may be worked remotely, you kinda have to live in the big cities.
1
@Mr.Kingen My country has 10% flat income tax, 11% for pension + health care and 20% VAT. XD
1
@Gazer-x5s You are overestimating AI.
1
@Bashbekersjiw ah, ww2 moustached men tactics...
1