The US population will start declining in the next 10-20 years. What should the US be doing to prepare for this?

Matthew · January 27

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The guy who hasn't provided even a single stitch of data

The stats Ive mentioned so far mostly come from Pew Research surveys such as this one.

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Single Moms: Less Housework, More Leisure Than Married Moms | Psychology Today

That's a nice article. Doesn't support your claim that most stay at home parents are well connected. But about half of it shows that women who are married do far more housework than single moms who aren't married-- which also helps explain why men are struggling to find relationships.

Since you've failed to find anything let me help you out:

- Parenting’s new crisis: the loneliness epidemic

- Majority of parents experience isolation, loneliness and burnout, survey reveals

- Behind closed doors: The isolation of stay-at-home moms

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You say that they should introduce a system. If you can't at least describe what that would look like then you're just making shit up out of your ass.

I said that if society's population crisis became dire in the next century, a system of more extreme incentives might be necessary. Its obviously speculation. Either you want to have a good faith discussion about that point or you want to "debate" it pointlessly.

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We've already established that you are figures there are completely false.

No no no, i want you to explain how the population of men vs women disproves the Pew Research statistc that 63% of men are single. I've got my popcorn ready and everything.

Edited January 27 by Matthew

WestCanMan · January 27

10 hours ago, Matthew said:

Good question. Gradually going down is fine. Maybe less geopolitical clout but overall less people world mean less strain on ecosystems etc. The problem, which Korea and Japan are approaching is when your population declines so fast that eventually most of the people are elderly. So a small percentage of people working combined with a large percentage of people who need the the most intense care.

When covid first came out, one of the first things that I thought about was the fact that the Chinese gov't was limiting families to 1 baby per household for a long time just before that, and the babies that were taken away were not well-cared-for.

Then a few years after that rule went away, a disease came out that targeted the elderly. Coincidence?

One thing to consider along with all of that, is that in places like Japan and China, the younger generations stay home from work to care for the elderly: they don't ship them off to care homes like we do in NA. So every time an octogenarian dies, not only is there less of a drain on the economy, one or two more workers are freed up.

And don't think that I'm unaware of the fact that the US gov't (Fauci) was right there with them either. From a strictly "efficiency" POV, countries are better off without octogenarians, and a lot of people in gov't feel that way, imo.

I don't think covid was a mistake, and I think the gov't isn't really interested in keeping all of the crap out of our foods. I think there's a carcinogen sweet-spot for foods. "Not enough to kill people by 50, but enough to keep them from getting to 90."

impartialobserver · January 27

Honestly.. very real possibility. Not sure if it is a bad thing or not. Quite a few states would have had declining populations if not for immigration (legal or not). Declining birth rates, low sperm counts in men, and folks doing the deed less is at the root of it.

WestCanMan · January 27

25 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

and folks doing the deed less is at the root of it.

🤣 Seriously?

I think that we do it more than people did 80 years ago, because hot 40 and 50 yr old women wasn't a thing in 1955. I think there's just more birth control and more abortions.

impartialobserver · January 27

Just now, WestCanMan said:

🤣 Seriously?

I think that we do it more than people did 80 years ago, because hot 40 and 50 yr old women wasn't a thing in 1955. I think there's just more birth control and more abortions.

Surveys are imperfect but survey data says that folks do it less today than ever. Other data points to males have less free testosterone which is what motivates the males to do the deed. Actually, abortions have mostly been on the decline since 1978. Only one or two years in that span have seen increases. Furthermore if you removed the Southeastern states from the equation.. there would be nothing to talk about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-having-less-sex-whether-theyre-teenagers-or-40-somethings/

WestCanMan · January 27

28 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Surveys are imperfect but survey data says that folks do it less today than ever. Other data points to males have less free testosterone which is what motivates the males to do the deed. Actually, abortions have mostly been on the decline since 1978. Only one or two years in that span have seen increases. Furthermore if you removed the Southeastern states from the equation.. there would be nothing to talk about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-having-less-sex-whether-theyre-teenagers-or-40-somethings/

Crazy to think that men have less testosterone now than in the '70s, because they used to smoke and drink so much.

Men looked old at 40 when I was a kid. Now there are 60-yr-old men who look healthier than most 1970s 40-yr-olds.

impartialobserver · January 27

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Crazy to think that men have less testosterone now than in the '70s, because they used to smoke and drink so much.

Men looked old at 40 when I was a kid. Now there are 60-yr-old men who look healthier than most 1970s 40-yr-olds.

Think about this. Males today work less demanding manual labor jobs and also engage in less physically demanding hobbies. The exertion keeps your testosterone levels high. Become too sedentary and your levels drop. Most younger males that I work with or get to know, are big into video games and such. When I tell them that I once went on a 600 mile bike ride, they can't even fathom doing such a thing for fun.

Deluge · January 27

On 1/25/2025 at 10:07 PM, Matthew said:

Most developed economies have been in demographic decline for years. Some like South Korea and Japan will dramatically shrink in the decades to come. China's population started to decline in the last couple years and they have begun to strategize policies to encourage more births. The US is expected to hit its tipping point as early as the 2030s, a date which has been moved up serveral decades by more recent changes to birth rates. Birth rates in every continent except Africa have gotten close to 2 children per woman--even in most very poor and densely populated places like Bangladesh.

So does a future of declining population and an increased percentage of elderly people concern you?

The serious answer to this is to make American citizens feel confident about having families again, like in the 50's. The only way you do this, of course, is to make sure people who actually care about this country are in positions of leadership. Biden, Obama, and even RINO's like George Bush really didn't give a shit about that stuff, especially Biden and Obama - they just want everyone dehumanized like in George Orwell's 1984.

Edited January 27 by Deluge

impartialobserver · January 27

Serious question.. How would declining population affect an average American. For example, you are average Joe living in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, would it adversely affect your life if the US saw declining population overall.

User · January 27

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Serious question.. How would declining population affect an average American. For example, you are average Joe living in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, would it adversely affect your life if the US saw declining population overall.

Yes. We have entitlement programs that consume massive amounts of our budget that have been run into the ground as piggy banks over the last 50-90 years now. The current wage earners prop up Social Security and Medicare and both are already doomed to failure.

Declining population only furthers that impending doom.

That dude in Nebraska, does he plan on using either of those programs? Needing them? Or living through a federal budget disaster when the austerity starts to kick in?

I mean, these things are coming regardless, just how quickly.

WestCanMan · January 27

9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Serious question.. How would declining population affect an average American. For example, you are average Joe living in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, would it adversely affect your life if the US saw declining population overall.

It doesn't bug me at all (Canada) if the population goes down.

People are getting squeezed out of their homes because rents are too high. We have homeless people dying on the streets from exposure. It's not good.

impartialobserver · January 27

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It doesn't bug me at all (Canada) if the population goes down.

People are getting squeezed out of their homes because rents are too high. We have homeless people dying on the streets from exposure. It's not good.

As much as i love living in the mostly arid, dry Western US.. the incessant population growth has to stop sometime. There is only so much water.

CdnFox · January 27

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

The stats Ive mentioned so far mostly come from Pew Research surveys such as this one.

what a load of shit. "MOSTLY" come from sources "SIMILAR" to this one, but you didn't actually post your links.

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

That's a nice article. Doesn't support your claim that most stay at home parents are well connected.

You LITERALLY DIRECTLY asked me to provide stats that single moms have it easier. That is PRECISELY what you asked for. Go back and read what you wrote.

Now you're changing the goalposts. "Hey that cite you presented which perfectly answers what i asked for doesn't prove something completely different that i didn't ask for".

What a dishonest loser.

And still no meaningful cites, nothing to address what i've already posted, more distraction and you still refuse to admit you were lying when you said that thre eason for falling birth rates was that men can't attract women.

You only said that because women find YOU repluslive. That's not all men. And this thread is a perfect example of why.

So start off with admitting you lied your ass off and your initial numbers were completely unsupported by fact and we can go from there.

Matthew · January 27

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you didn't actually post your links.

The "63% of men being single" stat originated from that source, as did most others I mentioned. But Pew has done several studies of this topic so if you're questioning a specific figure just ask.

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You LITERALLY DIRECTLY asked me to provide stats that single moms have it easier.

Nope you said "Most single moms these days are very active socially with other moms."

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you still refuse to admit you were lying when you said that thre eason for falling birth rates was that men can't attract women.

Go ahead and quote me. I'll wait. You spend so much time inaccurately imagining what you think others are saying rather than just taking your time and being precise.

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And still no meaningful cites

Sure I've shown that most men are single, that most stay at home parents feel isolated, etc etc. The studies I posted are troves of relevant data.

Now you've helped too by showing that most single mothers do less housework than married mothers. Good job! No need to feel bad about being so wrong, there is nothing actually to debate here.

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You only said that because women find YOU repluslive.

I am happily married for 25 years. You?

Edited January 27 by Matthew

CdnFox · January 28

29 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The "63% of men being single" stat originated from that source, as did most others I mentioned. But Pew has done several studies of this topic so if you're questioning a specific figure just ask.

Nope you said "Most single moms these days are very active socially with other moms."

Go ahead and quote me. I'll wait. You spend so much time inaccurately imagining what you think others are saying rather than just taking your time and being precise.

Sure I've shown that most men are single, that most stay at home parents feel isolated, etc etc. The studies I posted are troves of relevant data.

Now you've helped too by showing that most single mothers do less housework than married mothers. Good job! No need to feel bad about being so wrong, there is nothing actually to debate here.

I am happily married for 25 years. You?

Blah blah, kid it's so obvious that you're making it up as you go it's not funny.

As i noted basic math shows your stats were wrong. So you picked one stat from one study and another from a different one with different methodologies and you can't explain the discrepency, so you try to get away with 'most came from something like this".

Whereas i provided clear stats each time. And here you are like 2 pages later scrambling to come up with some sort of defense.

There's no point in dealing with the rest of your nonsense. You can't even admit to the basic initial why you stated and it was quite obvious you knew it wasn't true when you refuse to provide the sources and show your math.

Now you admit that you took information from different sources and try to match them up, even though I have already shown you that the basic numbers say you cannot have I discrepancy like the one that you tried to pass off as legitimate. Which is why you didn't show your sources in the first place.

And you still haven't been able to address the fact I presented which was that it is financially impossible to have children, not anything to do with men and women's relationships in the first place and certainly not men's fault as you originally supposed

Honestly kid. If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd still be twice as Smart as you actually are.

The reason why couples today are not having children is economic. Stemming from some unintended consequences of the women's lib movements of the late 60s and early 70s in Canada and similar movements around the world. Parents today cannot afford to have children and if they can they can only afford to have one because nobody can take the time off of work

impartialobserver · January 28

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform

some interesting stuff in here.

CdnFox · January 28

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform

some interesting stuff in here.

There you go. We will have wiped ourselves out through infertility long before global warming gets a chance so everyone was worried for nothing

impartialobserver · January 28

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There you go. We will have wiped ourselves out through infertility long before global warming gets a chance so everyone was worried for nothing

In the short term, it is going to make for interesting demographic and electoral changes. With less immigration, a few states are going to see population declines if they have not already.. West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Alaska, and MIssissippi being the prime candidates.

impartialobserver · January 28

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There you go. We will have wiped ourselves out through infertility long before global warming gets a chance so everyone was worried for nothing

In the short term, it is going to make for interesting demographic and electoral changes. With less immigration, a few states are going to see population declines if they have not already.. West Virginia, Alabama, Wyoming, Alaska, and MIssissippi being the prime candidates.

Matthew · January 28

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As i noted basic math shows your stats were wrong.

You did not. You claimed that the number of men and women in the country disprove a percentage. 🙄

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Whereas i provided clear stats each time.

You've provided zero stats and zero relevant facts and you ignore any provided to you and instead you seem to rely on impotent shit-talk to cover for your ignorance. Ive tried to give you a chance man but you're such a low quality contributor here.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now you admit that you took information from different sources and try to match them up

What? You're talking out of your ass and debating nothing, with no point, for no reason. I'm sorry your dad hit you so much.

Edited January 28 by Matthew

CdnFox · January 28

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

You did not. You claimed that the number of men and women in the country disprove a percentage

I didn't mention the number of men or women in either country. I correctly pointed out that the ACTUAL percentages of men and women disproved your fake percentages. If 50 percent of the population is men and 50 percent women, then you can't have 65 percent of the men single and 35 percent of the women single. That's just not how math works.

So now you're just reduced to lying, making claims about things i never said. Pathetic

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

You've provided zero stats

really. So stats can's numbers aren't stats? And the us stats aren't stats? How very interesting.

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

zero relevant facts and you ignore any provided to you

Really. So when we're discussing the percent of men and women in a relationship the percentage of men to women isn't relevant? It's sad that you haven't learned basic math skills.

And you didn't provide any stats. You didn't provide anything at all till after i rubbed your nose in the fact you're wrong with real stats and then you came back with "Most' of your stats came from something "Like" this.

You're a liar and a fraud kid

And you still haven't actually addressed the point I raised. I've said it several times now and you absolutely ignore it because you know it's true but it doesn't fit your narrative.

The left is mentally weak. They can't cope with the truth and they fall apart just like you're doing now making ridiculous and retarded statements That everyone reading this can see simply aren't true.

Hey stupid. It's the economy. And no it's not men's fault. The statistics are quite clear as long as you don't pull them out of your ass and try and mix and match sites to say what you want.

You should go burn your school down so that they can do no further harm

A Freeman · January 28

According to the now infamous 2017 Deagel report, we won't need to wait 10-20 years for the U.S. population to decline. It's forecast to decline by 68.5% THIS year (2025).

From:

https://archive.org/details/deagel-2025-forecast-by-country

United States of America

2017 population: 316,440,000

2025 population (projected): 99,553,100

Population change: -68.5%

What could bring about such a radical change other than wars and vaccines?

Matthew · January 28

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If 50 percent of the population is men and 50 percent women, then you can't have 65 percent of the men single and 35 percent of the women single. That's just not how math works.

Wow, ok you can't be serious. imagine the population had 200 million adults. If there were 100 million men, 60% of them would be 60 million men. At the same time, 30% of 100 million women would be 30 million women.

Edited January 28 by Matthew

CdnFox · January 28

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

Wow, ok you can't be serious.

Says the loser who couldn't provide sites for his stuff and thinks that mentioning a percentage is the same as mentioning a number

Quote

imagine the population had 200 million adults. If there were 100 million men, 60% of them would be 60 million men. At the same time, 30% of 100 million women would be 30 million women.

What in the name of God are you rambling about you degenerate loser?

Imagine that there were 200 million people. Now imagine that 50 percent were men and 50 percent were women.

Now imagine some utter imbecile claimed that 60 percent of the men were single, but somehow only 30 percent of the women were! And it was hetero relationships.

This was your claim! How the hell is that possible? Think about it you dimwitted tard, unless polygamy is rampant then if 60 percent of the men are single then 60 percent of the females must ALSO be single. For every man in a hetero relationship there must also be a woman! You can't HAVE 60 percent of men single but only 30 percent of women!

This is rediculous. You are being beyond stupid. Keep going if you like but all i'm going to do from here out is make fun of you about this. You're far to stupid for this conversation. And STILL avoid the main point i raised because you know you'rw wrong.