@Jens_Rasmussen
I don't get your question. What will bounce back? The population or the retirement system?

Well, my point is, that we don't value the life itself. Neither as an experience, nor as an entity worth protecting. These people literally see a livetime production dollar amount. That is not what should be protected. That is not what it means to be alive.

@LukeAlmighty The population will bounce back I mean, and by extention also the retirement system.

As for something other than money being protected; everyone understands that being in a healthy economy rather than a broke one is conductive to a life that makes you enjoy being alive.
On the other hand; not much is being done to fix the population issue exactly because people's freedom is being respected.
Our incompetent leaders still have to figure out a solution to the problem though, and replacement migration seems to be their chosen one.

@Jens_Rasmussen
I hate that they chose to betray their nation just because it was easy.

The low births problem it's a big problem mostly because we created a society in which you can be expected to live 90+ years while also being a total burden on the system because now retirement homes exist. So you have like a few amount of working adults having to pay for the healthcare of millions who should just be dead if our culture wasn't obsessed with preserving life even when it's essentially not life anymore

@RikaDerufu @LukeAlmighty Total boomer death.

Going to a retirement home ONCE some months ago totally blackpilled me to the point of no return.
90% of those people were in a literal comatose state with eyes open, most of them couldn't even talk.

@RikaDerufu @LukeAlmighty Nursing homes and retirement homes are not quite the same, you know? But I agree that a lot of elderly are not in a worthy state of "life".

@RikaDerufu @Jens_Rasmussen
I heard, that in some civilizations, it used to be an honor to leave by your own hand, once you were no longer able to live on your own properly.

And at this point, I believe that might actually be the only solution. Because we are getting trapped into a technologivcally enabled insanity.

Each advancement of medical science enables us to give old people more time alive at an ever increasing cost. Yes, the healthcare of young does become better too, but if we manage to unlock 2 more years for a million, all it does is increase the ammount of people who need that million dollar healthcare.... only so they ask for 2 more years for 5 mil.

It is an eternal cycle of more people needing more money for worse few years of life.

AWRIGHT DIS HERE DUH NINTH STEP AND IT AIN'T OPTIONAL, LEAVE YO GUNS OUT SO DUH CHILLUNS CAN PLAY WITH 'EM IN DUH BATHROOMS

@LukeAlmighty @RikaDerufu The point, from the government's perspective, of increasing life expectancy, is that they can raise pension ages.

Also take into account that people had more kids because child mortality was very high. Today in the west child mortality is basically non existent

@RikaDerufu
This is stupid argument. A birthrate below 2 is not a sustainable model, no matter how healthy the 1.4 kid actually are.

Yes, but there is nothing that you can do to sto it. As I said in the other comment, the real problem of today is the mass of old people who need 24/7 care. If majority of the population was still between 20-50 population decline wouldn't be as much of a problem

@RikaDerufu @LukeAlmighty That's a healthcare issue, not a pension issue. Although they are related in terms of the famous "your contribution and expenses to the government relative to your age"-graph.