The Boomer Question

We need about 50,000,000 LESS people in the USA. We are so vastly overpopulated.

Birth rate in the US is now below the replacement rate. The only thing driving increases in population at this point is illegal immigration. Otherwise we would be seeing our population decreasing year by year.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Lost in Transfiguration said:
We need about 50,000,000 LESS people in the USA. We are so vastly overpopulated.

Birth rate in the US is now below the replacement rate. The only thing driving increases in population at this point is illegal immigration. Otherwise we would be seeing our population decreasing year by year.

That is because high IQ people instinctively know when to stop having 5 kids due to resources. So the high IQ people are having less and less kids and that is exactly what is needed. We need 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 LESS people in the USA. The over population is causing great harm to the environment and to our own health and the results will be catastrophic.

We need to shut down all immigration forever. We should have done so 50 years ago. Dummy Trump saying we need "more legal immigration" told me all I needed to know about him. He is a fraud.
 
While not a fan of immigration I don't think the US is over populated at all. Aside from a few places not fun to live, New York and San Francisco, there is plenty of room to live. Population densities in most of the US are nowhere near approaching those found in Europe and Asia.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Lost in Transfiguration said:
While not a fan of immigration I don't think the US is over populated at all. Aside from a few places not fun to live, New York and San Francisco, there is plenty of room to live. Population densities in most of the US are nowhere near approaching those found in Europe and Asia.

The USA is VASTLY overpopulated. It is why young people can't afford to buy houses, pay for college, start a family, or do anything that thousands of generations before them were able to do.

Serfs in the middle ages had better lives than young people do today. And it is 100% due to the fact the USA is overpopulated.
 
No, this is failure of boomers to downsize or failure to move in with family or retirement homes. They retain the homes of value in the suburbs or the city rather than moving on. Thereby, putting more upward pressure on the housing market. The fact that millenials want urban houses rather than suburbs is just as much their fault as it is boomers. Everyone knows the value proposition associated with living in the city, so, it is in fact other millennials competing with each other for houses in the city. This is not to say that the city is expensive; if they were to live anywhere other than LA, SF or NYC, there are plenty of affordable urban houses.

The us is not overpopulated have you ever lived in suburbia or any part of the US not on either coast? The US is not over-populated, it just turns out that people are like sardines on the east and west coasts.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Lost in Transfiguration said:
No, this is failure of boomers to downsize or failure to move in with family or retirement homes. They retain the homes of value in the suburbs or the city rather than moving on. Thereby, putting more upward pressure on the housing market. The fact that millenials want urban houses rather than suburbs is just as much their fault as it is boomers. Everyone knows the value proposition associated with living in the city, so, it is in fact other millennials competing with each other for houses in the city. This is not to say that the city is expensive; if they were to live anywhere other than LA, SF or NYC, there are plenty of affordable urban houses.

The us is not overpopulated have you ever lived in suburbia or any part of the US not on either coast? The US is not over-populated, it just turns out that people are like sardines on the east and west coasts.

I grew up in a VERY rural area. My idea that the country is not overpopulated is not based on my observations. Though the urban sprawl the 2 hour commutes to work, and the aging infrastructure we all deal with on a day to day basis should be enough alone to realize there are too many people here.

The country is overpopulated due to simple supply and demand. Resources are not infinite, we have too much demand (people) for supply (resources) and thus we have priced ourselves out of a 1st world life and now to the point our ancestors in feudal Europe lived better.
 
It_is_my_time said:
Lost in Transfiguration said:
No, this is failure of boomers to downsize or failure to move in with family or retirement homes. They retain the homes of value in the suburbs or the city rather than moving on. Thereby, putting more upward pressure on the housing market. The fact that millenials want urban houses rather than suburbs is just as much their fault as it is boomers. Everyone knows the value proposition associated with living in the city, so, it is in fact other millennials competing with each other for houses in the city. This is not to say that the city is expensive; if they were to live anywhere other than LA, SF or NYC, there are plenty of affordable urban houses.

The us is not overpopulated have you ever lived in suburbia or any part of the US not on either coast? The US is not over-populated, it just turns out that people are like sardines on the east and west coasts.

I grew up in a VERY rural area. My idea that the country is not overpopulated is not based on my observations. Though the urban sprawl the 2 hour commutes to work, and the aging infrastructure we all deal with on a day to day basis should be enough alone to realize there are too many people here.

The country is overpopulated due to simple supply and demand. Resources are not infinite, we have too much demand (people) for supply (resources) and thus we have priced ourselves out of a 1st world life and now to the point our ancestors in feudal Europe lived better.

Infrastructure failing is because we have spent money on wars and welfare rather than improving our country.

Inadequate supply is due to West and East coasts making it so hard for people to get affordable housing. They make new construction relatively difficult. And they continue the practice of rent control. Also a myriad of rules that favor unions and corruption. People leave California and these other places because government is not responsive to their needs. As I said, go anywhere other than West Coast or East Coast, and there are none of these issues. Taxes are also lower. Texas alone gets new people day in and day out from California trying to screw up state governance to fit their liberal needs.
 

Christhugger

Kingfisher
The fact that boomers let the ball drop on protecting western Christian culture from subversion I don't bemoan them for. Every generation would have succumbed under the same circumstances.

I do bemoan them now, after a lifetime of reflection, for not understanding what happened to them, for having no bravery in their now wrinkled bodies to stand up for the very lives of their own grandchildren, and for remaining selfish to the last breath by demanding their own comforts be maintained at all costs, to the very obvious detriment of their own families.
 

BlueMark

Woodpecker
Gold Member
The USA is far from overpopulated. The problems with commutes and infrastructure are not due to overpopulation but poor urban planning. American cities are designed for cars, not people.
There is nowhere close the density required to support a decent rail-based public transit system.

The other factor is that more jobs are moving into cities due to the shift from physical to knowledge work. So there's a natural tendency for jobs to be concentrated in cities. Again, poor infrastructure and urban planning makes it hard for cities to absorb large increases in the workforce.

See this video from BPS about the impact of urban sprawl in America:
 

Christhugger

Kingfisher
That the average middle class Canadian senior seems to have no problem consuming a $ 1/4 million worth of surgery in the last few years of their life, more than they paid in taxes their whole career, shows either complete lack of financial understanding, or complete lack of empathy for their children.

I've got to think that if someone was 80 and dying with 1/4M left in the bank, that most would choose to die and let it go to the kids, instead of to doctors... But when it's taxpayer money? Let's go hog wild.
 

Dr. Howard

 
Banned
Gold Member
It_is_my_time said:
Lost in Transfiguration said:
No, this is failure of boomers to downsize or failure to move in with family or retirement homes. They retain the homes of value in the suburbs or the city rather than moving on. Thereby, putting more upward pressure on the housing market. The fact that millenials want urban houses rather than suburbs is just as much their fault as it is boomers. Everyone knows the value proposition associated with living in the city, so, it is in fact other millennials competing with each other for houses in the city. This is not to say that the city is expensive; if they were to live anywhere other than LA, SF or NYC, there are plenty of affordable urban houses.

The us is not overpopulated have you ever lived in suburbia or any part of the US not on either coast? The US is not over-populated, it just turns out that people are like sardines on the east and west coasts.

I grew up in a VERY rural area. My idea that the country is not overpopulated is not based on my observations. Though the urban sprawl the 2 hour commutes to work, and the aging infrastructure we all deal with on a day to day basis should be enough alone to realize there are too many people here.

The country is overpopulated due to simple supply and demand. Resources are not infinite, we have too much demand (people) for supply (resources) and thus we have priced ourselves out of a 1st world life and now to the point our ancestors in feudal Europe lived better.

Could you modify it to "the cities are overpopulated"? Once you get out of them, things get quite affordable.

I think its like the 'instagram effect'. Where now hordes of people focus on these narrow bands of popular items, but overlook that nearby almost just as good opportunities. For example, near me is a very large national park, which is in turn surrounded by equally large national and state forests. Yet, all of the visitors to the national park line up to see the 7 or 8 already super crowded and backed up scenic views...because that is what is posted online, so that is where they go, and they never explore the nearly emply other tens of square miles of serene nature.

In this case, with popular cities everyone wants to move there. New immigrants, hipsters, then job seekers, then corporations. Made worse by the fact that a lot of older people who bought into the lie of "invest in your own real estate" are holding onto houses that are vastly outdated, yet they want a price premium. This forces the new housing growth to all be in new housing, which increases urban sprawl.

This is what Nashville is experiencing currently. 2000sq ft homes are $300k+ up from $200k in 2014. Compare that with the city proper of Memphis $120k or less. If you wanted a safer, but smaller city. Jackson TN $150k ish. Places in MS, AL, GA and KY are even cheaper.

If america was truly overpopulated, house prices would be high everywhere, it is just that popular cities are overpopulated by both citizens, immigrants and foreign investors.
 

PharaohRa

Kingfisher
Dr. Howard said:
It_is_my_time said:
Lost in Transfiguration said:
No, this is failure of boomers to downsize or failure to move in with family or retirement homes. They retain the homes of value in the suburbs or the city rather than moving on. Thereby, putting more upward pressure on the housing market. The fact that millenials want urban houses rather than suburbs is just as much their fault as it is boomers. Everyone knows the value proposition associated with living in the city, so, it is in fact other millennials competing with each other for houses in the city. This is not to say that the city is expensive; if they were to live anywhere other than LA, SF or NYC, there are plenty of affordable urban houses.

The us is not overpopulated have you ever lived in suburbia or any part of the US not on either coast? The US is not over-populated, it just turns out that people are like sardines on the east and west coasts.

I grew up in a VERY rural area. My idea that the country is not overpopulated is not based on my observations. Though the urban sprawl the 2 hour commutes to work, and the aging infrastructure we all deal with on a day to day basis should be enough alone to realize there are too many people here.

The country is overpopulated due to simple supply and demand. Resources are not infinite, we have too much demand (people) for supply (resources) and thus we have priced ourselves out of a 1st world life and now to the point our ancestors in feudal Europe lived better.

Could you modify it to "the cities are overpopulated"? Once you get out of them, things get quite affordable.

I think its like the 'instagram effect'. Where now hordes of people focus on these narrow bands of popular items, but overlook that nearby almost just as good opportunities. For example, near me is a very large national park, which is in turn surrounded by equally large national and state forests. Yet, all of the visitors to the national park line up to see the 7 or 8 already super crowded and backed up scenic views...because that is what is posted online, so that is where they go, and they never explore the nearly emply other tens of square miles of serene nature.

In this case, with popular cities everyone wants to move there. New immigrants, hipsters, then job seekers, then corporations. Made worse by the fact that a lot of older people who bought into the lie of "invest in your own real estate" are holding onto houses that are vastly outdated, yet they want a price premium. This forces the new housing growth to all be in new housing, which increases urban sprawl.

This is what Nashville is experiencing currently. 2000sq ft homes are $300k+ up from $200k in 2014. Compare that with the city proper of Memphis $120k or less. If you wanted a safer, but smaller city. Jackson TN $150k ish. Places in MS, AL, GA and KY are even cheaper.

If america was truly overpopulated, house prices would be high everywhere, it is just that popular cities are overpopulated by both citizens, immigrants and foreign investors.

The United States of America can handle around 250 million people comfortably, give or take a few million. If all of the illegals were thrown out and immigration restricted to only 50k a year, then housing prices would drop down to more manageable levels although alot of people would not be happy about that.

Now, the areas that are crowded are crowded (LA, SF, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Washington D.C.) because all the successful people want to be there. Successful people are drawn to high quality and top places (I mean, who doesn't want to live in a place where you have 100 different choices and you have to voluntarily choose to be bored). Cities that are second tier such as Las Vegas, Charlotte, Richmond, Nashville, Memphis, Louisville, Austin, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, etc. are for the moment affordable options for the average Boomer, Gen Xer, Millennial and soon to be Gen Zer because the 1st tier cities can only be comfortably afforded by those who make over $500k and the average person desires a place to call their own rather than be permanent renters. Are Boomers to blame for high housing prices in 1st tier cities?? Well, the elite boomers, foreign investors and the (((usual suspects))) take the blame for that one. I cannot blame all boomers for the high housing prices but rather the shitty situation America finds itself in at the moment.

Btw, high housing prices deserves its own thread since this is a whole other topic in itself.
 
Why 250 million, why not 200, or 150? While we're at it, why not prohibit foreigners from buying single family houses, or taxing them appropriately for it? Because in truth, they bear some blame. As has happened in Vancouver, they're also responsible for high housing prices in many markets here in the US.

Housing prices are not monolithic. The housing market differs drastically depending on the city in question. NYC and SF have some of the highest housing prices in the world, but also these cities have rent control and refuse to build at more reasonable rates. Cities like Dallas are plenty affordable.

If you cannot afford to live somewhere, you should not live there.
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Dr. Howard said:
Could you modify it to "the cities are overpopulated"? Once you get out of them, things get quite affordable.

I think its like the 'instagram effect'. Where now hordes of people focus on these narrow bands of popular items, but overlook that nearby almost just as good opportunities. For example, near me is a very large national park, which is in turn surrounded by equally large national and state forests. Yet, all of the visitors to the national park line up to see the 7 or 8 already super crowded and backed up scenic views...because that is what is posted online, so that is where they go, and they never explore the nearly emply other tens of square miles of serene nature.

In this case, with popular cities everyone wants to move there. New immigrants, hipsters, then job seekers, then corporations. Made worse by the fact that a lot of older people who bought into the lie of "invest in your own real estate" are holding onto houses that are vastly outdated, yet they want a price premium. This forces the new housing growth to all be in new housing, which increases urban sprawl.

This is what Nashville is experiencing currently. 2000sq ft homes are $300k+ up from $200k in 2014. Compare that with the city proper of Memphis $120k or less. If you wanted a safer, but smaller city. Jackson TN $150k ish. Places in MS, AL, GA and KY are even cheaper.

If america was truly overpopulated, house prices would be high everywhere, it is just that popular cities are overpopulated by both citizens, immigrants and foreign investors.

The rural areas are not as densely populated but with the banker class exporting our factories overseas, the income in these rural communities makes the COL still hard to support on the local pay. It is all relative. Sure you can buy a nice/newer 2,000 square foot in a smaller town for $100,000. But when the average income is $30,000, it isn't easy to afford.

The entire country is vastly overpopulated. In 1965, which should have shut off all immigration forever. We had enough people here as it was and if we needed more we could have the govt. actually do something for the people and push for a baby boom.

Instead we went the direction of evil and the outcome is going to be beyond awful.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I am not sure WTF people are talking about here. Neither do they. They discuss high housing prices as if cause-and-effect do not exist.

Before 1970, men routinely worked to provide for their family and women stayed home with their children as homemakers. A blue-collar working man, on just his pay alone, could easily afford a ten or fifteen year mortgage for the family home. Thirty year mortgages only became standard after 1970. Thirty years! Talk about being a wage slave owned by the bank!

So, the real question is what happened that changed all that? Until you answer that question, all this idle speculation is utterly worthless.

The Bretton Woods system was created towards the end of World War II and involved fixed exchange rates with the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, backed by the stability of gold at $35/ounce. For example, Petrodollars are simply U.S. dollars used to buy oil, which is mandatory.

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced the end of the Bretton Woods international monetary system and the convertabality of the U.S. dollar into gold. From the point onward, the U.S. dollar was no longer a traditional currency backed by gold and it no longer held its value. Stagflation set in (a stagnant economy with inflation) and prices increased dramatically. Nothing was ever the same again. Living now required two-income households, latchkey kids, and thirty-year mortgages.

Women now needed to work to pay the family bills. It was a new world, which still exists to this day. Disconnecting the U.S. dollar from gold allowed the U.S. to finance its world empire, countless military bases (literally no one knows just how many U.S. military bases exist around the world), and the massive U.S. social welfare system. As the world's reserve currency, which is unpegged to gold or anything else, there are literally more U.S. dollars outside of the borders of the U.S. than inside the U.S. Mindlessly printing money unbacked by anything of value raises prices for everyone. When the rest of the world eventually turns its back on the mindless printing of the U.S. dollar, the Great Reset will occur. This will end in tears, folks.

Here we are at this point in history:

[attachment=42119]


And here you are during this discussion, blaming high housing costs on things such as legal immigration or high population growth:

[attachment=42120]

Educate yourselves in the areas of finance, history, and economics. Most people will suffer during the Great Reset. Some will prosper. Will it be you?
 

Attachments

  • Reserve Currency Length.png
    Reserve Currency Length.png
    34.1 KB · Views: 429
  • Slave Class.jpg
    Slave Class.jpg
    127.4 KB · Views: 501

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
I have heard some very deep discussions regarding the gold standard and if it was a good thing or not. No one can come to a consensus on it. The "good days" in the USA were not the gold standard, it was the tail winds of WW2 not being fought on our soil. Remember the Great Depressions and other depressions happened during the Gold standard as well. And the "great days" were really one 20 short years, from 1946 to about 1965 and then everything started to collapse.

What we do know is resources are limited. There is only so much land, so much water, and the more people you have the more demand for these resources. Add in all the wealth floating to the top, by out sourcing/in sourcing, you no longer have a middle class. You have a few wealthy elites, you have a wage slave class terrified to lose their job and send their kids to the bad schools, and you have the growing welfare class who are basically the foot soldiers of the elites to keep the wage slave class silenced and working themselves into early graves.
 

Dr. Howard

 
Banned
Gold Member
Tail Gunner said:
I am not sure WTF people are talking about here. Neither do they. They discuss high housing prices as if cause-and-effect do not exist.

Before 1970, men routinely worked to provide for their family and women stayed home with their children as homemakers. A blue-collar working man, on just his pay alone, could easily afford a ten or fifteen year mortgage for the family home. Thirty year mortgages only became standard after 1970. Thirty years! Talk about being a wage slave owned by the bank!

So, the real question is what happened that changed all that? Until you answer that question, all this idle speculation is utterly worthless.

The Bretton Woods system was created towards the end of World War II and involved fixed exchange rates with the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, backed by the stability of gold at $35/ounce. For example, Petrodollars are simply U.S. dollars used to buy oil, which is mandatory.

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced the end of the Bretton Woods international monetary system and the convertabality of the U.S. dollar into gold. From the point onward, the U.S. dollar was no longer a traditional currency backed by gold and it no longer held its value. Stagflation set in (a stagnant economy with inflation) and prices increased dramatically. Nothing was ever the same again. Living now required two-income households, latchkey kids, and thirty-year mortgages.

Women now needed to work to pay the family bills. It was a new world, which still exists to this day. Disconnecting the U.S. dollar from gold allowed the U.S. to finance its world empire, countless military bases (literally no one knows just how many U.S. military bases exist around the world), and the massive U.S. social welfare system. As the world's reserve currency, which is unpegged to gold or anything else, there are literally more U.S. dollars outside of the borders of the U.S. than inside the U.S. Mindlessly printing money unbacked by anything of value raises prices for everyone. When the rest of the world eventually turns its back on the mindless printing of the U.S. dollar, the Great Reset will occur. This will end in tears, folks.

Here we are at this point in history:

Here you are during this discussion, blaming high housing costs on things such as legal immigration or high population growth:

You make a good point relative to the original topic of the discussion. Who was responsible for the change in the US monetary system? Corrupt banker elites yes, not the Harley Davidson boomer.

Boomers did not ruin the USA. A small group of wealthy and powerful people did, the same people who have been profiteering off of it since Andrew Jackson's era in the 1820s
 

It_is_my_time

Crow
Protestant
Dr. Howard said:
You make a good point relative to the original topic of the discussion. Who was responsible for the change in the US monetary system? Corrupt banker elites yes, not the Harley Davidson boomer.

Boomers did not ruin the USA. A small group of wealthy and powerful people did, the same people who have been profiteering off of it since Andrew Jackson's era in the 1820s

Actually Jackson shut down our first federal reserve and was punished harshly by the banker class for it the rest of his life. But since Woodrow Wilson the banker class has been working overtime to destroy the concept of the USA, you are correct with this very important point. It wasn't the Boomer Harley riders that destroyed the USA, it was the elite banker class.

The frustrating thing with Boomers is many cannot grasp this concept.
 

PharaohRa

Kingfisher
Lost in Transfiguration said:
Why 250 million, why not 200, or 150? While we're at it, why not prohibit foreigners from buying single family houses, or taxing them appropriately for it? Because in truth, they bear some blame. As has happened in Vancouver, they're also responsible for high housing prices in many markets here in the US.

Housing prices are not monolithic. The housing market differs drastically depending on the city in question. NYC and SF have some of the highest housing prices in the world, but also these cities have rent control and refuse to build at more reasonable rates. Cities like Dallas are plenty affordable.

If you cannot afford to live somewhere, you should not live there.

250 million is the supposed population of the United States of America if all the illegals were deported as they should be. If there are more illegals than the 50 to 60 million that are supposedly out there, then they have to go as well (and that could bring it down to the 150 to 200 million level)

Also, I do agree that poor city policies, marketing and foreigners bear a good portion of the blame for the increase in housing prices, but this is the case because our laws are too lax with respect to foreign investment, people are convinced that they have to live in SF, LA, NYC, etc. to get the best experience possible and the rules that are behind rent pricing (we can blame elite boomers and their (((friends))) for this one).

The best way to manage this issue is to increase awareness and get people off their asses to take action. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done.
 
Top