English really needs to stop calling the right wing “conservatives”. We don’t call them that in other languages, and they literally don’t try to conserve things, but instead always seek to destroy.

A smaller general population.

The whole issue really is the baby boom threw things out of balance.

Ideally they are matched to productivity and wage rates. So if productivity goes up 50%, and wages go up 50% (pw), with population being (k), then I think ideally it would be

K(-r%)=pw(r%)

But, humans don’t follow consistent rules in that particular way, so just somewhere around pw.

Alternatively, if they stagnate equally, that would be sustainable too. Not much decline or increase.

If you want that type of detailed analysis report then, I give you two options:

1. Pay me, because that shit takes a lot of time.
2. Actually look up that exact information yourself from existing reports and back up your own initial claims with exact numbers. Inexact questions will result in estimated answers. If you actually want to know the truth, try to prove yourself wrong instead of asking something in a random thread and not even looking into all the answers you get, instead repeating your own assertions.

As for your other hyperbolia:

For example, let’s say everyone’s electricity bill is 50$… Out of your wage of what 1500$? 2000$? So if population declines by 10% and the electricity bill goes up by 10% or 5$ you’re telling that it will collapse the nation?

The issue isn’t that places on Japan are facing a 10% population decline. It’s that they’re facing a 50+% generational decline. That distinction is important because if it was only the elderly population that dropped, there actually wouldn’t be as much financial stress or labor issues to support systems as currently, where the elderly population grows massive while the younger one shrinks drastically.

It isn’t a 500¥ increase that’s the issue, it’s the rise of everything that’ll be the issue, especially since the elderly will be the overwhelming majority.

And while all of that happens: keep in mind that real estate value and prices will go down. Less people means less need for living space. It means it will be cheaper to move to cities, with higher concentrations of people in areas that already have infrastructure, that’s already mostly paid for.

That’s not how modern real estate works. Cities would become more expensive to move into - because it’ll have the higher infrastructure costs, it’ll be mostly filled with the elderly, but most importantly, because many apartments will be shutdown due to growing vacancies making it unprofitable. If modern cities were mostly houses, then everything would actually be great. But because they’re mostly apartments, it becomes an issue. If anything, it’ll be cheaper to move out of the cities, because public transportation will be underfunded anyway, and infrastructure costs in rural areas will become lower because rural areas are designed for smaller populations and less people, unlike cities. Cities will just keep getting more expensive to maintain - that’s an effect you can already see in multiple countries.

Yeah, you’re doing the math wrong, because maintenance cost goes down the less people there are.

Do you have evidence for that? Because I already explained how it doesn’t earlier.

A half full train still runs the same track and route. A half used sewage system still needs to be filtered, cleaned, and repaired. Half used roads are still fully exposed to the elements. Half used buildings still degrade from time. Half empty buses are still used to get around.

The medical systems in this case, like I mentioned earlier, however, only go up in use.

I’m not a woman, but after going through a whole explanation saying it’s not about you specifically, but about the unknown, and you still take it personally - I’d consider that a red flag.

That’s assuming you only tax income.

No, it’s not. The maintenance still has to be paid somehow, whether that’s from a VAT, income tax, inheritance taxes, etc. Either way, taxes will go up because there’s less people but the same amount of infrastructure.

Yep, not buying it.

You’re not buying… Basic math? Well, if you want small numbers as an example (and we’ll even make it so in the example the rich would be paying a lot now so it’s more fair):

There are ten people: 1 (Sherry) has 10 pieces of candy, 8 with 1 pieces of candy, and 1 with no candy. The amount they have resets at the end of every year after tribute.

They must pay the candy monster 10 pieces of candy every year or it’ll eat them. Currently, Sherry gives 8 pieces, 8 people give 25% a piece, and Bob gives none.

Next year, some people decide to “move”. There’s now 5 people, including Bob and Sherry.

In order to make the required tribute, Sherry gives 9 pieces, 3 others give 33% a piece, and Bob still can’t give any.

Next year, more people leave. There’s now 3 people, including Bob and Sherry.

How much should Sherry give this year, and how much will she have left after giving versus the other person (excluding Bob)?

This little math problem is basically a simplified version of the population collapse problem. In reality, it’s worse, because with less people, there’s less candy (money) generated for everyone, including Sherry, but the candy monster (infrastructure) will still ask for the same tribute.

Here’s a simple problem from it: taxes.

If the infrastructure was built to main x people but there’s suddenly a huge drop in how many can pay taxes, then you can’t maintain the infrastructure.

Say you made trains for a population for a million people. But in a single generation it’s going to drop to about 700,000 people.

Those 700k are now going to have to pay nearly 1/3 more just to keep the same trains running. Drop that population further another generation and the cost will only go up. Yet you can’t just not have the trains because the existing people still need transportation.

Now multiply that problem to everything else that needs maintenance and is essential in a modern society - universal healthcare (which gets an added extra cost of older people costing more than younger), sewage, roads, natural disaster mitigation, etc. Even taxing the rich like crazy won’t make up for it if it’s bad enough, and that’s in a system where you assume the population goes down because basically everyone has at least one kid. What Japan is facing is most of the population having no kids, and this is after there being a baby boom at some point. That’s an extremely steep drop.

That’s not even getting into the housing issues with such a densely designed cityscape like Japan has. If there’s too many apartments, they’ll just start closing down at some point rather than just going down in cost because apartments act kind of like a micro city in costs, and a lack of tenants because there’s just no people to fill the space is the same issue as the trains mentioned earlier. This one takes longer to manifest though.

But that’s a me thing, something you would know if you knew me.

You’re not getting the point.

The point is, we don’t know you.

And this may shock you, but people with bad intentions can just lie about things online. I’m not saying you are some psychopath who acts nice and caring online only to spike a drink and rape in person. Or that you’re an abuser but you can’t catch it yourself. I’m saying people don’t know you, and therefore it can’t be ruled out as a possibility. And so therefore the risk does indeed exist.

Not knowing is the point. Some people will therefore want to take more precautions when getting to know you even better in person, to minimize the risk further. Others won’t think of the risk and just take it, or think it’s not too risky, or not care of the risk, or even might think they can keep themselves safe, and won’t meeting you in person alone in public.

No matter what though, the point is that initially, people don’t know you. It’s not an accusation directed at you, it’s literally just the situation.

Exactly. They don’t know you at all either.

You’re sexist, but I will say I’m glad I took the offer when given it. The night ended up twice as nice, along with the next couple of months too.

Basically, go ahead and think that. More fun and good times for the rest of us, the two girls I was with that time included ;)

(In hindsight, it should’ve been way more obvious I was poly. But my sights were distracted at the time, and it’s something that wasn’t really talked about much back then)

Prime and Deploy?