I don't see the problem.
I think more population creates more problems.
Do you believe that because you don't see it that therefore there is no problem?
First, even if we all stipulate that shrinking population is a good (or at least neutral) rather than bad thing, there is still a problem during the transition.
Social Security was set up at a time when our population was growing rapidly. US Population at decennial census from 1830-1940 (I hope this pastes right, if not,
link):
| 1830 | 12,866,020 | 33.49% |
| 1840 | 17,069,453 | 32.67% |
| 1850 | 23,191,876 | 35.87% |
| 1860 | 31,443,321 | 35.58% |
| 1870 | 38,558,371 | 22.63% |
| 1880 | 50,189,209 | 30.16% |
| 1890 | 62,979,766 | 25.48% |
| 1900 | 76,212,168 | 21.01% |
| 1910 | 92,228,496 | 21.02% |
| 1920 | 106,021,537 | 14.96% |
| 1930 | 123,202,624 | 16.21% |
| 1940 | 132,164,569 | 7.27% |
When the program was set up in the 1930's the US had a population of between 123M (1930 census) and 132M (1940 census). But there were substantially less older people because the people who were >60 had been born in a country of less than half of the then population. The program was established in 1935 at that time:
- 105 year olds were near non-existant and to the extent that they did exist, they had been born in a country of 13M
- 95 year olds were also near non-existant and to the extent that they did exist, they had been born in a country of 17M
- 85 year olds had been born in a country of 23M
- 75 year olds had been born in a country of 31M
- 65 year olds had been born in a country of 39M
When population is growing rapidly, the average age is fairly young. When population growth slows or turns negative, the average age rises sharply. Per a
Stanford Study, when SS was established in 1935 life expectancy was just 61 (meaning that the few recipients were already past their life expectancy when they got their first checks). According to the Social Security Administration there were 6.7M Americans >65 in 1930. That is just 5% of the then population of 123M. By 2000 there were 34.9M Americans >65. That is 12% of the then population of 281M. And note that that was BEFORE the Baby Boomers started turning 65 at a rate of ~11k/day starting January 1, 2011.
Since there isn't a magic trust fund the current benefits are paid by the current workers. The fundamental problem for the system is that the number of workers per retiree is shrinking. A shrinking population only makes the problem worse.
Even if we stipulate that smaller population would be a good (or at least neutral) thing for other reasons, it is a fiscal catastrophe for the SSA.
Second, fundamentally I agree with
@OrangeAfroMan 's idea that a shrinking (or at least stable) population is a good thing. Growing our population further increases urban sprawl and is bad for the environment and for the per capita amount of resources that our nation holds. I assume, therefore, that
@OrangeAfroMan supports political movements in favor of limiting population growth such as by limiting immigration?
