in 20 years, we'll all be living under Chinese circumstances, with huge cohorts of aging people beyond working years dependent on much smaller numbers of working-aged people to pay into the social security system
Thanks for not claiming SSI will "go broke," which is a long disproved claim. The more likely outcome in 20 years is that the payouts will be lower (about 77% of what was expected) -- not a surprise to any Gen Xer who knew we'd be screwed over one way or another the minute the Boomers stopped collecting.
The X-er cohort, however, isn't huge in generational terms compared to those preceding and following it and many see SSI as what it's intended to be: supplemental insurance rather than a retirement package. Also, as long as the U.S. remains a desirable immigrant nation there will be plenty of young and hard-working entrants into our workforce.
By the time the SSI dilution comes home to roost, I expect that Social Security insurance (along with disability, Medicare, and all other social programmes) will be eliminated to help pay for a nasty neoliberal version of UBI to keep the unnecessariat and the precariat from rioting while helping the rich get richer.
Otherwise, if one genuinely wants most of the planet to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle a lower birth-rate is generally a good thing. Unless, of course, one's real concern is "there ain't enough white babies bein' born!", which is the real worry of the Know-Nothing conservative bases in America and Europe.
Shelter is a human necessity second only to food on Maslow's hierarchy of needs; but it's also an asset-class that is increasingly relied upon by the world's super-rich for money-laundering, rent-extraction and simple investment
Come on now, Cory, those Millenials would be able to afford housing if they'd just cut back on the avocado toast (or so says an Australian real estate magnate who inherited his starting stake).