Movies are awesome

[Dominic]

If I magically disappeared and then one day magically reappeared 5 years later, I'm not going to expect that my house is still there waiting for me. The house itself, sure, but I guarantee someone else will be living in it and probably wouldn't take too kindly to me wanting it back all of a sudden. Same would go for my job and maybe even my soon to be wife.

This. Exactly. (....real world frames of reference.)

Large buildings can be removed in months, and I live in a red-tape heavy area. And, those buildings can be replaced in less than 2 years (which is counting hard NE winters making work impossible for months at a time). And, derelict structures would be worn down by weather and even plants.

After 5 years, any habitable structure would have somebody in it. Apartments would either be filled, or expanded. People would be adjusted to a higher standard of living (paychecks with more purchasing power, more elbow room).

In modern states, the missing could be counted within in weeks if not days. The only sectors of the economy to suffer in the medium term would be highly specialized fields that require years of study *and* would not see a decline in demand with a lower population. (Medicine would be largely unaffected. Assuming doctors died/survived in proportion to the rest of the population, demand would stay about the same.) People would also be ablem, even be obligated, to change jobs as some industries became more valuable.

I fully acknowledge bringing back the population wouldn't be without difficulties, but at least everything (after only 5 years) would still be in place to make that an easier transition.

It would be more catastrophic and disruptive than the disappearance. The disappearance would be problematic. But, it would ultimately work out,

Spoiler

especially after 5 years.

Doubling the population and lowering everybody's standard of living overnight would be a disaster. There would be riots and more destruction than halving the population would cause.

[Sparky Prime]

This. Exactly. (....real world frames of reference.)

Large buildings can be removed in months, and I live in a red-tape heavy area. And, those buildings can be replaced in less than 2 years (which is counting hard NE winters making work impossible for months at a time). And, derelict structures would be worn down by weather and even plants.

After 5 years, any habitable structure would have somebody in it. Apartments would either be filled, or expanded. People would be adjusted to a higher standard of living (paychecks with more purchasing power, more elbow room).

In modern states, the missing could be counted within in weeks if not days. The only sectors of the economy to suffer in the medium term would be highly specialized fields that require years of study *and* would not see a decline in demand with a lower population. (Medicine would be largely unaffected. Assuming doctors died/survived in proportion to the rest of the population, demand would stay about the same.) People would also be ablem, even be obligated, to change jobs as some industries became more valuable.

Wrong. Shockwave's hypothetical makes sense for the small scale, but half the population disappearing at the same time is UNPRECEDENTED. You wouldn't be talking about a derelict building or two, that they've probably had planned for years to take down and replace, or even buildings that had already been reduced to rubble, BUT THOUSANDS of buildings in every city that are still in perfectly good condition, suddenly empty simply from a LACK OF POPULATION. Even with weather and plants wearing down buildings... That wouldn't happen in just 5 years. Look at Pripyat. An entire city that has been abandoned for 33 years, and while those buildings have fallen into various states of disrepair in that time, they are still intact.

Again, you're completely underestimating the sheer scale of a situation like this when we're talking about BILLIONS of people that'd just suddenly be gone. We literally have nothing that comes close to compare it to in the real world. Even if you combine the highest estimates of casualties from both WW1 and WW2 (which as I pointed out earlier, the world is still recovering from), that still wouldn't even be 1 billion people. It wouldn't take weeks if not days to count the missing on that scale. Having worked for the Census several years ago, I can tell you, it takes months to track down verify so many people. And that's with people more or less cooperating to return the information needed. It'd be much more difficult to find out who was actually missing or not on that scale in these circumstances.

It would be more catastrophic and disruptive than the disappearance. The disappearance would be problematic. But, it would ultimately work out,

Spoiler

especially after 5 years.

Doubling the population and lowering everybody's standard of living overnight would be a disaster. There would be riots and more destruction than halving the population would cause.

It would not. You've been assuming major changes to take place in practically no time at all that would make it catastrophic, with no regard for just how unprecedented this event would be for the population in the first place. The world would not move on so quickly from this as you seem to think it would, nor would it be practical to be able to make the kinds of changes you suggest in this amount of time. Some things would have to change to suit the smaller population, but it would not be so quick or as dramatic as you make it out to be. Much of what the half of the population that disappeared left behind would still be there after only 5 years.

[Shockwave]

The idea was that my example would be multiplied billions of times over. And yes, my house would likely still be there. The best case scenario in a situation like that would that I would return and my fiancé would still be living there and that everything would more or less return to normal. But, that is not a LIKELY scenario. My fiancé could potentially move on. She could get another job or even move to a different house. Even assuming I went back and the house was still there with no one living in it, that would be problematic as well since the structure would like be overrun by flora and fauna and would not be livable by human standards. And it would take time to make so assuming I wanted to go back to it. And my job definitely would not be waiting for me. So I would need to find work, find a place to live, and potentially start my life all over again. Now multiply all of that by billions. Sorry, Dom's right, it would be worse than the snap to begin with. Looking at this in reverse, the snap would actually be beneficial in some ways. Yes, people would be sad and they would have to move on with their lives. Everyone would deal with it differently but, there would be more space for people. Homelessness would be eliminated, unemployment should also be eliminated (at least for those that want legitimate work). Poverty would amost be eliminated as well since there would suddenly be a lot of better paying jobs available.

[Sparky Prime]

The idea was that my example would be multiplied billions of times over.

And where would all the people to fill these empty houses come from when HALF THE POPULATION IS GONE? Let's put this into a little perspective here. Last year, it was estimated that there are 1.5 million vacant single family houses and condos in the United States. Compare that to the roughly 600 thousand homeless in the country. We could house the homeless population more than twice over with the amount of vacant homes we've got as it is and still have vacant homes available. With HALF THE POPULATION GONE, very much the opposite would happen to your idea. We'd have millions MORE vacant houses, and not enough population to fill them all. Maybe someone might move into your home, but it's far more likely it'd remain empty.

And yes, my house would likely still be there.

And once again, that's not what Dom is saying he thinks would happen. He's saying your house would be torn down to make room for your neighbor's new luxury sized backyard in less than 5 years. I'm saying it'd still be there empty after 5 years, with everything you'd have to consider would happen after half the population went missing.

The best case scenario in a situation like that would that I would return and my fiancé would still be living there and that everything would more or less return to normal. But, that is not a LIKELY scenario.

I think it'd be more likely than you'd think. Again, I'm not saying that it'd work out for every body here, but I don't think you really appreciate the sheer scale of what we're talking about here when we're talking about BILLIONS of people suddenly gone in an instant, with out knowing how or why.

Even assuming I went back and the house was still there with no one living in it, that would be problematic as well since the structure would like be overrun by flora and fauna and would not be livable by human standards.

Not necessarily. It'd depend on how aggressive the flora and fauna are in an area, climate, how many people still live in the area to curb nature from taking hold.... Take Fukushima for example. In a documentary I saw recently, Japan is encouraging some residents to return to areas where they believe the radiation levels are safe enough for people to live again. The fauna has overgrown, and there is some damage caused by wildlife (particularly wild boars), but many houses are actually still habitable despite 6 or 7 years worth of neglect. One guy they talked to said he'd lived in the same house his whole life, this older, traditional Japanese house. The only work he was doing to the property was to remove the top soil because he didn't trust the officials did a good enough job removing the radiation contaminated soil. The house was fine. There was only one family they talked to that mentioned had to rebuild their house, although they didn't mention the circumstances (such as if it'd been damaged during the earthquake or tsunami prior to the meltdown).

And my job definitely would not be waiting for me.

Again, maybe they'd replace you. Maybe they'd still need you back 5 years later given the population crisis. Maybe they went out of business. You can't say for sure in this situation.

So I would need to find work, find a place to live, and potentially start my life all over again. Now multiply all of that by billions. Sorry, Dom's right, it would be worse than the snap to begin with. Looking at this in reverse, the snap would actually be beneficial in some ways. Yes, people would be sad and they would have to move on with their lives. Everyone would deal with it differently but, there would be more space for people. Homelessness would be eliminated, unemployment should also be eliminated (at least for those that want legitimate work). Poverty would amost be eliminated as well since there would suddenly be a lot of better paying jobs available.

I'm sorry, but no. As I've said, I'd agree the population returning would not be without problems. Certainly there would be people that'd find themselves in that situation. But multiply that by billions? No, that's over stating it. Neither of you really seem to realize the sheer scale of what the snap would do in the first place. Sure it could lead to benefits, as I've acknowledged, but again, it could just as easily cause everything to fall into ruin. Imagine the panic and chaos that'd result from half of all living things just disappearing. Imagine if some of the snapped were world leaders. The loss of skilled employees. Some engendered species to begin with would most likely go extinct. And so on. As I pointed out above, we actually could end homelessness today. The snap wouldn't end it at all, it'd just give us more vacant houses. Unemployment, might improve or it might not. Many jobs require certain skill sets that aren't so easily replaced, and could actually be more difficult (if not impossible) to fill those positions within that time. Poverty wouldn't necessarily be eliminated either. There's absolutely no grantee there'd be more better paying jobs available here. There's really no difference between half the population disappearing and then returning, either situation would potentially be beneficial or catastrophic in these circumstances. The movie honestly takes a more optimistic approach regardless.

[andersonh1]

The bottom line is that if half the population vanished, and then that half returned, there would be massive, possibly insurmountable problems and adjustments both times, on a scale that the movie simply did not want to address or deal with directly. Although there may be some mention of it in upcoming movies for all we know, though I doubt they'll go into much detail.

I'll give the writers some credit. I expected time travel to be used to stop the loss of half the population from ever occurring in the first place. That the writers took another path and didn't do something that nullifies the ending to Infinity War is to their credit, but it does open up all the story problems you've been discussing here, and I just don't think the writers wanted to deal with those implications.

[Dominic]

Even with weather and plants wearing down buildings... That wouldn't happen in just 5 years. Look at Pripyat. An entire city that has been abandoned for 33 years, and while those buildings have fallen into various states of disrepair in that time, they are still intact.

The buildings in Pripyat are not habitable, unrelated to the radiation. After 5 years, any habitable buildings are going to have people in them. Apartment sizes would double (simply by knocking down walls between existing apartments). There would be more single occupancy homes. And, people with better apartments and nicer homes might not want roommates dumped on them.

The population would be at mid-20th Century levels. There would be enough of a labor force to do the necessary work. Civilization could take the hit.

And once again, that's not what Dom is saying he thinks would happen. He's saying your house would be torn down to make room for your neighbor's new luxury sized backyard in less than 5 years. I'm saying it'd still be there empty after 5 years, with everything you'd have to consider would happen after half the population went missing.

People would take down derelict structures, especially in areas that were nice, or had the potential to be nicer (with yards and such).

[Shockwave]

Also, intact doesn't mean habitable. My house was "intact" when I bought it, but it took a year and a LOT of rennovations before it was habitable.

[Sparky Prime]

The buildings in Pripyat are not habitable, unrelated to the radiation. After 5 years, any habitable buildings are going to have people in them. Apartment sizes would double (simply by knocking down walls between existing apartments). There would be more single occupancy homes. And, people with better apartments and nicer homes might not want roommates dumped on them.

The population would be at mid-20th Century levels. There would be enough of a labor force to do the necessary work. Civilization could take the hit.

I didn't say they were habitable, my point was that they're still intact after being abandoned for 30+ years as an extreme example of buildings holding up despite decades worth of being "worn down by weather and even plants". It'd be a much different story with only 5 years. Look at Fukushima. Some houses probably aren't habitable due to damage from wildlife, but many still are. The fact that there would be enough labor force to do the necessary work isn't the issue. It's the amount of time it'd take to do the necessary work. You're talking about millions of buildings Dom. Not to mention, all the work it'd take to confirm if anyone still lived there or not. Probably a few years worth of planning before they even start demolishing anything. Once again, it would be years before they even got started on the type of work you're suggesting. Let alone have it done in only 5 years.

People would take down derelict structures, especially in areas that were nice, or had the potential to be nicer (with yards and such).

Again, these aren't derelict structures we're talking about here. Up until the snap, these were peoples homes we're talking about. It'd take years worth of neglect for them to become derelict structures. And even then, as I keep telling you, sometimes abandoned buildings just sit there for years while city officials work out legalities and what exactly they think they should do with the property. It's not like people would be clamoring for bigger backyards and apartments the day after the snap either.

Also, intact doesn't mean habitable. My house was "intact" when I bought it, but it took a year and a LOT of rennovations before it was habitable.

Never said it was, that wasn't the point I was making. Also, my house had been empty for at least a year (probably longer) before we bought it. We didn't have to do any renovations to make it habitable. We did some work to update it, fix some minor damage the previous home owners caused, but it was still perfectly habitable.

The bottom line is that if half the population vanished, and then that half returned, there would be massive, possibly insurmountable problems and adjustments both times, on a scale that the movie simply did not want to address or deal with directly. Although there may be some mention of it in upcoming movies for all we know, though I doubt they'll go into much detail.

I'll give the writers some credit. I expected time travel to be used to stop the loss of half the population from ever occurring in the first place. That the writers took another path and didn't do something that nullifies the ending to Infinity War is to their credit, but it does open up all the story problems you've been discussing here, and I just don't think the writers wanted to deal with those implications.

Exactly.

[Shockwave]

I don't think structures or infrastructure would be the main problem. There's a whole show about derelict homes being renovated into livable properties and some of those are in nice neighborhoods. The biggest problem would be for people whose homes fell into disrepair or otherwise became unlivable and needing somewhere to go while it's being restored. Some people might have jobs waiting for them. Most probably wouldn't and that would probably be the biggest strain. Also, people's homes probably wouldn't be theirs anymore after years of not being able to make mortgage payments and what not. It would be a pretty big disaster and I definitely think having the world's population suddenly double would be a strain no one would be prepared to deal with. Losing half the population would be bad as well, but would be easier to manage in terms of available resources.

Also, I haven't seen Endgame, my comments are solely based on the context in the discussion here.

[andersonh1]

Also, I haven't seen Endgame, my comments are solely based on the context in the discussion here.

Are we still doing spoiler tags? I think I'll just be mostly vague.

It's very good, so don't let these questions about the implications of the plot make you think it's a poorly thought out movie. It just doesn't always hit some of these big questions head on, preferring to focus on the reaction of the main characters and how they attempt to deal with the problem, which is understandable. We're not going to a superhero movie to find out about the social problems of a devastated universe, but to watch superheroes tackle that problem.

You do see some indications of abandoned housing and how loss has affected the the population, confined to some brief scenes early in the movie. Apart from Captain America at a sort of group grief counseling session, we mostly see the situation through Scott Lang's point of view. He missed Thanos and the five year aftermath for reasons that come from the what happens to him at the end of Ant Man and the Wasp, so we get to see what he sees as he tries to learn what happened. But the movie never delves too deeply into the logistics being discussed here, and to be fair, it would probably bog down the plot if it did.