Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
nytimes.com
Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
1–10 of 83 posts
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#2This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks.
Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaster being posited. It means, broadly, that for a generation or so society will be burdened by a disproportionately large elderly population, and caring for them will require resources that we'd prefer to spend on other things. But eventually things will return to a steady state, just with fewer people. We'll manage.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#3This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaste…
Birthrate is 1.39 per woman. No, that will not reach a steady state. That's a constant decline.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#4This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaste…
Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#5This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaste…
Birthrate is 1.39 per woman. No, that will not reach a steady state. That's a constant decline.
If I recall correctly, ~2.3 children per woman is the replacement rate, i.e. keeps population steady. Of course, changes in longevity / infant mortality may have changed that statistic.
Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacemen...
According to Wikipedia's source, replacement rate is ~2.1 for developed nations, so I would guess Japan is definitely not at a replacement rate at 1.4. Of course, replacement rates are just to keep population steady, but I would think a country with too many old people is still somewhat of a problem, unless you could figure out how to take care of them and/or make them productive.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#6This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaste…
Yes, there are some statistical flaws in the article, but the general point that Japan's population aging and that this is a problem is true.
You say that things will return to a steady state, but why do you believe that?
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#7This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaste…
Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.
True, but not of the form we're seeing (e.g. the base for the exponent surely isn't 2!). (It also bears mentioning that other factors like increases in working lifetime and overall lifetime counteract the birthrate decreases). Right now we're seeing a "cliff" due to a change in the birthrate due to the very rapid change to an industrialized urban economy. That won't repeat.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.
True, but not of the form we're seeing (e.g. the base for the exponent surely isn't 2!). (It also bears mentioning that other factors like increases in working lifetime and overall lifetime counteract the birthrate decreases). Right now we're seeing a "cliff" due to a change in the birthrate due to the very rapid change to an industrialized urban economy. That won't repeat.
Mistercrow asked the question above -I'll ask it here: Why do you think it won't repeat?
To my knowledge no other modern society has had a birthrate drop like this - to below this radically replacement and has then stabilized the birthrate at the replacement rate (or above). This really could be free fall...
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#9I watched a Japanese program where the government claimed in the year 3000 the population of Japan would be ....
7 people.
Obviously I don't think it would actually get there but that is the current rate if nothing else changes (or rate at the time the program was aired)
The segment ended with a tongue in cheek admonition to make a baby tonight for Japan :)
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#10The problem with extrapolating like this is it's assuming many things are constant like birth rate which are not necessarily the case.
If you compare the birth and death rates they have only recently crossed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_195... which means the value of land is increasing as more people compete for the same resources.
For example, as the population starts to decline housing will become cheaper which will reduce commuting times and debt. Which will make it much easier to start a family and should increase the birth rate. It also dramatically reduces the need for new infrastructure.