Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say it's a lot more likely to be playing Mariachi than Christian rock...
You forget that Hispanics are also quite religious.
But do they listen to 'Christian Rock'?
Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
41–50 of 83 posts
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#42I've modelled a society with 1.0 birth rate and everyone died. And it's not like died in a million years; no, the last "person" was born something like 150 years from the start.
Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you can't have that and that's what make you a modern person.
I guess most people will be living in fifty kilometer radius from a million plus population hub. That's what we should have.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#43Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty…
GDP per capita doesn't go up when population goes down, because there are fewer people working to produce goods and services. There's no economy genie producing wealth that has to be divided among the population.
It does if everything is made in highly automated factories and you have a lot of unemployed.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#44Japan is overpopulated as it is. I fail to see anything wrong with population levels dropping, to some lower, sustainable levels.
The low birthrate is caused by overpopulation: there's too little resources to give to babies, so it's impossible to have children. I would actually say, there's so little to go around, people can't form families (get a partner, be a couple - maybe because the courting ritual is too elaborate now), so less people are even able to have a go at having a child.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#45Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty…
Shortage of daycare centers may sort it self out before the economy gets completely screwed up, but soon after the declining production (due to less workers) will mean less taxincome for the government, which always means that school, daycare, the elderly and hospitals will be cut.
Workers might have been able to command a much higher salary a century or two ago, but in global world there is only so high the salary of an individual can go before the entire thing comes crashing down into a gigantic economic disaster.
Regarding gigantic economical disasters, consider what will happen when the current generations retire. Unless the government has put enough aside to pay for the retirement of all these people (very doubtful), then it must get whatever it can from the citizens who are working -- and with a very small amount of people working, that means that each worker will have to pay a lot more in taxes, which is not likely to lead to either economic prosperity or reelection of the politicians (even though their hands will be completely tied down).
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by 2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most people would like that. Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer peopl…
It's not about the number of people, but the age distribution. In 2100 half of the Japanese may be over 65 years old, and it definitely wasn't the case in 1920.
The per-capita productivity growth rate in Japan the last twenty years has been around 1%/year (down from the 4-5% of the 1970-1990 era). At that rate, the average worker in Japan will be 2.4 times as productive in 2100 than today.
In the long run, productivity growth and technological changes will dwarf demographics. I'm not talking huge Mr. Fusion-style breakthroughs, just small improvements that we all see every day. The Radio Shack catalog from 1982 that was posted here a few days ago is a great example. The improvements since then happened so gradually that we don't even notice them until we look back 30 years.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#47This 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.
Virtually impossible?
Hardly. One generation where the average is 10 children per woman will boost the economy and permanently change the demographics; it may sound completely unrealistic, but it was the norm only a few generations ago.
And no, it didn't end when a lot of the children stopped dying in childbirth, as my grandfather had something like 8 brothers, and all of them made it into adulthood just fine.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
No modern society has seen the birthrate drop like this at all, regardless of the outcome, so we are in a bit of undefined territory. That doesn't mean it is bad, just differnt (which is enough to get a lot of people needlessly alarmed, sadly).
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#49Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty…
GDP per capita doesn't go up when population goes down, because there are fewer people working to produce goods and services. There's no economy genie producing wealth that has to be divided among the population.
A large portion of country wealth is often tied up in land and infrastructure. Wealth generally creates more wealth (through interest and similar), so the same wealth spread across a smaller number of people will push GDP per capita upwards.
Higher incomes are also closely associated with better education. If you keep the number of universities and schools constant while decreasing the population, you give a larger percentage of the population access to better education.
If a family has two children, the wealth of the family must be divided between both children and each child has less individual wealth. As you need wealth to start a business, a higher base wealth across the population means more chance of new successful businesses being started by these children.
If a family has no children, the estate will move into public control, effectively increasing GDP per capita for the surviving population.
A reason for a low birthrate in Japan is lack of financial security. This means that people who have low wealth are self-selecting out of reproduction, effectively moving their wealth into public ownership when they pass away and moving the average up as the proportion of low wealth to high wealth families is shifted.
So yes, practically, GDP per capita will go up in Japan as the population shrinks. The global economy is more complex than just 'producing shiny widgets', or China would be far more well off than it is. Capitalism in action.
EDIT: As pointed out by others correctly, increased welfare burdens from too large a proportion of retired citizens will have an effect. This can swing two ways: increased taxes, or reduced welfare payments.
If reduced welfare payments is chosen, it will cancel out the problem. Japan will hopefully choose this route out of self preservation.
If increased taxes is chosen, it will effectively tunnel income into the housing sector (old age homes, etc) and medical sector (medicine, life support, etc). The housing sector increase will be offset by a smaller housing demand from lower population. The medical sector is the big issue: if this wealth can be tunneled into Japanese medicine and health care, then it will simply be a transfer from taxpayers to Japanese in the medical sector. This would probably cause all kinds of distortions and should be avoided. However, it's not guaranteed to be a bad thing, I think anyway. You'll just have more Japanese going to medical school.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#50I've modelled a society with 1.0 birth rate and everyone died. And it's not like died in a million years; no, the last "person" was born something like 150 years from the start. Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you can't have th…
Please don't make the mistake of assuming that any kind of growth is constant -- people respond to incentives and if the price of having a child goes up, people naturally respond by having fewer children. And yes, the price of child is the highest it has even been.
Just to satisfy my curiousity, how many people were in your society to begin with? At what age did they reproduce? Was the reproduction constant or did it change between couples?