Japan’s population fell by 800k last year as demographic crisis accelerates(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Japan’s population fell by 800k last year as demographic crisis accelerates
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/27/asia/japan-population-drop-2022-intl-hnk/index.html
116 comments
Japan is nowhere near the most densely populated country on earth. It's the 40th. Less dense than Belgium, Israel, India, Singapore, and South Korea, just to name a few. Calling Japan cramped for space is a stretch.
Japan is also not having any kind of managed population decline, unless they choose counterbalance old people dying with immigration. But so far it doesn't look like Japan is eager to embrace immigration. And that will result in a country with many old people and few working-age people. Hard to thrive with such an unbalanced population. That's why the article calls it a crisis.
Japan is also not having any kind of managed population decline, unless they choose counterbalance old people dying with immigration. But so far it doesn't look like Japan is eager to embrace immigration. And that will result in a country with many old people and few working-age people. Hard to thrive with such an unbalanced population. That's why the article calls it a crisis.
>Japan is nowhere near the most densely populated country on earth. It's the 40th. Less dense than Belgium, Israel, India, Singapore, and South Korea, just to name a few. Calling Japan cramped for space is a stretch.
But relatively little of Japan is actually livable: if you look at Honshu, most of the population is in plains on the coast, and most of the inland area mountainous and hardly inhabited.
For example, about a third of the population of Japan lives on the Kanto plain which represents just 4.5% of the land area.
But relatively little of Japan is actually livable: if you look at Honshu, most of the population is in plains on the coast, and most of the inland area mountainous and hardly inhabited.
For example, about a third of the population of Japan lives on the Kanto plain which represents just 4.5% of the land area.
Japan is also 73% mountains, so the populated areas are much denser than a simple population divided by area calculation would give.
> Japan is nowhere near the most densely populated country on earth. It's the 40th. Less dense than Belgium, Israel, India, Singapore, and South Korea, just to name a few. Calling Japan cramped for space is a stretch.
This is good rhetoric but poor logic. The mere existence of denser-populated places has no bearing on whether a particular place is too densely populated, any more than the mere existence of more polluted places has any bearing on whether a particular place is too polluted.
> Japan is also not having any kind of managed population decline, unless they choose counterbalance old people dying with immigration.
The idea that mass immigration is the only way to manage population decline is absurd and unserious.
This is good rhetoric but poor logic. The mere existence of denser-populated places has no bearing on whether a particular place is too densely populated, any more than the mere existence of more polluted places has any bearing on whether a particular place is too polluted.
> Japan is also not having any kind of managed population decline, unless they choose counterbalance old people dying with immigration.
The idea that mass immigration is the only way to manage population decline is absurd and unserious.
I've only heard this through word of mouth, but I heard a theory that one of the biggest reasons for the decline is because the work culture doesn't leave much time for life outside of work, diminishing the possibility of starting new families.
> California has a population under 40M (39.2M) and doesn't exactly feel sparsely populated.
Get out of the cities. California is _big_.
Get out of the cities. California is _big_.
California is full of public lands
https://4printablemap.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/nationa...
Non-public lands you will see on there are the coastline, the desert, and the Central Valley. If you drive the northern parts of highway 1, you’ll see many parts do seem very empty in between SF and LA. Compared to the development along the US east coast it is night and day. If you drive through the Central Valley, you’ll be enveloped in farmland. And the desert is the desert, nearly uninhabited. All of these places feel very sparsely populated.
Non-public lands you will see on there are the coastline, the desert, and the Central Valley. If you drive the northern parts of highway 1, you’ll see many parts do seem very empty in between SF and LA. Compared to the development along the US east coast it is night and day. If you drive through the Central Valley, you’ll be enveloped in farmland. And the desert is the desert, nearly uninhabited. All of these places feel very sparsely populated.
California is mostly desert, national forest, and fire country. LA, and SD exist in their current state due to large scale water works that bring water from outside of California.
For an American comparison, the northeastern US is home to 43% more People than California and is only 17% larger. In both California and the US, the population is concentrated on the coasts.
Would it be so surprising that a nation with a large coast, mild weather, and plenty of water would have a large population?
For an American comparison, the northeastern US is home to 43% more People than California and is only 17% larger. In both California and the US, the population is concentrated on the coasts.
Would it be so surprising that a nation with a large coast, mild weather, and plenty of water would have a large population?
> California has a population under 40M (39.2M) and doesn't exactly feel sparsely populated.
Tell me you have never been to California, or never ventured out of SF/LA, without telling me so.
> A managed population decline could be a good thing for Japan, its people, and its environment.
Is the current decline managed? Doesn't look like it. But would be great to see any sources about their government planning this.
Tell me you have never been to California, or never ventured out of SF/LA, without telling me so.
> A managed population decline could be a good thing for Japan, its people, and its environment.
Is the current decline managed? Doesn't look like it. But would be great to see any sources about their government planning this.
Problem is, is it something that can be stabilized / reversed? Or will it be somehing that can spiraling into a continuous decline and dangerous?
I read somewhere that a rather high ratio of fertile-age women there don't want children. Smartphone and abundance of cheap entertainment plus tight schedule and budget of modern world (and more other reasons) makes them prefer childless lifestyle.
I read somewhere that a rather high ratio of fertile-age women there don't want children. Smartphone and abundance of cheap entertainment plus tight schedule and budget of modern world (and more other reasons) makes them prefer childless lifestyle.
When you can easily get a seat on the rush hour subway people's attitudes may start changing.
Really, if _you_ want _other people_ to have children, you have to negotiate with and offer them something. That seems to be missing from so much of this demographic discourse.
Really, if _you_ want _other people_ to have children, you have to negotiate with and offer them something. That seems to be missing from so much of this demographic discourse.
Is that missing? Lots of countries have all sorts of incentives. And of course it’s strictly not true that direct incentives have been required throughout history, so it’s worth asking why they’d be required now and whether those factors can/should be changed directly.
There's an argument that I think is basically correct that governments are largely free-riding on people's inherent desire for children. This is to say that the value to a government of an additional child is substantially above the incentive they offer the parents of that child.
And I think this is because we sort of have this assumption that society having more kids is a thing we don't have to incentivize, and so we haven't really thought about what is the actual cost/value of that incentivization.
And I think this is because we sort of have this assumption that society having more kids is a thing we don't have to incentivize, and so we haven't really thought about what is the actual cost/value of that incentivization.
I'd point to the biggest change being the destruction of extended family living in developed countries, and consequently shifting child care costs directly onto working age parents.
Historically, countries got it both ways:
- Working age parents contributed the bulk of their time to the economy (historically: male, more recently: both)
- Older family members, especially grandparents, contributed free child care
Now, geographic mobility and preference have decreased the rate at which grandparents are co-located and available. And, critically, having children later in life has decreased the number of years grandparents are able to help.
If governments provided a net-zero cost, high-quality option for childcare, I feel like it'd substantially change potential family decisions.
But that's one of the substantially-more-expensive-than-current-benefits options you're talking about.
Historically, countries got it both ways:
- Working age parents contributed the bulk of their time to the economy (historically: male, more recently: both)
- Older family members, especially grandparents, contributed free child care
Now, geographic mobility and preference have decreased the rate at which grandparents are co-located and available. And, critically, having children later in life has decreased the number of years grandparents are able to help.
If governments provided a net-zero cost, high-quality option for childcare, I feel like it'd substantially change potential family decisions.
But that's one of the substantially-more-expensive-than-current-benefits options you're talking about.
Yeah. When my son was born I realized the geographic separation of the extended family in space is clearly unnatural. I don’t mean that in a moralizing way, just that it’s like walking on your hands rather than on your feet. Doable! You could get used to it! But it’s a hell of a lot harder than the alternative.
Throughout history childless people faced high risk of destitution in old age. That’s no longer true in most developed countries, and I don’t think anybody would want that to be changed.
> and I don’t think anybody would want that to be changed.
There are only 4 choices for developed countries:
1. be destitute in the old age - no one likes it
2. have children and prepare the next generation - barely happening
3. mass immigration - that changes culture and your native population may not like it. See: Italy (Meloni), France (Le Pen), UK (Brexit & immigrants), Sweden...
4. count on technology (AI, Robots) to take care of elders - it just seems dystopian if the youngest person in one's town is 17yo. Kind of like "Children of Men".
There are only 4 choices for developed countries:
1. be destitute in the old age - no one likes it
2. have children and prepare the next generation - barely happening
3. mass immigration - that changes culture and your native population may not like it. See: Italy (Meloni), France (Le Pen), UK (Brexit & immigrants), Sweden...
4. count on technology (AI, Robots) to take care of elders - it just seems dystopian if the youngest person in one's town is 17yo. Kind of like "Children of Men".
Mass immigration is becoming a zero-sum game. Japan's immigrants mostly come from China and Vietnam -- both of which countries have sub-replacement fertility themselves. Quite catastrophically so in China's case.
Now in mid-2023, the only countries with above replacement fertility are not "modern" societies in any sense of the word. e.g., even Bangladesh is now sub-replacement. Mass immigration from places with still-above-replacement fertility into countries like Japan and the UK is a recipe for disaster.
So #2 isn't happening, and #3 should be disfavored on ethical grounds. (Robbing Peter to pay Paul is at best ethically neutral; importing a natural underclass is to everybody's detriment and can only result in upheaval.)
#4 is the best option on the table.
Of course, there are additional ways by which the decline might be managed. Obviously pension and retirement schemes will need to be recalibrated, and older folks should be encouraged to move from the decaying periphery into large regional hubs where they can take advantage of support and medical services.
Now in mid-2023, the only countries with above replacement fertility are not "modern" societies in any sense of the word. e.g., even Bangladesh is now sub-replacement. Mass immigration from places with still-above-replacement fertility into countries like Japan and the UK is a recipe for disaster.
So #2 isn't happening, and #3 should be disfavored on ethical grounds. (Robbing Peter to pay Paul is at best ethically neutral; importing a natural underclass is to everybody's detriment and can only result in upheaval.)
#4 is the best option on the table.
Of course, there are additional ways by which the decline might be managed. Obviously pension and retirement schemes will need to be recalibrated, and older folks should be encouraged to move from the decaying periphery into large regional hubs where they can take advantage of support and medical services.
Historically, for most of the population in the majority of situations, children were an inexpensive asset, but things have changed. Raising children nowadays is outrageously expensive, and even owning a house that's an item of basic financial security for a family is already out of reach for a lot of people.
So the direct incentives that you claim that have never existed were there all the time, having a family with kids were the natural and expected thing to do. It used to go good and easy, but now all the economic incetives go against it.
I don't like to keep bringing back the old and tired trope of how the boomer discourse and worldview are completely out of touch with the reality, but when it comes to the debate about demographics it's completely impossible not to.
So the direct incentives that you claim that have never existed were there all the time, having a family with kids were the natural and expected thing to do. It used to go good and easy, but now all the economic incetives go against it.
I don't like to keep bringing back the old and tired trope of how the boomer discourse and worldview are completely out of touch with the reality, but when it comes to the debate about demographics it's completely impossible not to.
> children were an inexpensive asset ... Raising children nowadays is outrageously expensive,
not only that but earlier, your kids mainly benefited yourself as your social safety net when your grew old. Now, your kids generally benefit the whole society. So the cost of kids has gone up and is privatized, while the benefits are socialized. No wonder people are opting out of having kids.
not only that but earlier, your kids mainly benefited yourself as your social safety net when your grew old. Now, your kids generally benefit the whole society. So the cost of kids has gone up and is privatized, while the benefits are socialized. No wonder people are opting out of having kids.
I am quite certain that there's no easy way for governments to raise TFR. Hungary and S.Korea have tried, with relatively generous grants and incentives for parents, but the results are at best equivocal in Hungary's case and null in S.Korea's. What they're doing clearly isn't working.
So there are two options left on the table, which are bad but not utterly unreasonable:
1. Huge cash payouts for parents of children coupled with extremely generous incentives, both far beyond anything offered today. e.g., a $100k to $200k grant per child upon birth, with all hospital fees associated with childbirth covered by the state, free access to government childcare, and extremely generous tax credits for parents.
This might result in the wrong "sort of people" giving birth to many children... but at this point it's the one thing that hasn't been tried, it would resolve the concerns you mention in your post in a totally general sense, and it could also be a way to raise underclasses from poverty.
2. Manage the decline by investing in industries that can support an aging population, in programs that aim to pull people from decaying small towns into regional hubs, and by renormalizing retirement and pension schemes.
If there's a third way that isn't crazy -- which is to say bad _and_ unreasonable -- I'd like to hear it. (Examples of crazy ideas might include buying newborns from parents and raising them in government institutions, breeding children in artificial wombs, totally unfettered mass-immigration schemes, etc.)
So there are two options left on the table, which are bad but not utterly unreasonable:
1. Huge cash payouts for parents of children coupled with extremely generous incentives, both far beyond anything offered today. e.g., a $100k to $200k grant per child upon birth, with all hospital fees associated with childbirth covered by the state, free access to government childcare, and extremely generous tax credits for parents.
This might result in the wrong "sort of people" giving birth to many children... but at this point it's the one thing that hasn't been tried, it would resolve the concerns you mention in your post in a totally general sense, and it could also be a way to raise underclasses from poverty.
2. Manage the decline by investing in industries that can support an aging population, in programs that aim to pull people from decaying small towns into regional hubs, and by renormalizing retirement and pension schemes.
If there's a third way that isn't crazy -- which is to say bad _and_ unreasonable -- I'd like to hear it. (Examples of crazy ideas might include buying newborns from parents and raising them in government institutions, breeding children in artificial wombs, totally unfettered mass-immigration schemes, etc.)
3. Get rid of the aspects of capitalism which make it too difficult to have kids.
It isn't crazy. The system we have now is crazy. The fact that we're mentioning artificial wombs instead of destroying capitalism is worrying.
It isn't crazy. The system we have now is crazy. The fact that we're mentioning artificial wombs instead of destroying capitalism is worrying.
But what are those aspects, exactly? And would getting rid of them not result in a system that's alien to modern sensibilities in developed countries?
To a certain extent, it seems to me that very generous benefits for parents -- _or_ a total restructuring of retirement and pension plans, with the reinvestment of some of the gains in pro-natal policies -- is "getting rid of the aspects of capitalism which make it too difficult to have kids." Or at least side-stepping those aspects. And these policies should be not impossible to implement. "Destroying capitalism" on the other hand...
To a certain extent, it seems to me that very generous benefits for parents -- _or_ a total restructuring of retirement and pension plans, with the reinvestment of some of the gains in pro-natal policies -- is "getting rid of the aspects of capitalism which make it too difficult to have kids." Or at least side-stepping those aspects. And these policies should be not impossible to implement. "Destroying capitalism" on the other hand...
> But what are those aspects, exactly?
If I was to encapsulate it in one word: pressure. Or insecurity. Pressure to work, pressure to make "sound" financial decisions, of which committing to a dependent is not "sound".
If I was to encapsulate it in one word: pressure. Or insecurity. Pressure to work, pressure to make "sound" financial decisions, of which committing to a dependent is not "sound".
I'd say it's closely related: Force, the threat of force.
There should be options available to do nothing. We have private companies extracting "stuff" from the ground and privatizing the resulting profits. This is crazy. We throw out something like 1/2 of all food, which on average comes from hundreds of miles away so that food costs money, which if you don't have you starve.
We subsidize farms, the military, all kinds of things - but we privatize the profits.
There should be no threat of homelessness or starvation in our system. You want more than baseline, you have to work and compete. But we spend all this money to prop up this shitty system, I do not understand it.
There should be options available to do nothing. We have private companies extracting "stuff" from the ground and privatizing the resulting profits. This is crazy. We throw out something like 1/2 of all food, which on average comes from hundreds of miles away so that food costs money, which if you don't have you starve.
We subsidize farms, the military, all kinds of things - but we privatize the profits.
There should be no threat of homelessness or starvation in our system. You want more than baseline, you have to work and compete. But we spend all this money to prop up this shitty system, I do not understand it.
> And of course it’s strictly not true that direct incentives have been required throughout history
Have people forgotten that effective contraception is basically (with a few exceptions) a 20th century thing? I don't think HN really understands the sexual revolution at all.
Have people forgotten that effective contraception is basically (with a few exceptions) a 20th century thing? I don't think HN really understands the sexual revolution at all.
The relevance of this claim being that people primarily had children as a byproduct of wanting to have sex, versus a desire to procreate?
Contraception shouldn’t change the number of people who intend to procreate.
Contraception shouldn’t change the number of people who intend to procreate.
> people primarily had children as a byproduct of wanting to have sex
Yes? Again, this is so obvious I'm surprised to write it out.
> Contraception shouldn’t change the number of people who intend to procreate.
And yet it clearly did, largely by giving people the option to not procreate without having to remain forever unmarried and a low-status part of their father's household.
It's also preconditioned on education for women, both in learning the mechanics and choices involved in procreation and giving them some economic options other than that.
None of this is new or surprising; it's been deliberate policy for years! Here's a discussion of the successful reduction in fertility in Bangladesh, for example https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441730.2022.2...
Yes? Again, this is so obvious I'm surprised to write it out.
> Contraception shouldn’t change the number of people who intend to procreate.
And yet it clearly did, largely by giving people the option to not procreate without having to remain forever unmarried and a low-status part of their father's household.
It's also preconditioned on education for women, both in learning the mechanics and choices involved in procreation and giving them some economic options other than that.
None of this is new or surprising; it's been deliberate policy for years! Here's a discussion of the successful reduction in fertility in Bangladesh, for example https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441730.2022.2...
Yes I believe adjustment on population density and benefits will change the birth rate somehow. When babies are starting to be investment than outright expenses will change people's mind. However will it happen when the situation is still good or when it is already in danger.
Too many elderly that need to be supported by too few productive population is a dangerous situation.
Too many elderly that need to be supported by too few productive population is a dangerous situation.
A misogynistic culture is probably a bigger issue than smartphones in causing some women to decide against having children.
Thank you! “Why on Earth wouldn’t an educated adult want to be pressured out of her interesting job and back into complete dependence as soon as she has a child? Must be the mobile apps, not that taste of freedom they’ve had…”
A year of (mostly) maternal leave is silver, but a legal framework that normalizes working high-skill jobs part-time for several years is absolute gold to prudent young to middle aged women with aging parents but some desire to still have kids.
Aging parents: delighted to have them still with us, but on a practical level, not much lightening the child-rearing load. All the capacity for nurture, none of the capacity of chasing down a three year old who saw a dump truck drive by.
My small child’s grandparents and dear great-aunts are mid-70s to mid-80s. Two generations of having kids late will do that. My working part-time and flexibly has enabled us to promote my child’s relationships with them and makes it easier for me to help them, which they need a bit more every year.
I didn’t have to make the stark choice I see my friends back in the States making: go back to work before the baby is mobile and full time, or give up any serious job for the next several years and get to start over a decade later.
A year of (mostly) maternal leave is silver, but a legal framework that normalizes working high-skill jobs part-time for several years is absolute gold to prudent young to middle aged women with aging parents but some desire to still have kids.
Aging parents: delighted to have them still with us, but on a practical level, not much lightening the child-rearing load. All the capacity for nurture, none of the capacity of chasing down a three year old who saw a dump truck drive by.
My small child’s grandparents and dear great-aunts are mid-70s to mid-80s. Two generations of having kids late will do that. My working part-time and flexibly has enabled us to promote my child’s relationships with them and makes it easier for me to help them, which they need a bit more every year.
I didn’t have to make the stark choice I see my friends back in the States making: go back to work before the baby is mobile and full time, or give up any serious job for the next several years and get to start over a decade later.
You go to the countries with the highest birth rate in the world and they are no feminist paradise.
Japan for sure ranks pretty high on women freedom and rights and chances are that the track for these issues has been improving in the country over the years, not declining.
Japan for sure ranks pretty high on women freedom and rights and chances are that the track for these issues has been improving in the country over the years, not declining.
But facts speak otherwise - TFR is very high in traditional conservative societies (see Nigeria).
> California has a population under 40M (39.2M) and doesn't exactly feel sparsely populated.
California also has some rather terrible housing density issues (exacerbated by pro-land-speculator policies like Prop 13), which is a big part of why it feels crowded despite having a fraction of the population per square mile.
California also has some rather terrible housing density issues (exacerbated by pro-land-speculator policies like Prop 13), which is a big part of why it feels crowded despite having a fraction of the population per square mile.
Physical space has little to do with economic output.
[deleted]
>They needn't fall for the "population growth at all costs" meme, and I hope they don't.
It's so tiring reading this nonsense rhetoric over and over again.
Population decline resulting from decades of abysmal fertility rates is absolutely a horrible thing. There's no "meme" here to be had.
When people stop working, they stop contributing to society but they don't stop taking from it.
For as long as human society has formed, the solution was either the working population being productive enough for everyone else or the non working dying off soon after the fact.
When fertility rates are in the shitter for a long time, you guarantee that at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.
A demographic and societal collapse will ensue. Many benefits and safety nets for many people including the working will cease to exist simply because it can no longer be sustained.
Japan's national pension scheme is "pay as you go", meaning that benefits for retirees today are paid out of the contributions going into the scheme today.
Japan has already reached the point of having less than two workers per retiree. By 2050, that number is projected to be more like 1.5.
Paying some taxes to social security / medicare / etc works out OK when those go to cover 0.5 to 1 dependent per worker. When that 1 workers income needs to support 1.5 .. 2+ things will get ugly fast.
Once this hits in full force, it will last decades. It's that simple.
And it has nothing absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or communism or whatever -ism you might want to scapegoat. For as long as humans need to work to survive this will be a problem.
The problems Japan is having, South Korea is looking to speedrun. It's so bad that it's too late to forestall a collapse. Even if the country magically started having replenishing birth rates immediately, in at most a few decades, we'll be seeing a collapse that would last at least 20 years. This is the best case scenario. It's straight up apocalyptic.
This is what a population table looks like for a country that had a fertility rate of 6 at year 0 and then an extinction level rate of 1 for decades (SK is actually decidedly worse at 0.78 now).
(148) Year 0: 4 sixties, 11 forties, 33 twenties, 100 newborns,
(194) Year 20: 11 sixties, 33 forties, 100 twenties, 50 newborns
(208) Year 40: 33 sixties, 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns
(187) Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns
(93) Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns
(46) Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns
(23) Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn
It's like climate change. You go decades with everything looking normal at first glance. By the time, everything doesn't look so normal it's to late to do anything other than save your population from extinction. (Assuming you can even do that. A lot of people seem to miss the fact that not one country that has suffered declining fertility rates has managed to reverse the trend despite trying for decades. Not one)
It's so tiring reading this nonsense rhetoric over and over again.
Population decline resulting from decades of abysmal fertility rates is absolutely a horrible thing. There's no "meme" here to be had.
When people stop working, they stop contributing to society but they don't stop taking from it.
For as long as human society has formed, the solution was either the working population being productive enough for everyone else or the non working dying off soon after the fact.
When fertility rates are in the shitter for a long time, you guarantee that at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.
A demographic and societal collapse will ensue. Many benefits and safety nets for many people including the working will cease to exist simply because it can no longer be sustained.
Japan's national pension scheme is "pay as you go", meaning that benefits for retirees today are paid out of the contributions going into the scheme today.
Japan has already reached the point of having less than two workers per retiree. By 2050, that number is projected to be more like 1.5.
Paying some taxes to social security / medicare / etc works out OK when those go to cover 0.5 to 1 dependent per worker. When that 1 workers income needs to support 1.5 .. 2+ things will get ugly fast.
Once this hits in full force, it will last decades. It's that simple.
And it has nothing absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or communism or whatever -ism you might want to scapegoat. For as long as humans need to work to survive this will be a problem.
The problems Japan is having, South Korea is looking to speedrun. It's so bad that it's too late to forestall a collapse. Even if the country magically started having replenishing birth rates immediately, in at most a few decades, we'll be seeing a collapse that would last at least 20 years. This is the best case scenario. It's straight up apocalyptic.
This is what a population table looks like for a country that had a fertility rate of 6 at year 0 and then an extinction level rate of 1 for decades (SK is actually decidedly worse at 0.78 now).
(148) Year 0: 4 sixties, 11 forties, 33 twenties, 100 newborns,
(194) Year 20: 11 sixties, 33 forties, 100 twenties, 50 newborns
(208) Year 40: 33 sixties, 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns
(187) Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns
(93) Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns
(46) Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns
(23) Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn
It's like climate change. You go decades with everything looking normal at first glance. By the time, everything doesn't look so normal it's to late to do anything other than save your population from extinction. (Assuming you can even do that. A lot of people seem to miss the fact that not one country that has suffered declining fertility rates has managed to reverse the trend despite trying for decades. Not one)
Is it really a "horrible thing"?
You yourself mention climate change. There are increasing fights over WATER among PEOPLE [1], even as "freshwater" resources are being utilized to an extent where it's estimated that 1/3 of freshwater species are endangered or at risk of becoming endangered [2], microplastics everywhere [3], OTHER species being accelerated into extinction at a continuously increasing rate in general, etc.
Also, what happened to the "promise of automation" and "promise of mass production"? I thought we were all supposed to be "chillin' on the French Riviera while machines did so much that none of us had to work more than, say, 10 hours per week?" [4] ... I.e., shouldn't we be able to make do with fewer workers?? The even bigger laugh, there, is how much everyone is freaking out about "AI" now.
Decline in fertility in a more "organic" way, now (due to economics, impact of EDCs for years, etc.) is far better (for US, even, as a species) than "keeping the accelerator mashed to the floor as we barrel towards the cliff" [5] (when it'll be "Soylent Green" time for basically everyone, one way or another).
[1] https://fortune.com/2023/04/15/colorado-river-shrinking-cali...
[2] https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-the-north-american-be...
[3] https://www.academia.edu/download/59765553/Human_Consumption...
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward
[5] https://youtu.be/BGtEp7zFdrc
You yourself mention climate change. There are increasing fights over WATER among PEOPLE [1], even as "freshwater" resources are being utilized to an extent where it's estimated that 1/3 of freshwater species are endangered or at risk of becoming endangered [2], microplastics everywhere [3], OTHER species being accelerated into extinction at a continuously increasing rate in general, etc.
Also, what happened to the "promise of automation" and "promise of mass production"? I thought we were all supposed to be "chillin' on the French Riviera while machines did so much that none of us had to work more than, say, 10 hours per week?" [4] ... I.e., shouldn't we be able to make do with fewer workers?? The even bigger laugh, there, is how much everyone is freaking out about "AI" now.
Decline in fertility in a more "organic" way, now (due to economics, impact of EDCs for years, etc.) is far better (for US, even, as a species) than "keeping the accelerator mashed to the floor as we barrel towards the cliff" [5] (when it'll be "Soylent Green" time for basically everyone, one way or another).
[1] https://fortune.com/2023/04/15/colorado-river-shrinking-cali...
[2] https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-the-north-american-be...
[3] https://www.academia.edu/download/59765553/Human_Consumption...
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward
[5] https://youtu.be/BGtEp7zFdrc
> Is it really a "horrible thing"?
Undoubtedly so.
> Also, what happened to the "promise of automation" and "promise of mass production"?
Those were not based in reality. Or a more generous way to put it is they were based in 1920's reality but you want a 2020's lifestyle now. eg. do you want to have food, healthcare and housing of 1920's? It will suck, especially if there are not enough young workers.
See this recent article from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/03/health/elderly-living-alo...
Undoubtedly so.
> Also, what happened to the "promise of automation" and "promise of mass production"?
Those were not based in reality. Or a more generous way to put it is they were based in 1920's reality but you want a 2020's lifestyle now. eg. do you want to have food, healthcare and housing of 1920's? It will suck, especially if there are not enough young workers.
See this recent article from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/03/health/elderly-living-alo...
I have to admit that it's incredibly amusing to me that humanity could go extinct because we basically just didn't feel like bothering to keep the whole thing going. I'm certainly one of those who doesn't really see the point in it.
But I suspect there will always be some fundamentalist religious groups who will find reasons to reproduce no matter the economic or environmental realities of the future Earth.
But I suspect there will always be some fundamentalist religious groups who will find reasons to reproduce no matter the economic or environmental realities of the future Earth.
Happily, it's much more likely we will go extinct far less ... volitionally.
Always like to start the day on a high note ... where's that Addams Family comic book I like to keep handy for that extra kick I need to get the day started off right...
Always like to start the day on a high note ... where's that Addams Family comic book I like to keep handy for that extra kick I need to get the day started off right...
Japan: 377,973 km² [0]
California: 423,970 km² [1]
You are off by roughly 9 times. Not a small mistake.
[0]: https://www.worlddata.info/asia/japan/index.php
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
California: 423,970 km² [1]
You are off by roughly 9 times. Not a small mistake.
[0]: https://www.worlddata.info/asia/japan/index.php
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
Japan: 145,937 sq.m.
California: 163,696 sq.m.
163,696 - 10% = 147326.4
I said "10 percent" not "10 times." And it does so happen that Japan is roughly 10% smaller than California. (In fact it's closer to 11% smaller, but I rounded it out.)
California: 163,696 sq.m.
163,696 - 10% = 147326.4
I said "10 percent" not "10 times." And it does so happen that Japan is roughly 10% smaller than California. (In fact it's closer to 11% smaller, but I rounded it out.)
Oh, my bad. You are right. Somehow when I read your comment I thought you meant 10 times. Not sure why that happened.
Japan needs to move to a 4 day work week. Their culture and lifestyle is sucking the will to live from their young people. Moving to a 4 day work week will help the kids loosen up and feeling confident that they’re not bringing kids into a dystopian matrix-like world where all you do is work and then die.
If this was a crisis, which is highly questionable, isn’t the simple answer to offer generous tax incentives for families that have 4+ children while staying off of public assistance?
Aren’t tax incentives a form of public assistance? Tbh, I don’t understand why not just pay people for children straight up: pay for the cost of daycare, cover the cost of a birth, provide food and clothes fit for a child, offer incentives to employers to employ moms after they’ve finished raising.
Ultimately I think that will work: making parenthood a career, with money and respect.
I note that a lot of people seem to want new adults, as fully formed economic units, but few people seem to want children. More kids running around. Being helpful to mothers. Complimenting people who have lots of kids despite this basically making it impossible to work full or even part-time.
I note that a lot of people seem to want new adults, as fully formed economic units, but few people seem to want children. More kids running around. Being helpful to mothers. Complimenting people who have lots of kids despite this basically making it impossible to work full or even part-time.
[deleted]
It would be a simple answer if it was shown to work. But the results in other countries are at best iffy. I live in Germany and get both tax breaks and cold hard cash per child, but the results are not encouraging. As a parent it makes sense to me, I cannot imagine thinking about kids and having them for tax breaks.
＞ I cannot imagine thinking about kids and having them for tax breaks.
The reverse is true though: many couples wanting kids will bail at the price to pay without serious aids, and feel it would be a disservice to their kids to raise them in too poor conditions. Many couples won't make long term plans (including marrying/having kids) if they don't see a stable financial path down the line.
Now, the gov aids and labor laws provisions need to be significant to have a visible effect (e.g. a hundred or two bucks per child per months won't cut it). I don't know how far Germany went.
The reverse is true though: many couples wanting kids will bail at the price to pay without serious aids, and feel it would be a disservice to their kids to raise them in too poor conditions. Many couples won't make long term plans (including marrying/having kids) if they don't see a stable financial path down the line.
Now, the gov aids and labor laws provisions need to be significant to have a visible effect (e.g. a hundred or two bucks per child per months won't cut it). I don't know how far Germany went.
Germany specifically gives a lot of incentives, not just money and tax breaks but also subsidized kindergartens, and the numbers are stil poor. Not terrible, but less than adequate. E.g. the typical monthly fee would be enough for two days of kindergarten in Switzerland. So I am not really convinced those incentives work. It's an emotional decision, you either want kids or not. The economical decision is IMHO mostly about how much time you have. E.g. if you work 60 hours a week it will be tough to make that decision.
Yes, it really comes down to emotions and perception at the end of the day, and people's optimism really gets reflected in birth numbers in our societies.
I was looking at the comments on the r/germany about wanting kids but not being sure to be able to "afford" it [0]. This is a pretty common refrain for the Japanese youth as well, even going to down to not being able to afford dating as they're expected to spend money on courting, wining and dining in general.
https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/14jhwdn/after_10_y...
I was looking at the comments on the r/germany about wanting kids but not being sure to be able to "afford" it [0]. This is a pretty common refrain for the Japanese youth as well, even going to down to not being able to afford dating as they're expected to spend money on courting, wining and dining in general.
https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/14jhwdn/after_10_y...
Nordic countries with better welfare nets than JP have tried to carrots and didn't fare much better, much as in raising TFR over replacement.
I think problem will require much more sticks and state coercion, i.e. 90% inheritance tax or inheritance holds unless 2 kids. One stupid but IMO effective policy would be to ban pet licenses, the amount of single cat/dog women who use pets as relationship surrogate is absurd - pet ownership is 80% female in PRC.
I think problem will require much more sticks and state coercion, i.e. 90% inheritance tax or inheritance holds unless 2 kids. One stupid but IMO effective policy would be to ban pet licenses, the amount of single cat/dog women who use pets as relationship surrogate is absurd - pet ownership is 80% female in PRC.
Not every social problem can be tackled economically.
They should tax people who don't have kids, subsidize child care, enforce long maternity leave, etc.
Maybe the people who have kids should rake in dividends from the people who don't have kids.
Maybe the people who have kids should rake in dividends from the people who don't have kids.
As in many countries with declining population, as the demographic pyramid is inversed, voting power is concentrated on the elder side.
Good luck passing any laws that put elderlies at a clear short term disadvantage ("the country will be better for it in 20~30 years" won't resonate much to a 70 yo couple)
Good luck passing any laws that put elderlies at a clear short term disadvantage ("the country will be better for it in 20~30 years" won't resonate much to a 70 yo couple)
A tax on not having kids.... That sounds dystopian as hell.
Well one problem is that from an individualistic perspective, it makes financial sense to have as few children as possible (all other concerns aside). There should be government policies such that it's more financially rational to have kids, especially since children are generally a net positive.
Perhaps there should be a tax that starts at age 19, and increases in percentage the longer you don't have children. I am also not sure if it's better to only tax women (since they are the ultimate gatekeepers) or men as well.
If you do have children, especially 2 or above, the government should pay you dividends in some form along with other benefits.
Perhaps there should be a tax that starts at age 19, and increases in percentage the longer you don't have children. I am also not sure if it's better to only tax women (since they are the ultimate gatekeepers) or men as well.
If you do have children, especially 2 or above, the government should pay you dividends in some form along with other benefits.
So I was childless (not completely by choice) until the “happy accident” came along at 40. Part of it was waiting until we bought a house, because I’m Texan enough to have internalized that responsible people don’t have children before they own property (I don’t believe that for others, but I was never quite able to let it go for myself, much like my personal feelings about other social issues)
Punitive taxes on the childless would just ensure that the ones waiting for prudential reasons (savings, home ownership) would be even less likely to take the plunge.
Punitive taxes on the childless would just ensure that the ones waiting for prudential reasons (savings, home ownership) would be even less likely to take the plunge.
As a man, I'm not capable of having children, so that seems a bit unfair.
Exactly, pragmatic and effective while preserving Japanese culture. I would add qualifications that the family must be a nuclear family that is otherwise not on public assistance. Just give them huge tax breaks for having 4+ kids. The trend would reverse in 9 months.
> Just give them huge tax breaks for having 4+ kids. The trend would reverse in 9 months.
Hungary has already tried this and it doesn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary
> "The Second Orbán Government made saving the nation from the demographic abyss a key aspect and therefore has introduced generous breaks for large families and greatly increased social benefits for all families. Those with three or more children pay virtually no taxes."
S.Korea is trying regular cash payouts: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/12/south-korea-splashe...
Evidently much more is required. Or it could be that the problem isn't solely financial. In heavily urbanized countries, most people apparently prefer easy modern entertainments to the rigors and stresses of parenting.
Hungary has already tried this and it doesn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary
> "The Second Orbán Government made saving the nation from the demographic abyss a key aspect and therefore has introduced generous breaks for large families and greatly increased social benefits for all families. Those with three or more children pay virtually no taxes."
S.Korea is trying regular cash payouts: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/12/south-korea-splashe...
Evidently much more is required. Or it could be that the problem isn't solely financial. In heavily urbanized countries, most people apparently prefer easy modern entertainments to the rigors and stresses of parenting.
Those amounts are pitiful, S Korea is giving a total of $10k to have a kid? Even a $100k would barely scratch the surface in a high COL area where a partner is dropping a six figure salary or paying $40k/yr for daycare.
If they’re serious then make the incentives serious, and scale.
If they’re serious then make the incentives serious, and scale.
I disagree about the public assistance part especially for a country like Japan.
I'm not sure if anyone cares about this anymore, but ethnically Japanese people will become nearly extinct if they don't make some radical changes. They should massively incentivize people - even financially poor Japanese - to have kids. Just because someone has a career in e.g. a Japanese bank moving spreadsheets around doesn't mean they should be favored.
I'm not sure if anyone cares about this anymore, but ethnically Japanese people will become nearly extinct if they don't make some radical changes. They should massively incentivize people - even financially poor Japanese - to have kids. Just because someone has a career in e.g. a Japanese bank moving spreadsheets around doesn't mean they should be favored.
Japan is a fascinating case. It's GDP is stable despite a shrinking population. Is it only staying stable because of the population change?
If western countries with a similar birth rate problem stopped immigration, would western countries have a similar economic outlook as Japan?
If western countries with a similar birth rate problem stopped immigration, would western countries have a similar economic outlook as Japan?
Growing gdp mostly involves fixing the bottlenecks on production. IT and technological efficiencies, integration between companies usually goes a longer way than importing the 354564th taxi driver
> IT and technological efficiencies, integration between companies usually goes a longer way than importing the 354564th taxi driver
/confused Germany noises
/confused Germany noises
Do you have any evidence of this? The more people you have the bigger the gap usually is.
[deleted]
Everytime this comes up, I always see the "this good, Overpopulation!" rhetoric and it's so wrong.
Population decline resulting from decades of abysmal fertility rates is absolutely a horrible thing.
When people stop working, they stop contributing to society but they don't stop taking from it.
For as long as human society has formed, the solution was either the working population being productive enough for everyone else or the non working dying off soon after the fact.
When fertility rates are in the shitter for a long time, you guarantee that at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.
A demographic and societal collapse will ensue. Many benefits and safety nets for many people including the working will cease to exist simply because it can no longer be sustained. Once this hits in full force, it will last decades. It's that simple.
And it has nothing absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or communism or whatever -ism you might want to scapegoat. For as long as humans need to work to survive this will be a problem.
The problems Japan is having, South Korea is looking to speedrun. It's so bad that it's too late to forestall a collapse. Even if the country magically started having replenishing birth rates immediately, in at most a few decades, we'll be seeing a collapse that would last at least 20 years. This is the best case scenario. It's straight up apocalyptic.
This is what a population table looks like for a country that had a fertility rate of 6 at year 0 and then an extinction level rate of 1 for decades (SK is actually decidedly worse at 0.78 now).
(148) Year 0: 4 sixties, 11 forties, 33 twenties, 100 newborns,
(194) Year 20: 11 sixties, 33 forties, 100 twenties, 50 newborns
(208) Year 40: 33 sixties, 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns
(187) Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns
(93) Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns
(46) Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns
(23) Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn
It's like climate change. You go decades with everything looking normal at first glance. By the time, everything doesn't look so normal it's to late to do anything other than save your population from extinction. (Assuming you can even do that. A lot of people seem to miss the fact that not one country that has suffered declining fertility rates has managed to reverse the trend despite trying for decades. Not one)
Population decline resulting from decades of abysmal fertility rates is absolutely a horrible thing.
When people stop working, they stop contributing to society but they don't stop taking from it.
For as long as human society has formed, the solution was either the working population being productive enough for everyone else or the non working dying off soon after the fact.
When fertility rates are in the shitter for a long time, you guarantee that at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.
A demographic and societal collapse will ensue. Many benefits and safety nets for many people including the working will cease to exist simply because it can no longer be sustained. Once this hits in full force, it will last decades. It's that simple.
And it has nothing absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or communism or whatever -ism you might want to scapegoat. For as long as humans need to work to survive this will be a problem.
The problems Japan is having, South Korea is looking to speedrun. It's so bad that it's too late to forestall a collapse. Even if the country magically started having replenishing birth rates immediately, in at most a few decades, we'll be seeing a collapse that would last at least 20 years. This is the best case scenario. It's straight up apocalyptic.
This is what a population table looks like for a country that had a fertility rate of 6 at year 0 and then an extinction level rate of 1 for decades (SK is actually decidedly worse at 0.78 now).
(148) Year 0: 4 sixties, 11 forties, 33 twenties, 100 newborns,
(194) Year 20: 11 sixties, 33 forties, 100 twenties, 50 newborns
(208) Year 40: 33 sixties, 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns
(187) Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns
(93) Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns
(46) Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns
(23) Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn
It's like climate change. You go decades with everything looking normal at first glance. By the time, everything doesn't look so normal it's to late to do anything other than save your population from extinction. (Assuming you can even do that. A lot of people seem to miss the fact that not one country that has suffered declining fertility rates has managed to reverse the trend despite trying for decades. Not one)
You're doing the 'exponential trends will continue to be exponential forever' thing.
Sadly, their mathematical assumptions are actually very reasonable and conservative. They're not saying "this exponential trend will continue", they're saying "what happens in 30 years to South Korea if the current state continues?"
And the answer is that there will be something like two 80 yr olds for every 30 yr old.
And the answer is that there will be something like two 80 yr olds for every 30 yr old.
I'm not lol. That's the point. Even if Japan or South Korea had full reverse right from this instant, a collapse that will last decades is inevitable. That's the consequence of low and further declining fertility rates for decades. The table has already been set.
Yes, a 'collapse' is inevitable. But you seem to be suggesting that it will go on 'collapsing', is that not correct? (Please correct me if my assumption is wrong.) Populations do not keep collapsing to zero; at some point the decline is reversed.
And a population 'collapse' is not necessarily bad for a country or a region in the long term. Indeed it can be rejuvenating in the long term. Europe suffered a massive population 'collapse' after the Black Death pandemics. This had the long term effect of making peasants' labour more valuable which ultimately led to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of a Middle Class.
And a population 'collapse' is not necessarily bad for a country or a region in the long term. Indeed it can be rejuvenating in the long term. Europe suffered a massive population 'collapse' after the Black Death pandemics. This had the long term effect of making peasants' labour more valuable which ultimately led to the Industrial Revolution and the rise of a Middle Class.
I never said anything about collapsing to zero.
And raw population numbers are the least of the problems here. The comparison to the Black Death is rather silly.
And raw population numbers are the least of the problems here. The comparison to the Black Death is rather silly.
> The comparison to the Black Death is rather silly.
Why? It's a very well explored and prominent example of a population 'collapse' leading to long term rejuvenation (and innovation).
I'm not pretending that some of the short term to medium term consequences of a population 'collapse' (I keep putting it in quotes because it's your word and I think it's too emotive) won't be dire. But at some point a population has to go through a period of decline. We see this all the time in the natural world. People who don't want to have any periods of decline and go all Chicken Little with emotive talk of 'collapse' and worse for any period of population decline seem to want to exist in a fantasy world, in my opinion, of endless upwards growth. Not the real world, where, to slightly belabour a point, animal populations go through cycles of growth and decline, repeatedly.
Why? It's a very well explored and prominent example of a population 'collapse' leading to long term rejuvenation (and innovation).
I'm not pretending that some of the short term to medium term consequences of a population 'collapse' (I keep putting it in quotes because it's your word and I think it's too emotive) won't be dire. But at some point a population has to go through a period of decline. We see this all the time in the natural world. People who don't want to have any periods of decline and go all Chicken Little with emotive talk of 'collapse' and worse for any period of population decline seem to want to exist in a fantasy world, in my opinion, of endless upwards growth. Not the real world, where, to slightly belabour a point, animal populations go through cycles of growth and decline, repeatedly.
[deleted]
For people interested in demographics and its consequences, Peter Zeihan (all over Youtube) has a lot of very interesting research into it.
Zeihan says a lot of interesting stuff, but his track record is pretty spotty.
Are the other analysts with more accurate track records? Which major issues has he gotten wrong?
https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-7-the-northeast-asian-c...
https://zeihan.com/demographics-part-7-the-northeast-asian-c...
He’s incredibly smart and on the whole on the right track.
He gets too excited sometimes, like when I saw him give a lecture and seriously say we’d have 9-10% inflation YoY last year and just as much this year IIRC.
I recommend his book to anyone who is interested, he’s not a pundit or anything and has lots to chew on!
He gets too excited sometimes, like when I saw him give a lecture and seriously say we’d have 9-10% inflation YoY last year and just as much this year IIRC.
I recommend his book to anyone who is interested, he’s not a pundit or anything and has lots to chew on!
I just finished his book, “ The End of the World Is Just the Beginning.”
It was a pretty fascinating (though alarmist) thesis on how a number of countries are poised for “demographic collapse” due to aging and shrinking populations and what that will ultimately mean for globalization.
It was a pretty fascinating (though alarmist) thesis on how a number of countries are poised for “demographic collapse” due to aging and shrinking populations and what that will ultimately mean for globalization.
[deleted]
I have seen people online accusing this guy of being a CIA stooge, and some other people saying he’s controlled opposition paid by the CCP.
If he has managed to get both of these monikers, his analysis must be fairly legitimate.
If he has managed to get both of these monikers, his analysis must be fairly legitimate.
It's funny how headlines like this are instantly alarming, but they really shouldn't be. A natural population decline is the best thing we can have right now. It's not hard to make babies, it's in fact too easy.
Imagine if a breed of deer living in a restricted space naturally controlled its population in relation to the resources of their living space. That would be amazing!
More close to home, but a lot less popular, is the fact that the population of Croatia has also been steadily declining ever since the massive exodus of the last civil war.
From 1990 to 2023 the population of Croatia has declined from 4.8m to 4m, that's an even greater decline than Japan viewed in percent of population. Very alarming if it's part of your culture and language disappearing.
Imagine if a breed of deer living in a restricted space naturally controlled its population in relation to the resources of their living space. That would be amazing!
More close to home, but a lot less popular, is the fact that the population of Croatia has also been steadily declining ever since the massive exodus of the last civil war.
From 1990 to 2023 the population of Croatia has declined from 4.8m to 4m, that's an even greater decline than Japan viewed in percent of population. Very alarming if it's part of your culture and language disappearing.
You’re not wrong, but our entire economic system is built on the idea that the pensioners will be supported by a steady stream of tax paying younger workers.
When that stream collapses, paying for the pensioners becomes much harder.
When that stream collapses, paying for the pensioners becomes much harder.
Sure, but 800k out of 120m people is nowhere near affecting the senior citizens of the future. Time will tell if it's a stabilizing change that will oscillate around some baseline, or if it will continue to drastically decline.
And even if a drastic decline is the future we're looking at, there is no shortage of immigrants who are willing to take menial jobs for low pay. As far as I know Japan hasn't been an inviting immigration destination so far. There are policy changes to make that could easily inject some population to the country.
And even if a drastic decline is the future we're looking at, there is no shortage of immigrants who are willing to take menial jobs for low pay. As far as I know Japan hasn't been an inviting immigration destination so far. There are policy changes to make that could easily inject some population to the country.
>It's funny how headlines like this are instantly alarming, but they really shouldn't be. A natural population decline is the best thing we can have right now.
Japan's crisis is in the overlap of economics and demographics. The shrinking economically active population cannot hope to sustain the growing population of retirees.
Japan's crisis is in the overlap of economics and demographics. The shrinking economically active population cannot hope to sustain the growing population of retirees.
Retirees will need to accept less support from the working population. Measures like increasing the retirement age will help a lot. Slashing retirement benefits.
I have always wondered did the boomer generation get to exploit everyone? Their parents were used to much lower living standards thus also accepted them in retirement. And now their children which there is less than them, have to also pay their retirement. While many of them might not have stored enough economic value during their working life...
And sadly I think they might get away with it...
And sadly I think they might get away with it...
> Imagine if a breed of deer living in a restricted space naturally controlled its population in relation to the resources in their living space
Indeed. People seem to forget that the alternative to "contraception-limited" is "death-limited". In Scotland, since killing all the natural predators, we have to keep culling the deer in order to maintain the ecosystem.
Indeed. People seem to forget that the alternative to "contraception-limited" is "death-limited". In Scotland, since killing all the natural predators, we have to keep culling the deer in order to maintain the ecosystem.
Japan isn’t naturally controlling its population, there’s no agency behind its declining birth rate, unlike somewhere like China where the one child policy was a purposeful government population control. The Japan population is not tied in any way to Japan’s resource limitations.
On top of that, it is harder to make babies now than ever, given declining fertility rates.
On top of that, it is harder to make babies now than ever, given declining fertility rates.
> there’s no agency behind its declining birth rate
There's the agency of every fertile Japanese couple deciding whether to have children and how many. That's a lot more natural than an extremist government imposed policy like China's One Child Policy.
There's the agency of every fertile Japanese couple deciding whether to have children and how many. That's a lot more natural than an extremist government imposed policy like China's One Child Policy.
This is just wrong lol.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36920150
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36920150
Yeah I think the degrowthers and others underestimate some of the ugly political decisions & societal preference that will ensue in such a world.
Paying some taxes to social security / medicare / etc works out OK when those go to cover 0.5 to 1 dependent per worker. When that 1 workers income needs to support 1.5 .. 2+ things will get ugly.
Paying some taxes to social security / medicare / etc works out OK when those go to cover 0.5 to 1 dependent per worker. When that 1 workers income needs to support 1.5 .. 2+ things will get ugly.
Your argument seems to hinge on:
“at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.”
That’s a completely reasonable take in, at a minimum, pre-industrial times.
There is a long dream that “increases in productivity will allow us to live lives of leisure.” This is obviously not how things have turned out, but it isn’t clear to me that we cannot choose this.
Anyway, what percentage of us actually need to work? Where is the point that we cannot cross? I am skeptical that Japan will come anywhere close.
“at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.”
That’s a completely reasonable take in, at a minimum, pre-industrial times.
There is a long dream that “increases in productivity will allow us to live lives of leisure.” This is obviously not how things have turned out, but it isn’t clear to me that we cannot choose this.
Anyway, what percentage of us actually need to work? Where is the point that we cannot cross? I am skeptical that Japan will come anywhere close.
>Where is the point that we cannot cross? I am skeptical that Japan will come anywhere close.
Japan's national pension scheme is "pay as you go", meaning that benefits for retirees today are paid out of the contributions going into the scheme today.
Japan has already reached the point of having less than two workers per retiree. By 2050, that number is projected to be more like 1.5: the writing is on the wall.
Japan's national pension scheme is "pay as you go", meaning that benefits for retirees today are paid out of the contributions going into the scheme today.
Japan has already reached the point of having less than two workers per retiree. By 2050, that number is projected to be more like 1.5: the writing is on the wall.
Those are interesting numbers but they only are half of the equation. Is this a crisis depends on: how productive are Japan’s workers?
Something like 80+% of America worked in agriculture in 1800 but now it’s around 10%. The information revolution has similarly made so many things incredibly more efficient. So how far does that ratio need to go before it’s actually untenable? And how much of whatever breaks do we actually need?
Something like 80+% of America worked in agriculture in 1800 but now it’s around 10%. The information revolution has similarly made so many things incredibly more efficient. So how far does that ratio need to go before it’s actually untenable? And how much of whatever breaks do we actually need?
>Something like 80+% of America worked in agriculture in 1800 but now it’s around 10%.
You're not getting it. It doesn't matter who works where. Even then, an average worker could only provide the average standard for him and two dependants. That ratio hasn't changed. Only the standard of living has.
If your "solution" is to cut back the standard of living for everyone then I'm sorry but that is absolutely a societal collapse.
People need to work to live in society. As long as that is true then this is an actual problem with at best very painful solutions.
You're not getting it. It doesn't matter who works where. Even then, an average worker could only provide the average standard for him and two dependants. That ratio hasn't changed. Only the standard of living has.
If your "solution" is to cut back the standard of living for everyone then I'm sorry but that is absolutely a societal collapse.
People need to work to live in society. As long as that is true then this is an actual problem with at best very painful solutions.
I think you’re right that I’m proposing that the standard of living can be scaled back.
You see this as a societal collapse, and that’s a fine take. I’m not sure it’s a collapse. I think it’s a choice.
We’ve made that choice, and hey, I like my house and my car and my pool. There are benefits. But I also work my ass off. Is it really necessary?
Anyway, there are many countries where folks live far less extravagantly than Japan…
You see this as a societal collapse, and that’s a fine take. I’m not sure it’s a collapse. I think it’s a choice.
We’ve made that choice, and hey, I like my house and my car and my pool. There are benefits. But I also work my ass off. Is it really necessary?
Anyway, there are many countries where folks live far less extravagantly than Japan…
Any "choice" that is made suddenly and outside your control is not a choice.
>Anyway, there are many countries where folks live far less extravagantly than Japan…
Lol yes and they're all striving to get out of that for obvious reasons.
>Anyway, there are many countries where folks live far less extravagantly than Japan…
Lol yes and they're all striving to get out of that for obvious reasons.
Society has a collective choice to make, I mean. Obviously none of us individually have any real power here.
I just think there are possible alternatives to “everyone continues to work full time regardless of how productive we become.”
I just think there are possible alternatives to “everyone continues to work full time regardless of how productive we become.”
But that's still looking at things from a very narrow perspective. You're ignoring that there is an entire world out there of people who are willing to make use of modern global communication.
I've heard in the past that Japan has been notoriously hard to emigrate to, but I could be wrong. Either way, there is a solution.
I've heard in the past that Japan has been notoriously hard to emigrate to, but I could be wrong. Either way, there is a solution.
All of the developed world is below replacement. The same issues are coming for everyone albeit with some countries later than others.
And that is with active, prudent immigration since around the same time the problem began.
That you think immigration is a solution now just says it all.
Do you realize the scores of millions of bodies Japan will need in very short time to reach a stable population when the collapse hits ? Oh yeah let's just get 40 million immigrants in. Very realistic.
Japan could be the most immigration happy country by a mile tomorrow and a collapse will still happen. That is set in stone.
And that is with active, prudent immigration since around the same time the problem began.
That you think immigration is a solution now just says it all.
Do you realize the scores of millions of bodies Japan will need in very short time to reach a stable population when the collapse hits ? Oh yeah let's just get 40 million immigrants in. Very realistic.
Japan could be the most immigration happy country by a mile tomorrow and a collapse will still happen. That is set in stone.
Their population decreased by 800k this year, why do you think they need 40m people?
Yes I do think there's a solution, and no I don't think it's worth getting alarmed over these headlines. But I also don't feel qualified to be discussing it on any advanced level. I'm just going with my gut and personal observations here.
Yes I do think there's a solution, and no I don't think it's worth getting alarmed over these headlines. But I also don't feel qualified to be discussing it on any advanced level. I'm just going with my gut and personal observations here.
There are big gaps between
1. the start of the problem,
2. when the first signs start showing and
3. when the collapse hits.
Japan is at 2. 3 won't hit for a few decades more, likely around 2060 or so.
What makes this problem unintuitive unlike most problems is that once the beginning signs hit, it's too late to avoid 3 for at least some time. You can shorten the length of the collapse but it is happening.
Now let's think and simply. We're in the year 2055.
If the problem in 2055 is that there aren't enough workers then that means the necessary children consistently weren't born starting some 80 to about some 30 years ago.
Importing immigrants or suddenly giving birth back in 2023 won't change that fact. The real problem had already happened even then.You can't change the past.
Japan didn't need those children in 2023+ for the problem in 2055. They didn't need those immigrants.
If you import the immigrants or have the children in 2023, it's to shorten the duration of the collapse not to avoid it. Japan could say they brought in a million immigrants tomorrow and literally nothing changes for 2055 prospects.
But by the time they do need those workers in 2055, they will need so much more of them (because of how exponential the population decline will be. See the table)
1. the start of the problem,
2. when the first signs start showing and
3. when the collapse hits.
Japan is at 2. 3 won't hit for a few decades more, likely around 2060 or so.
What makes this problem unintuitive unlike most problems is that once the beginning signs hit, it's too late to avoid 3 for at least some time. You can shorten the length of the collapse but it is happening.
Now let's think and simply. We're in the year 2055.
If the problem in 2055 is that there aren't enough workers then that means the necessary children consistently weren't born starting some 80 to about some 30 years ago.
Importing immigrants or suddenly giving birth back in 2023 won't change that fact. The real problem had already happened even then.You can't change the past.
Japan didn't need those children in 2023+ for the problem in 2055. They didn't need those immigrants.
If you import the immigrants or have the children in 2023, it's to shorten the duration of the collapse not to avoid it. Japan could say they brought in a million immigrants tomorrow and literally nothing changes for 2055 prospects.
But by the time they do need those workers in 2055, they will need so much more of them (because of how exponential the population decline will be. See the table)
Sure but I've seen this problem solved, on a smaller scale but still. Sweden also had declining birth rates, maybe they still do, and now almost every nursing home is staffed by immigrants.
I'd say at least 98% of nursing staff is from outside Sweden, mostly 1st generation immigrants.
So there is absolutely a solution in immigration.
I'd say at least 98% of nursing staff is from outside Sweden, mostly 1st generation immigrants.
So there is absolutely a solution in immigration.
>Sure but I've seen this problem solved, on a smaller scale but still.
No you haven't.
1. Sweden's hasn't had declining rates for either as long or as low as Japan. Japan have a bigger share of aged people already and the real problems have yet to hit.
Sweden have solved nothing lol. They're basically Year 40 on the table. The pyramid is only going to get so much worse. Immigrants taking care of the old now is the least of the myriad of problems that will hit.
No you haven't.
1. Sweden's hasn't had declining rates for either as long or as low as Japan. Japan have a bigger share of aged people already and the real problems have yet to hit.
Sweden have solved nothing lol. They're basically Year 40 on the table. The pyramid is only going to get so much worse. Immigrants taking care of the old now is the least of the myriad of problems that will hit.
California has a population under 40M (39.2M) and doesn't exactly feel sparsely populated.
A managed population decline could be a good thing for Japan, its people, and its environment. They needn't fall for the "population growth at all costs" meme, and I hope they don't.