Japan home to 541,000 young recluses(japantimes.co.jp)
japantimes.co.jp
Japan home to 541,000 young recluses
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/07/national/japan-home-541000-young-recluses-survey-finds/#.V9CqR1t961s
252 comments
Did anyone notice that it is 0.4 percent of Japan's population?
As of 2010, about 2 percent of the U.S. adult population have a severe form of social phobia and have trouble leaving their house, according to the National Institutes of Mental Health: http://www.livescience.com/16216-outgoing-shy-personality-na...
It's not coming to the west. It's more here than there.
I don't know about it being the fault of the education system, though.
As of 2010, about 2 percent of the U.S. adult population have a severe form of social phobia and have trouble leaving their house, according to the National Institutes of Mental Health: http://www.livescience.com/16216-outgoing-shy-personality-na...
It's not coming to the west. It's more here than there.
I don't know about it being the fault of the education system, though.
The number is limited to people aged 15-39. I can't figure out what percent that is, maybe someone with a wolfram alpha pro account can do it:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+japan+be...
Also, having trouble leaving the house vs: The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry defines hikikomori as people who have stayed at home for at least six months without going to school or work, or going out to interact with others.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+japan+be...
Also, having trouble leaving the house vs: The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry defines hikikomori as people who have stayed at home for at least six months without going to school or work, or going out to interact with others.
Yes, they're not measuring the same things.
"having trouble leaving the house" != "never leaving their room"
You just have to phrase it correctly:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+japan+ag...
It's 4.75% according to alpha based on a 2010 estimate.
It's 4.75% according to alpha based on a 2010 estimate.
[deleted]
I think that although SAD and being a recluse are linked, they aren't the same thing. It's interesting that the reported amount of people with SAD in the US is so high compared to Japan [0] so I also did a little searching in Japanese. It seems that because of the availability and access to psychological treatment in Japan[1], the reported number of cases of SAD is possibly 5 times lower than the number given (0.7%)
[0] WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium: 2004
[1]http://pax.moo.jp/sadjournal/2014/01/24/日本人は社会不安障害にならない？/
[0] WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium: 2004
[1]http://pax.moo.jp/sadjournal/2014/01/24/日本人は社会不安障害にならない？/
I wonder if the social phobia is equivalent in both populations, but that Japan is (however it may be) more accepting of aversion to a social life?
This implies that hikkikomori are accepted in Japanese society. They are definitely not. Which is part of the reason for their social withdrawal.
I meant in the sense that perhaps parents, with children displaying early signs of social phobia, are more accommodating. Are families too enabling of behaviour that can become entrenched?
I mean, what are they supposed to do, kick their children out of the house?
In the end, the genesis of Hikkikomori's reclusion is their feeling of having failed at life. They can't deal with society's expectations of them, so they withdraw from it completely. There's not much parents can do to change that feeling of failure.
It's not really a distinctly Japanese phenomenon. I'm sure you can find just as many young recluses in every developed country. Japan just found a cute term for it, that's all.
In the end, the genesis of Hikkikomori's reclusion is their feeling of having failed at life. They can't deal with society's expectations of them, so they withdraw from it completely. There's not much parents can do to change that feeling of failure.
It's not really a distinctly Japanese phenomenon. I'm sure you can find just as many young recluses in every developed country. Japan just found a cute term for it, that's all.
Gentle prodding.
"Hey, we're going out to hike a trail. It's only for the morning. Please come along with us."
"Dad's going to the baseball but has no one to go with him. Can you go too so he doesn't get lost?"
"Hey, we're going out to hike a trail. It's only for the morning. Please come along with us."
"Dad's going to the baseball but has no one to go with him. Can you go too so he doesn't get lost?"
"as those who have shut themselves in their homes for at least seven years accounted for about 35 percent of the total"
The US measure of severe phobia is one thing, but the cutoffs being used for the phenomenon in Japan are way stricter.
The US measure of severe phobia is one thing, but the cutoffs being used for the phenomenon in Japan are way stricter.
But what percentage of country's youth?
I imagine it will turn into something like 3%.
I imagine it will turn into something like 3%.
The economic system is at the core of this. People rise to meet opportunities, but jobs have become difficult, rare, and disconnected from purpose or benefit.
In the past there were plenty of jobs at all levels but modern business productivity is so high that demand for labor has become specialized and for many has essentially collapsed. What exactly will replace labor is not clear, but some kind of basic income would enable people to pursue meaningful contributions to society outside the dollars per hour context and thus open up many new possibilities.
In the past there were plenty of jobs at all levels but modern business productivity is so high that demand for labor has become specialized and for many has essentially collapsed. What exactly will replace labor is not clear, but some kind of basic income would enable people to pursue meaningful contributions to society outside the dollars per hour context and thus open up many new possibilities.
Demographically speaking, I think Japan would be the perfect place to test the basic income: A largely homogenous society where there is almost no one from the outside to be seen as a "freeloading", collectivist values forming strong group bonds too.
Unfortunately, I have spoken to a lot of people in Japan who are dead against any kind of social security. It's not an unusual to view unemployed and poor people as 100% responsible and worthy of no empathy.
Unfortunately, I have spoken to a lot of people in Japan who are dead against any kind of social security. It's not an unusual to view unemployed and poor people as 100% responsible and worthy of no empathy.
which is likely due to the working conditions of twelve hour days and such. i have trouble empathising with such people myself when i have to put my life 'on hold' to attend a job.
Isnt Japans population aging quite quickly though? When some concentration of retirement aged people is reached, surely these attitudes will see a decline also?
I always hear about how Japan is making robots to take care of the elderly, because there will soon be more elderly than young - so i guess im going off that.
I always hear about how Japan is making robots to take care of the elderly, because there will soon be more elderly than young - so i guess im going off that.
I wonder if those two things are correlated - i.e. if the society has collectivist values and tolerates no "freeloading", it'd be easy to introduce basic income, technically, but the society would not want to do it.
I can say from first hand experience that Just about everyone I know in Japan is an A+ student by American standards. That goes for the chief of an aerospace subcontractor right down to the kid behind the counter at 7-11. You might think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.
I think that basic income should be temporary though. Like I'm having a hard time imagining a functioning society where a significant portion of the population is on basic income.
You are missing the point: everyone gets basic income, regardless of income. So people with nothing have enough to eat and live and people with jobs don't feel like they are being freeloaded - they are getting the same amount of money on top of their salary.
People, justifiably, ask how we could possibly pay for all this, but the current US welfare system costs a comparable amount. Moreover, the US financial system is currently set up to allow money inflows to be controlled and to benefit the central banks. A much more sensible and effective method for controlling the velocity of the economy would be to put place monetary inflows into everyone's individual bank accounts, but obviously the people in control aren't going to give up the gravy.
People, justifiably, ask how we could possibly pay for all this, but the current US welfare system costs a comparable amount. Moreover, the US financial system is currently set up to allow money inflows to be controlled and to benefit the central banks. A much more sensible and effective method for controlling the velocity of the economy would be to put place monetary inflows into everyone's individual bank accounts, but obviously the people in control aren't going to give up the gravy.
So we take what we're currently spending and spread it out to everyone instead of just people who need it?
Doesn't that mean that the people who need it the most will just get less than they're getting now?
In other words, are people who are relying on current US welfare systems often using more than (say) 10k/year in total benefits, and giving them 10k in cash instead would actually reduce their total compensation? And if not, then how can the cost of our current welfare systems be comparable to UBI?
Doesn't that mean that the people who need it the most will just get less than they're getting now?
In other words, are people who are relying on current US welfare systems often using more than (say) 10k/year in total benefits, and giving them 10k in cash instead would actually reduce their total compensation? And if not, then how can the cost of our current welfare systems be comparable to UBI?
The current US welfare system is such a complicated clusterfuck of fragmented programs that anything would be an improvement. The most insidious aspect is that it has all of these income cliffs where actually working and earning over a certain level means that you lose benefits, so that earning one dollar more may cost you thousands in lost benefits.
That's a problem with government taxation and spending in general--it's what happens when you map one number to another using discontinuous lookup tables instead of continuous functions.
In what way is that a general problem with government taxation? There's no reason you can't make the tax function continuous, the US just doesn't.
>> So we take what we're currently spending and spread it out to everyone instead of just people who need it?
You would presumably couple it with a heavily progressive income tax, with the result that people higher up on the scale end up paying way more into the system than the basic income check they receive, and people at the bottom pay no tax at all. So the effective amount of welfare is directly linked to one's income or lack thereof.
Also, UBI can replace most welfare, but not all. In particular, your example with the wheelchair - that sort of thing really ought to be covered by health insurance (which should be managed entirely by the government, or at least price-controlled).
You would presumably couple it with a heavily progressive income tax, with the result that people higher up on the scale end up paying way more into the system than the basic income check they receive, and people at the bottom pay no tax at all. So the effective amount of welfare is directly linked to one's income or lack thereof.
Also, UBI can replace most welfare, but not all. In particular, your example with the wheelchair - that sort of thing really ought to be covered by health insurance (which should be managed entirely by the government, or at least price-controlled).
> You would presumably couple it with a heavily progressive income tax, with the result that people higher up on the scale end up paying way more into the system than the basic income check they receive, and people at the bottom pay no tax at all. So the effective amount of welfare is directly linked to one's income or lack thereof.
This is one of the primary gripes that I have with UBI. You've just described means testing! "So the effective amount of welfare is directly linked to one's income or lack thereof."
We've moved the means testing around a little bit, but it's still there, and it's still open to politicization. The right demands that the threshold between welfare givers / takers be lowered, the left argues it be raised, and we're right back where we started.
This is one of the primary gripes that I have with UBI. You've just described means testing! "So the effective amount of welfare is directly linked to one's income or lack thereof."
We've moved the means testing around a little bit, but it's still there, and it's still open to politicization. The right demands that the threshold between welfare givers / takers be lowered, the left argues it be raised, and we're right back where we started.
> This is one of the primary gripes that I have with UBI. You've just described means testing!
There's no way to avoid means testing - the money has to come from somewhere, and this inherently means that some people pay more money into the system than they receive from it.
The point of UBI is to make this whole setup as transparent and low-overhead as possible.
The nice thing about it is that, in theory, because the redistribution is basically regulated by just two knobs (size of the UBI check, and how progressive the taxes are), adjusting them is politically easy, and adjustment range is pretty much unlimited. I'm hopeful that it would result in fewer situations like the ongoing ACA "debate", where right wing just wants to sink it altogether and replace it with something else entirely, because they can't get where they want by tuning it. If we can get this to work, UBI would always be there, but more left-leaning or more right-leaning governments would simply adjust the knobs more or less gradually depending on how much "freeloading" they're okay with.
And smooth adjustments are easier to adapt to, and cause less social upheaval (think of the shock to the society and the economy if Republicans somehow manage to repeal ACA, say, tomorrow...)
There's no way to avoid means testing - the money has to come from somewhere, and this inherently means that some people pay more money into the system than they receive from it.
The point of UBI is to make this whole setup as transparent and low-overhead as possible.
The nice thing about it is that, in theory, because the redistribution is basically regulated by just two knobs (size of the UBI check, and how progressive the taxes are), adjusting them is politically easy, and adjustment range is pretty much unlimited. I'm hopeful that it would result in fewer situations like the ongoing ACA "debate", where right wing just wants to sink it altogether and replace it with something else entirely, because they can't get where they want by tuning it. If we can get this to work, UBI would always be there, but more left-leaning or more right-leaning governments would simply adjust the knobs more or less gradually depending on how much "freeloading" they're okay with.
And smooth adjustments are easier to adapt to, and cause less social upheaval (think of the shock to the society and the economy if Republicans somehow manage to repeal ACA, say, tomorrow...)
It may have the same result in monetary terms, but the framing and implementation still matter.
Basic income means everyone gets the money they need to survive without having to go through a humiliating application process, and they only have to care about taxes when they start earning money.
Moreover it means the remaining administration is focused on tax fraud, and can prioritise its resources appropriately on the worst offenders, rather than having an agency dedicated to chasing poor people for relatively trivial amounts of money (likely at greater cost than the fraud itself).
In terms of the politics, I think the peace of mind benefits of welfare will be more obvious to the middle class when it's automatic, rather than it being something they could maybe apply for if they get really desperate.
Basic income means everyone gets the money they need to survive without having to go through a humiliating application process, and they only have to care about taxes when they start earning money.
Moreover it means the remaining administration is focused on tax fraud, and can prioritise its resources appropriately on the worst offenders, rather than having an agency dedicated to chasing poor people for relatively trivial amounts of money (likely at greater cost than the fraud itself).
In terms of the politics, I think the peace of mind benefits of welfare will be more obvious to the middle class when it's automatic, rather than it being something they could maybe apply for if they get really desperate.
I think most of practical basic income systems proposed don't actually go that far. I mean, theoretically the goal is to replace all welfare spending, maybe, but as said below, it may be hard to do practically, so most current proposals replace only portion of it, while leaving many targeted benefits intact. I don't feel currently informed enough to form opinion about whether this can work or not, so I'd be very curious about somebody trying it - preferably in some place where it won't hurt me if it fails in some unexpected way, like many social engineering projects had. Like in Japan :) Sorry, Japanese people, I know it's selfish from my side to want that. OTOH, if it works, you get a big win.
You'd adjust the tax system to compensate for most of that.
The idea is that it reduces administration costs, eliminates poverty traps, and reduces the stigma of unemployment.
The idea is that it reduces administration costs, eliminates poverty traps, and reduces the stigma of unemployment.
Reducing administration costs and adjusting the tax system isn't going to help a disabled veteran who needs more than $10,000 to afford a wheelchair-adapted vehicle, or a quadriplegic who needs more than $10,000 to pay for a carer to visit them at work to help them use the toilet twice a day.
I'm no expert in politics, but I think if their benefits were cut they would probably protest, and the protesters would look very sympathetic.
And if we say "OK, we'll have some extra funding for legitimate expenses for the legitimately disabled" you're not going to be able to do away with administration costs.
I'm no expert in politics, but I think if their benefits were cut they would probably protest, and the protesters would look very sympathetic.
And if we say "OK, we'll have some extra funding for legitimate expenses for the legitimately disabled" you're not going to be able to do away with administration costs.
I don't disagree. I'm not as cavalier about replacing all social support with basic income, and disability should probably remain separate. You won't completely eliminate administration costs, but not having to administer unemployment and pensions will help a lot. (And personally I see the other benefits as more important to society.)
This is a strawman. Basic income isn't some libertarian pipe dream of replacing the government with an ATM. Obviously there are many services that can't be replaced or eliminated.
There is more problem with means testing than with needs testing. The government can subsidies wheelchair-adapted vehicles to cost as much as a normal vehicle.
Why someone that doesn't need a special vehicle would use the subsidy? The normal car fit their needs for the same price! And it's not even accounting the more probable situation in which the subsidy doesn't cover all the cost difference.
Why someone that doesn't need a special vehicle would use the subsidy? The normal car fit their needs for the same price! And it's not even accounting the more probable situation in which the subsidy doesn't cover all the cost difference.
And allows you to eliminate minimum wage, so if a mom-and-pop shop wants someone stocking shelves at $2.50/hour and someone is willing to do that to supplement their (sufficient) minimum income, they can agree to that.
Private donations can help those who need it the most.
They'll have much less work anyway now that nobody is starving or homeless by lack of money, might as well focus.
They'll have much less work anyway now that nobody is starving or homeless by lack of money, might as well focus.
Can you explain to me, because I've never understood fully, how if we give everyone some lump sum amount (which I agree is the desirable vs. means testing etc.), how it won't result in inflation of prices whereby it will be the equivalent of dropping money out of a helicopter, everyone gets equal cut.... prices rise correspondingly, and real purchasing power does not change at all?
The money doesn't come off the printing press out of thin air, it's a redistribution of wealth. That is, additional wealth (or currency which is an abstraction of wealth) isn't created, it is redistributed.
That wealth can be used to consume the same amount of goods/services that it could have before the redistribution, but now many users get to make those consumption choices instead of one or few.
Yes, this redistribution will have a massive impact on the _pricing_ of different goods and services within an overall market. However, total wealth (ability to consume in aggregate) will remain the same within that market.
That wealth can be used to consume the same amount of goods/services that it could have before the redistribution, but now many users get to make those consumption choices instead of one or few.
Yes, this redistribution will have a massive impact on the _pricing_ of different goods and services within an overall market. However, total wealth (ability to consume in aggregate) will remain the same within that market.
Inflation has more to do with the amount of money in circulation. If you finance with taxes and not debt, the value would stay constant.
But a bit of inflation may not be the worst thing – the current almost-deflation is a lot worse and both private and public debts could finally be lowered. Unfortunately, it's a pretty imprecise mechanisms and there are some people that suffer disproportionally such as those around retirement age getting fixed pensions.
But a bit of inflation may not be the worst thing – the current almost-deflation is a lot worse and both private and public debts could finally be lowered. Unfortunately, it's a pretty imprecise mechanisms and there are some people that suffer disproportionally such as those around retirement age getting fixed pensions.
Let's for a moment make a thought experiment.
Everyone just magically has enough money to buy 'the basics', but can't use the money for anything else, in fact they never see the total.
What happens the the price of 'the basics' then? What happens when everyone can afford to not be wanting?
There are probably 'better' basics, for example penthouse apartments, but those will are all already above basic, so buying caviar or high end steak might be off the table.
What would happen if demand is just met?
The money would need to be spent anyway, these are basics. Not having spent it would result in what? More crime, more jail time, worse medical outcomes? All of that sounds like expense to the population at large, in the form of emergencies that use social safety nets.
I think the argument for UBI / BIG is that it identifies the root cause of the expenses and attempts to just fix the problem (by, for example, having a basic minimum of housing, or in the case of areas where housing costs too much; causing more housing to be built).
Everyone just magically has enough money to buy 'the basics', but can't use the money for anything else, in fact they never see the total.
What happens the the price of 'the basics' then? What happens when everyone can afford to not be wanting?
There are probably 'better' basics, for example penthouse apartments, but those will are all already above basic, so buying caviar or high end steak might be off the table.
What would happen if demand is just met?
The money would need to be spent anyway, these are basics. Not having spent it would result in what? More crime, more jail time, worse medical outcomes? All of that sounds like expense to the population at large, in the form of emergencies that use social safety nets.
I think the argument for UBI / BIG is that it identifies the root cause of the expenses and attempts to just fix the problem (by, for example, having a basic minimum of housing, or in the case of areas where housing costs too much; causing more housing to be built).
I think the other poster's argument is that the price of the basics will be artificially inflated as those sellers know that low income/basic income people have additional money to spend on required items. The price of a penthouse apartment will not increase, but a slumlord that knows the government will be mailing checks to everyone would certainly have no qualms with raising the rent by a few hundred dollars to accommodate the extra income he knows his tenants have available.
EDIT: To add to this, it's worth pointing out that many corner stores in low income neighborhoods already take advantage of peoples' lack of access to easy transportation to charge unusually high prices for common convenience store items. It's already more expensive to be poor, and I think basic income would just increase the predatory practices that are already happening.
EDIT: To add to this, it's worth pointing out that many corner stores in low income neighborhoods already take advantage of peoples' lack of access to easy transportation to charge unusually high prices for common convenience store items. It's already more expensive to be poor, and I think basic income would just increase the predatory practices that are already happening.
I agree that it's hard to say what would happen with regards to rent seekers, but corner stores aren't in the same situation. Their increased costs are either due to the rents being increased by the person who owns the building, or the simple fact that they do not have economies of scale so they end up with higher prices on the items that don't expire quickly in order to make a profit as they won't make much off of gasoline or milk, for example.
There are plenty of discount stores that are working their way in, e.g. Dollar General, Family Dollar, but they don't have control over the rents either and in alot of larger cities they also are facing opposition from the small businesses that would be out of business since they would have no chance of competing on price at that point.
Whether having every small bodega or other small retail shop replaced by 7-11, Dollar General, Family Dollar, etc. and yet another avenue for access to the middle class shutdown is worth the affordable prices for everyone else is debatable. I can see both sides of this anyways.
There are plenty of discount stores that are working their way in, e.g. Dollar General, Family Dollar, but they don't have control over the rents either and in alot of larger cities they also are facing opposition from the small businesses that would be out of business since they would have no chance of competing on price at that point.
Whether having every small bodega or other small retail shop replaced by 7-11, Dollar General, Family Dollar, etc. and yet another avenue for access to the middle class shutdown is worth the affordable prices for everyone else is debatable. I can see both sides of this anyways.
Why would people stay in expensive slums when they can e.g. move to countryside and live there for a fraction of those money on basic income?
I think predatory practices will decrease because people will be voting with their feet, no longer constrained by where they live.
I think predatory practices will decrease because people will be voting with their feet, no longer constrained by where they live.
One of the most attractive aspects of basic income is exactly this. $10000 a year stretches a lot farther out in the boonies than it does in SF or NYC, and if you don't have to be there to work, that opens up a lot of degrees of freedom.
At the same time, it does create potential for severe clustering based on income, possibly resulting "basic income ghettos", with all the problems that entails.
I don't think this would be a problem. There's no reason for people moving out of cities to cluster anywhere in particular. Housing costs near jobs may remain out of reach for basic income alone, but they should still be much more reasonably aligned with wages, since if people start to get stretched, they can just quit and move away.
> There's no reason for people moving out of cities to cluster anywhere in particular.
Economy of scale. Given fixed size of the UBI check, you want to live where services are cheapest. And services will be cheapest in places where more people are serviced together, because that cuts down on distribution costs and other such overheads.
Also, areas where people who have more money than just UBI live, would have higher prices simply by virtue of there being more money in the local economy. This isn't really dissimilar from the existing arrangement, where rich areas are expensive to live in, and so there's natural geographic segregation. But UBI would boost this into high gear.
To clarify, I am a strong proponent of UBI personally. But I think we should be really careful with these kinds of unintended side effects, and try to anticipate and manage them before they cause a bigger mess than what we're trying to address.
Also, have a look at this: https://medium.com/migration-issues/should-a-universal-basic...
Economy of scale. Given fixed size of the UBI check, you want to live where services are cheapest. And services will be cheapest in places where more people are serviced together, because that cuts down on distribution costs and other such overheads.
Also, areas where people who have more money than just UBI live, would have higher prices simply by virtue of there being more money in the local economy. This isn't really dissimilar from the existing arrangement, where rich areas are expensive to live in, and so there's natural geographic segregation. But UBI would boost this into high gear.
To clarify, I am a strong proponent of UBI personally. But I think we should be really careful with these kinds of unintended side effects, and try to anticipate and manage them before they cause a bigger mess than what we're trying to address.
Also, have a look at this: https://medium.com/migration-issues/should-a-universal-basic...
People are social animals. Not everybody will move even if they were personally better off by moving.
Also not everybody can afford to move.
Also not everybody can afford to move.
> can afford to move
Basic income is precisely about "afford" part.
Those who won't move will benefit too because landlords will have to work on retention.
Basic income is precisely about "afford" part.
Those who won't move will benefit too because landlords will have to work on retention.
> Basic income is precisely about "afford" part.
This assumes that basic income either includes an allowance for moving or contains enough of a surplus over basic needs that savings can be accumulated.
This assumes that basic income either includes an allowance for moving or contains enough of a surplus over basic needs that savings can be accumulated.
I actually think that communities might sponsor your moving on their turf as this will mean you'll spend your BI there for prolonged time.
a slumlord that knows the government will be mailing checks to everyone would certainly have no qualms with raising the rent by a few hundred dollars to accommodate the extra income he knows his tenants have available
He can try, but then he'd lose out to competing landlords who don't raise rents as much (or at all). It's like gas stations; owners know that people are willing to buy almost as much gas at $3/gallon as they are at $2. But when the price of oil falls, they can't just keep charging $3, because their competitors will charge less and take all their customers.
He can try, but then he'd lose out to competing landlords who don't raise rents as much (or at all). It's like gas stations; owners know that people are willing to buy almost as much gas at $3/gallon as they are at $2. But when the price of oil falls, they can't just keep charging $3, because their competitors will charge less and take all their customers.
More demand does not always result in higher prices. Price depends on the elasticity of supply for all of the different goods as well. Some might increase, while others wouldn't.
Probably the most significant cost for most people is housing and that does seem to have an in-elastic supply. My guess is this is where the money will go.
We have seen an element of this in the UK where housing benefit largely ended up in the laps of landlords.
We have seen an element of this in the UK where housing benefit largely ended up in the laps of landlords.
Elizabeth Warren of all people has focused on this as a problem in the US also.
The move from single-income to double-income families produced far less than a doubled standard of living, but it drove housing prices sky high. It's an interesting natural experiment for what we might see with UBI programs (which act a lot like adding a 'free' wage-earner to each household).
The move from single-income to double-income families produced far less than a doubled standard of living, but it drove housing prices sky high. It's an interesting natural experiment for what we might see with UBI programs (which act a lot like adding a 'free' wage-earner to each household).
If you don't need a job, you don't have to live in the city with everyone else. There's plenty of cheap empty land you could live on.
There are other reasons to live in a city besides a job. I imagine that as we move toward a "jobless" future cultural and scientific output will increase, and you'll still want to be around the people who are doing the "cool stuff."
But when you're not spending 40+ hours a week working, an hour long journey to do cool stuff isn't as big a deal.
And besides, I think a most of the other people doing cool stuff will want cheaper accommodation as well, and over time particular kinds of cool stuff will congregate in different smaller towns.
And besides, I think a most of the other people doing cool stuff will want cheaper accommodation as well, and over time particular kinds of cool stuff will congregate in different smaller towns.
But you will have the choice. Also, I imagine that a jobless future will be heavily automated. Cheap autonomous transportation might expand the housing area with sustainable commute. Even more so if you can work remotely part-time and shorter hours.
You'll want to, but you won't be able to afford it. In a future with UBI the city will be for employed people only.
[deleted]
If prices rise in perfect proportion to the new income, that means there's something severely restricting supply, otherwise price competition would force them down again.
Or alternatively the stores could compete by offering better service, in which case people benefit from that.
Or alternatively the stores could compete by offering better service, in which case people benefit from that.
Honest question; what numbers are you using to say it's a comparable amount? My quick search shows total 2016 expenditures of ~$3.9 Trillion. If you assume welfare is everything non-interest & defense related, that's about $3 Trillion; there's other non-welfare lumped in that number, but let's just use it anyway. That's $9,250 per person.
Almost every discussion about basic income comes to talking about it as a monetary black hole where you pour trillions in and your society has no reasonable expectation of return, much like military spending.
That is not at all how it works. A basic income within reason would almost always be an economic growth mechanism by transferring money from investment class to consumption class. The market for the guaranteed needs of an adopting nations population would be an incredibly large, incredibly stable business center for competition and innovation, and it would increase market participation by eliminating the barrier to entry that is currently made by gated welfare.
Of course we need long run, wide spread, UBI experiments. If all you are talking about is "what if" any reasonable scientist would balk at the conversation. But if you take historic evidence - that giving the poor money makes them, by overwhelming margins, and on average, spend it on their needs in predictable, immediate ways, you would be getting similar economic motivator returns on UBI taxes as you would on some forms of infrastructure.
And by comparison, infrastructure projects also considered a net positive policy because the money made by businesses using your infrastructure vastly eclipses the costs of building and maintaining it. UBI works the same way, by creating stable demand for the necessities of life, and providing the means for a similar force multiplier in people wanting to contribute optimally to the economy by their own judgment than by the will of money in the hands of others for those individuals profit. Because sometimes, making a major stakeholder in a company richer does not mean the greatest source of economic growth for the society as a whole compared to the entrepreneurial potential of every citizen presently bound to that model.
That is not at all how it works. A basic income within reason would almost always be an economic growth mechanism by transferring money from investment class to consumption class. The market for the guaranteed needs of an adopting nations population would be an incredibly large, incredibly stable business center for competition and innovation, and it would increase market participation by eliminating the barrier to entry that is currently made by gated welfare.
Of course we need long run, wide spread, UBI experiments. If all you are talking about is "what if" any reasonable scientist would balk at the conversation. But if you take historic evidence - that giving the poor money makes them, by overwhelming margins, and on average, spend it on their needs in predictable, immediate ways, you would be getting similar economic motivator returns on UBI taxes as you would on some forms of infrastructure.
And by comparison, infrastructure projects also considered a net positive policy because the money made by businesses using your infrastructure vastly eclipses the costs of building and maintaining it. UBI works the same way, by creating stable demand for the necessities of life, and providing the means for a similar force multiplier in people wanting to contribute optimally to the economy by their own judgment than by the will of money in the hands of others for those individuals profit. Because sometimes, making a major stakeholder in a company richer does not mean the greatest source of economic growth for the society as a whole compared to the entrepreneurial potential of every citizen presently bound to that model.
>transferring money from investment class to consumption class.
That's not nearly enough to cover it. The top 1% has 38% of the wealth. In 2009 total wealth of US was 55 trillion[1]. That leaves us 20.9T to spread around 315 remaining millions. That's about $66,300 per person from our anti-rich crusade. Not a bad bounty, but that's a one-time prize. How do you intend to fund UBI for anything longer than a trivial amount of time (<5 years) with such a small sum?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#/m...
That's not nearly enough to cover it. The top 1% has 38% of the wealth. In 2009 total wealth of US was 55 trillion[1]. That leaves us 20.9T to spread around 315 remaining millions. That's about $66,300 per person from our anti-rich crusade. Not a bad bounty, but that's a one-time prize. How do you intend to fund UBI for anything longer than a trivial amount of time (<5 years) with such a small sum?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#/m...
I'm not sure these calculations on the back of an envelope are the correct way to understand the problem, but let's try.
US population: 322 millions US national income: 15.78 trillions $
To give a 10000$ UBI to every person in the US, you need to tax 20.41% of the national income.
US population: 322 millions US national income: 15.78 trillions $
To give a 10000$ UBI to every person in the US, you need to tax 20.41% of the national income.
"Redistribution" doesn't mean you take rich people's money in a one-off scheme. It means that you tax them higher. One particular opportunity there is capital gains tax, which has been much lower than sweat-of-the-brow income for a long time now. Equalize the rates (or better yet, jack capital gains up even higher - there's no reason to encourage economic rent over labor), and you've got a very nice monetary stream to direct elsewhere.
I'm not convinced your math is accurate. I'm definitely not an expert, but I also don't think the money would just disappear into the void - presumably it would continue to cycle through the economy.
That's wealth, not income.
Capital owners will have increased costs due to taxation, but they'll also have increased demand for their goods and services.
Capital owners will have increased costs due to taxation, but they'll also have increased demand for their goods and services.
If you're under the impression that military spending has no expectation of return at all you aren't looking at things realistically.
Military spending resembles insurance to some extent--sure, the returns are normally terrible, but unexpected events that the spending covers are even more terrible.
Don't forget all the events that don't happen because of your military spending. A country with a weak military could be an attractive target.
What about price inflation amongst these necessities resulting from immediate increase in money supply within poor population? I can't understand how this wouldn't be an issue... Would housing prices not rise accordingly, for example?
Housing prices today are going out of control because the supply of what people want housing for - jobs - is diminishing. As the job market shrinks and more and more people are dropped out of the economy due to automation, there is more and more demand to live where jobs are, which drives housing prices out of control in many places like NY or SF but almost every major metro area experiences it.
It is confounded by the growing wealth inequality, where the rich find it a valuable asset to buy up these valuable residential buildings that are in demand as a store of value, further diminishing the supply and further exacerbating the problem.
Under a UBI, the market for residential is restored to what it was decades ago when the towns now abandoned in the post-industrial US were populated. There are many times more houses than homeless in the US, but because those homes are located nowhere near a stable income nobody can live in them.
The same applies to food and electricity. We are not at any supply side bounding here, and a UBI makes these makes so incredibly stable and predictable it lets the margins of businesses operating in them get as close to break even as possible because of the certainty metrics now associated with them.
It is confounded by the growing wealth inequality, where the rich find it a valuable asset to buy up these valuable residential buildings that are in demand as a store of value, further diminishing the supply and further exacerbating the problem.
Under a UBI, the market for residential is restored to what it was decades ago when the towns now abandoned in the post-industrial US were populated. There are many times more houses than homeless in the US, but because those homes are located nowhere near a stable income nobody can live in them.
The same applies to food and electricity. We are not at any supply side bounding here, and a UBI makes these makes so incredibly stable and predictable it lets the margins of businesses operating in them get as close to break even as possible because of the certainty metrics now associated with them.
It's even better if UBI is funded by a nationwide land value tax, which would discourage both NIMBYism in low density, high value communities and using real estate as a store of wealth (instead of as a productive investment).
Yes. If a modest amount of 9k would work, then giving everyone a million each would work as well. The Keynesian economist in Washington and Tokyo have already filled up the bathtub to no avail. This is the difference between money and currency.
You're thinking of monetary expansion, which in modern economies often doesn't work because the banks get the money first and do nothing but park it.
Competition. Most necessities of life have a lot of competition in the market.
I guess it depends on your definition of "functioning". People spend 1/3 of their lives at jobs they hate, assuming they are lucky enough to be part of the shrinking group who have employable skills, making barely enough to survive, while the majority of excess value created gets funneled to a smaller and smaller subset of society. That doesn't sound functioning to me (well, it's functioning to the small number of benefactors, I suppose).
One benefit I suspect basic income may have is a vast increase in the quality of jobs.
When people are desperate for work, and jobs are hard to find, people will put up with all sorts of bullshit from their employer. When people know they'll be okay regardless, they're much more likely to quit when they get treated like shit.
And I suspect for a lot of businesses, the cost of improving working environment may be lower than raising wages. For example, I think "customer is always right" policies cause a lot of employee stress for relatively marginal gains. A less desperate labour force may be willing to take lower wages at a restaurant that lets them tell obnoxious people to GTFO.
When people are desperate for work, and jobs are hard to find, people will put up with all sorts of bullshit from their employer. When people know they'll be okay regardless, they're much more likely to quit when they get treated like shit.
And I suspect for a lot of businesses, the cost of improving working environment may be lower than raising wages. For example, I think "customer is always right" policies cause a lot of employee stress for relatively marginal gains. A less desperate labour force may be willing to take lower wages at a restaurant that lets them tell obnoxious people to GTFO.
It's not ideal, but it affords a higher level of dignity. People have something (work) to trade for money. After automation, the majority of people will have nothing of value to offer. That would affect their independence and dignity.
I believe a better solution would be to put automation in the service of people directly, as property of the people. Maybe small communities would be able to combine work with automation to provide for all their necessities. In the future, a few solar panels, 3D-printers and robots could possibly bootstrap a whole community.
Then the role of the government would be to provide the initial technology and to make sure each community has its own bootstrap working in order, not to distribute UBI. People would still have work to do - to supervise automation and work alongside with it, where necessary.
Somehow, control and ownership of the means of production (automation) would need to be divided and spread equally in the population, otherwise, it will just detract from the value of people.
But if we spread automation ownership, then there could be a new level of independence where a community could provide for all its needs internally and perhaps, even desire more autonomy from the state.
I believe a better solution would be to put automation in the service of people directly, as property of the people. Maybe small communities would be able to combine work with automation to provide for all their necessities. In the future, a few solar panels, 3D-printers and robots could possibly bootstrap a whole community.
Then the role of the government would be to provide the initial technology and to make sure each community has its own bootstrap working in order, not to distribute UBI. People would still have work to do - to supervise automation and work alongside with it, where necessary.
Somehow, control and ownership of the means of production (automation) would need to be divided and spread equally in the population, otherwise, it will just detract from the value of people.
But if we spread automation ownership, then there could be a new level of independence where a community could provide for all its needs internally and perhaps, even desire more autonomy from the state.
Pretty sure you just described Technocracy.
How much of Silicon Valley is funded by selling ad space? Just imagine the ads are gone and the money is coming through the government instead.
(And yes, I understand that companies would rather spend that money on ads rather than taxes... you can replace the ad industry with any other industry we'd be better off without.)
(And yes, I understand that companies would rather spend that money on ads rather than taxes... you can replace the ad industry with any other industry we'd be better off without.)
I think its fuzzy -- and perhaps because its so different, or perhaps because (as you suggest) it may not be realistic. But were it realistic, I'd assume hobbies would be a big part of a well functioning society. I think we'd see at least some blossoming of hobbyists where, free to pursue their highest interests, you'd see some truly spectacular music and art, some people becoming nearly professional at their sport of choice (and more esports). I think there's at least one (and perhaps many) hobbies for everyone, and that many people working and parenting never get around to discovering them. Having only more recently discovered mine, I can tell you I wish i had more time to pursue them!
There's another problem with basic income: being able to earn an income is a signal of mate quality, and that norm might take a long time to unlearn.
While it's better than letting people starve or get food stamps, you might find a large class of young, unemployed males who have trouble getting interest from potential mates. Historically, that's always been recipe for political unrest.
And even if there's not, if basic income becomes a thing, I'll bet there is large positive status attached to someone demanding your labor. People on basic will be second-class citizens, and there will always be political pressure from the 'working class' to reduce the drain on the tax base.
While it's better than letting people starve or get food stamps, you might find a large class of young, unemployed males who have trouble getting interest from potential mates. Historically, that's always been recipe for political unrest.
And even if there's not, if basic income becomes a thing, I'll bet there is large positive status attached to someone demanding your labor. People on basic will be second-class citizens, and there will always be political pressure from the 'working class' to reduce the drain on the tax base.
The whole point of basic income is that it enables such young males to devote their time to pursuing non-monetary goals in music, arts which would signal 'mate quality'. Or longer term monetary goals such as autodidactically acquiring a skill e.g programming and building something.
Poor people in the traditional sense would be able to pursue internships without pay to gain skills because they are underpinned by UB. An option not available today. As an employer I could take on more 'apprentices' on UBI, the contract being that I give them training, give them guidance whilst they work 'for free' until a certain point it becomes worthwhile to pay them above and beyond UBI because they're worth it.
Poor people in the traditional sense would be able to pursue internships without pay to gain skills because they are underpinned by UB. An option not available today. As an employer I could take on more 'apprentices' on UBI, the contract being that I give them training, give them guidance whilst they work 'for free' until a certain point it becomes worthwhile to pay them above and beyond UBI because they're worth it.
We already have large classes of "second class citizens" -- might as well make life more livable for them.
That would happen anyway. Better that they have their basic needs met but have trouble finding a mate than they have to struggle to survive and have trouble finding a mate.
People that are on the equivalent of basic now are already second-class citizens.
On the other hand, there are always alternative paths to attractiveness, outside of the purely financial. In some sub-cultures, you can be broke as hell, but if, say, you're really good at playing guitar, you can have your pick.
On the other hand, there are always alternative paths to attractiveness, outside of the purely financial. In some sub-cultures, you can be broke as hell, but if, say, you're really good at playing guitar, you can have your pick.
This is known as "bare branches" http://www.ejhs.org/volume15/Bare.html
Well that's a rather euphemistic translation of guan gun. I've always thought of it as "bare stick" or "bare pole". The phallic connotations being 100% intentional.
[deleted]
Retra(2)
Your imagination is being limited by our current (though rapidly changing) model, which is humans are required for the production of goods and services.
Basic income will allow capitalism as we know it (that is, end users making consumption choices, not an organization making choices for the end user) to continue in a society where production is completely automated.
Supply is automated, but how does the system know what to produce? Well dollars are basically votes for production and basic income is enfranchisement in such a society.
Most importantly, basic income provides a mechanism that can work during the harsh transition from "some highly skilled humans are still needed for production while the majority of people are no longer needed" to "zero humans are needed."
Basic income will allow capitalism as we know it (that is, end users making consumption choices, not an organization making choices for the end user) to continue in a society where production is completely automated.
Supply is automated, but how does the system know what to produce? Well dollars are basically votes for production and basic income is enfranchisement in such a society.
Most importantly, basic income provides a mechanism that can work during the harsh transition from "some highly skilled humans are still needed for production while the majority of people are no longer needed" to "zero humans are needed."
[deleted]
Japan however has a low unemployment rate.
> Schools force you to waste some of the most productive years learning about pretty useless things and are super inefficient at that too.
I don't know if this is the part of the problem for hikikomori phenomena but you are right about the above.
I started working at 16 and have worked multiple industries ever since. I've had many opportunities to advance and have a promotion but I was always held back by one thing, college. Simply because I was told to do it. I've half-assed both things, college and work, not because I wanted to or I was lazy, but because it was hard to do both at the same time. So many missed chances. "Oh you are in school? Sorry we need somebody full time for this position." Now several years later, I have a piece of paper and many lost opportunities with one weird resume. I wish I never listened to anyone about "you must go to college" and just worked and took on opportunities that I had instead of "sorry, it's not compatible with my college schedule, can't take this on".
And I gotta say that I am a "recent" graduate now who has been working since 16 but my resume looks like I am a dabbler with no extensive experience in anything. I am worse off now with a debt.
I'd be lying if I said it didn't effected me greatly emotionally and physically. The confusion about what I've done wrong is so stressful that I am a borderline hikikomori. So I think you are right in some parts.
I don't know if this is the part of the problem for hikikomori phenomena but you are right about the above.
I started working at 16 and have worked multiple industries ever since. I've had many opportunities to advance and have a promotion but I was always held back by one thing, college. Simply because I was told to do it. I've half-assed both things, college and work, not because I wanted to or I was lazy, but because it was hard to do both at the same time. So many missed chances. "Oh you are in school? Sorry we need somebody full time for this position." Now several years later, I have a piece of paper and many lost opportunities with one weird resume. I wish I never listened to anyone about "you must go to college" and just worked and took on opportunities that I had instead of "sorry, it's not compatible with my college schedule, can't take this on".
And I gotta say that I am a "recent" graduate now who has been working since 16 but my resume looks like I am a dabbler with no extensive experience in anything. I am worse off now with a debt.
I'd be lying if I said it didn't effected me greatly emotionally and physically. The confusion about what I've done wrong is so stressful that I am a borderline hikikomori. So I think you are right in some parts.
The funny thing is that America wants their education to be more like the east, because America is behind in math and science
While the east wants to be more like America, because their students are too rigid and instead needs to focus more on creativity and play!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/...
While the east wants to be more like America, because their students are too rigid and instead needs to focus more on creativity and play!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248329823/...
We could have both if we wanted. Real math (not being a human calculator) is very creative.
While I understand your sentiment, from a certain point of view, I find it sad. I'm likely generalizing, but it seems that the common theme shared among my millennial peers is that the job of the education system should be focused on preparing the individual for "life in the real world"
I would greatly fear the movement away from topics like history, science, civics/political science, etc. in favor of the creation of someone I would describe as an "economic drone"
I think it would be a great loss indeed to lose focus on our past.
I would greatly fear the movement away from topics like history, science, civics/political science, etc. in favor of the creation of someone I would describe as an "economic drone"
I think it would be a great loss indeed to lose focus on our past.
It feels like there needs to be two different systems. One for "job training", and one for "general learning". I think things like certification are the right direction.
I'd love to go to school for general learning all the time, but that's not directly applicable to my job, and with the costs so high, it's just not practical.
I'd love to go to school for general learning all the time, but that's not directly applicable to my job, and with the costs so high, it's just not practical.
Keep in mind that Japanese schools are very different from NA schools. There are advantages and disadvantages, but for better or worse students are aggressively streamed from junior high school.
Basically, you go to whatever elementary school or junior high school that is in your area. When you are ready to go to high school, you choose which high school you want to go to and you have to pass an entrance exam.
A high level high school is very stressful and you have to study all the time. A low level high school is very easy going and it is not unusual for some students to graduate without having studied anything at all. At a high level high school you are expected to go on to University and have to prepare for University entrance exams. At a low level high school, you may still prepare for University entrance exams, but you are not necessarily expected to do so.
In a low level high school there are many activities surrounding how you can can contribute to society. In the high school I taught in (a very low level one), every Wednesday afternoon was taken up by classes on what it's like to work in a factory, or a convenience store, or a farm. There were classes on basic etiquette, how to talk to customers, how to get along with people, how to dress, etc, etc, etc. I was always annoyed because they wouldn't let me join in on those classes -- it would have been fascinating!
Essentially, students in a low level high school are indoctrinated into society as well as having a very basic education. There is a lot of emphasis on skills that students are likely to need (like using an abacus, typing, writing kanji, very simple foreign language exchanges, etc). Things like math, science, etc were taught, but I never got the impression that they were seen to be particularly important parts of school. The main thing about a low level high school is that apart from normal bullying, there is practically no stress. Seeing a student who is not smiling is an indication that something has gone absolutely pear shaped.
My colleagues in high level schools told me that things were pretty much the opposite. Tons of stress every day. Pressure to perform. Lots of expectations. Focus on academics, almost exclusively. Students are expected to already know how to act in society, etc, etc. Very different life.
But low level schools outnumber high level schools by about 4:1, so the huge high school stress that everyone assumes exists in Japan is really limited to a minority of top performing students.
Having grown up in Canada, I would choose the Japanese system hands down over the Canadian system. I would have been in the super stressed high level school and having a much better time ;-)
Basically, you go to whatever elementary school or junior high school that is in your area. When you are ready to go to high school, you choose which high school you want to go to and you have to pass an entrance exam.
A high level high school is very stressful and you have to study all the time. A low level high school is very easy going and it is not unusual for some students to graduate without having studied anything at all. At a high level high school you are expected to go on to University and have to prepare for University entrance exams. At a low level high school, you may still prepare for University entrance exams, but you are not necessarily expected to do so.
In a low level high school there are many activities surrounding how you can can contribute to society. In the high school I taught in (a very low level one), every Wednesday afternoon was taken up by classes on what it's like to work in a factory, or a convenience store, or a farm. There were classes on basic etiquette, how to talk to customers, how to get along with people, how to dress, etc, etc, etc. I was always annoyed because they wouldn't let me join in on those classes -- it would have been fascinating!
Essentially, students in a low level high school are indoctrinated into society as well as having a very basic education. There is a lot of emphasis on skills that students are likely to need (like using an abacus, typing, writing kanji, very simple foreign language exchanges, etc). Things like math, science, etc were taught, but I never got the impression that they were seen to be particularly important parts of school. The main thing about a low level high school is that apart from normal bullying, there is practically no stress. Seeing a student who is not smiling is an indication that something has gone absolutely pear shaped.
My colleagues in high level schools told me that things were pretty much the opposite. Tons of stress every day. Pressure to perform. Lots of expectations. Focus on academics, almost exclusively. Students are expected to already know how to act in society, etc, etc. Very different life.
But low level schools outnumber high level schools by about 4:1, so the huge high school stress that everyone assumes exists in Japan is really limited to a minority of top performing students.
Having grown up in Canada, I would choose the Japanese system hands down over the Canadian system. I would have been in the super stressed high level school and having a much better time ;-)
It also doesn't help that I see that from ages of 10 and up or so, kids come home from school to do homework every day, instead of going out with friends into the summer sun for a nice carefree afternoon of playing soccer (or whatever). Homework is a killingly stupid idea in my mind. I was smart enough to hardly ever having to do it after school when I was young but I highly doubt that I could manage without doing it in the current system (I did school in the Netherlands by the way.)
Participation in club activities (sports or otherwise) is basically mandatory in junior and senior high school.
Elementary kids often do go straight home and then play with friends or waste time, but once you're in junior high, you're basically considered a young adult and expected to have responsibilities.
Many clubs will take up MORE time than homework, with the sports clubs often having an hour or two of practice before school with the same again after school, plus most of Saturday and sometimes half of Sunday.
Generally when students get together, the last thing they want to do is play sports since they're doing that pretty much every day of the week!
Elementary kids often do go straight home and then play with friends or waste time, but once you're in junior high, you're basically considered a young adult and expected to have responsibilities.
Many clubs will take up MORE time than homework, with the sports clubs often having an hour or two of practice before school with the same again after school, plus most of Saturday and sometimes half of Sunday.
Generally when students get together, the last thing they want to do is play sports since they're doing that pretty much every day of the week!
Anything mandatory outside of the pretty long school hours we already have seems like a bad idea to me. Making sport mandatory, ugh, what a perfect way to get kids to dislike it as early on in life as possible.
School hours aren't that long here; they're shorter than mine were in the US!
> Participation in club activities (sports or otherwise) is basically mandatory in junior and senior high school.
Not in my experience. For some parents and communities maybe, but certainly not all.
Not in my experience. For some parents and communities maybe, but certainly not all.
yeah homework pressure in the dutch secondary education system is high at the higher levels. on top of that kids learn very few useful skills. it needs to change and every politician tries but then everything gets watered down because of politics. sweet irony.
Subjects taught at school haven't really changed – math, science, writing, a bit of philosophy and languages, i. e. the liberal arts curriculum. None of that is "useless" as it's more about learning-to-learn anyway.
And young people today are better than previous generations in basically any category: SATs have risen steadily, political participation is at the level of the late 60ies, volunteering is commonplace, crime is at an all-time low and cultural output is exploding.
The only thing that could ruin the next generation would be teaching them "pratical skills" by which people usually mean stuff like accounting. That's the humans-as-economic-units view that leads to exactly the situation in Japan: Millions of super-educated, completely generic young people who work 12h a day as told without ever complaining or having an original thought.
And young people today are better than previous generations in basically any category: SATs have risen steadily, political participation is at the level of the late 60ies, volunteering is commonplace, crime is at an all-time low and cultural output is exploding.
The only thing that could ruin the next generation would be teaching them "pratical skills" by which people usually mean stuff like accounting. That's the humans-as-economic-units view that leads to exactly the situation in Japan: Millions of super-educated, completely generic young people who work 12h a day as told without ever complaining or having an original thought.
The thing is that the way all of these are taught is very inefficient. Also you Hagee very little choice in what you can learn.
Rote memorization and low details education is good for creating compliant, easily-fooled suckers whom sign up to the Marines because they enjoyed playing America's Army or Halo.
Instead, we (all of us) havr to do the hard work in instilling courage, mistrust of blind obedience to authority and critical-thinking into those coming up to be less fooled as adults and more likely to become public interest lawyers, more involved in fact-checking and holding people accountable for their duties / behavior.
Standardized testing (NCBLA) is exactly the wrong "medicine." There is no quick/easy fix except spectacular teachers, parents and mentors that care to not spoon-feed, child-proof the world or helicopter parent too much because learning requires someone else doing the thinking to figure out why it's important, not simply being led through random motions aimlessly.
Instead, we (all of us) havr to do the hard work in instilling courage, mistrust of blind obedience to authority and critical-thinking into those coming up to be less fooled as adults and more likely to become public interest lawyers, more involved in fact-checking and holding people accountable for their duties / behavior.
Standardized testing (NCBLA) is exactly the wrong "medicine." There is no quick/easy fix except spectacular teachers, parents and mentors that care to not spoon-feed, child-proof the world or helicopter parent too much because learning requires someone else doing the thinking to figure out why it's important, not simply being led through random motions aimlessly.
School is a waste of time for a very, very, very small part of the population. For the vast majority of people it works (surprisingly?) really well.
Tell that to the high school and college graduates who are unemployed (and unemployable) and working minimum wage jobs.
I don't think the vast majority of the population would benefit from not having a high school education.
Ah yes, I'm sure they all deeply regret 4 years of learning, growing as human beings, making friends, etc. Being unemployable after college is BS. Being unemployed is a different matter, but uneducated unemployment is much higher than its educated counterpart.
> regret 4 years of learning
4 years of inefficient learning
> growing as human beings
what does this even mean
> making friends
You don't need school to make friends.
> Being unemployable after college is BS.
Do you actually believe this?
4 years of inefficient learning
> growing as human beings
what does this even mean
> making friends
You don't need school to make friends.
> Being unemployable after college is BS.
Do you actually believe this?
Blaming school?
School forces you to interact with others from a wide range of backgrounds.
This is the worse argument ever, it's exactly the cure.
Besides which, school isn't there to baby you, that's supposed to be the parents job.
Sure as back up for people with abusive parents, but the concept it should be the default is very scary.
It's 7 hours a day, what's happening the other 6?
What exactly should you be learning that won't into that extra 6 hours?
School forces you to interact with others from a wide range of backgrounds.
This is the worse argument ever, it's exactly the cure.
Besides which, school isn't there to baby you, that's supposed to be the parents job.
Sure as back up for people with abusive parents, but the concept it should be the default is very scary.
It's 7 hours a day, what's happening the other 6?
What exactly should you be learning that won't into that extra 6 hours?
the thing is that you get six hours of low energy time. School is pretty exhausting. Also account for things like homework, hygiene, eating. How many hours are you left with? Your argument should be justifying the 7 hours, not saying you have 6 hours left.
[deleted]
If you've ever traveled to Japan and stayed with a "Salaryman", it might help explain why some people have trouble "adjusting to work life".
This guy I stayed with got about 5, maybe 6 hours sleep a night, worked 12 hour days (at least), and would be required to participate in mandatory social activities, such as attending a hostess bar and drinking.
In Europe and Netherlands, this guys work conditions would be considered extreme and in the case of Australia, probably illegal.
I'm not saying that there isn't other factors like education and economics at play, but the way I saw pepople living, falling asleep on the train and not getting proper sleep, looked pretty unappealing to me.
It doesn't feel like there is anything wrong with these people at all.
This guy I stayed with got about 5, maybe 6 hours sleep a night, worked 12 hour days (at least), and would be required to participate in mandatory social activities, such as attending a hostess bar and drinking.
In Europe and Netherlands, this guys work conditions would be considered extreme and in the case of Australia, probably illegal.
I'm not saying that there isn't other factors like education and economics at play, but the way I saw pepople living, falling asleep on the train and not getting proper sleep, looked pretty unappealing to me.
It doesn't feel like there is anything wrong with these people at all.
I've been reading Zielenziger's Shutting Out The Sun on the hikkikomori phenomenon, and among many depressing story there's one that stuck out:
a father, mother and their early 20s hikkikomori son were sharing an apartment, with their son having very little communication with his parents. One day he burst out to his mother: 'Why did you divorce my father?' The mother answered that they did not divorce, it's just that the father leaves for work before the son wakes up and returns from work after the son goes to bed.
a father, mother and their early 20s hikkikomori son were sharing an apartment, with their son having very little communication with his parents. One day he burst out to his mother: 'Why did you divorce my father?' The mother answered that they did not divorce, it's just that the father leaves for work before the son wakes up and returns from work after the son goes to bed.
I don't get it. What about weekends. Or the (frequent) national holidays? I've never heard of people in Japan being forced to work regularly on weekends or on national holidays that would be pretty strange in my experience (though long working hours less strange of course).
I lived for several years at an architectural project in Arizona (Arcosanti). At one point, a young Japanese architect came to study there. The first week of the workshop is quite intense, full of academic activities, which she excelled at.
On the weekend, the workshoppers rented a van and drove it up to Sedona, where they went hiking. After a few hours on the trail, she suddenly broke down sobbing. Eventually we got the story out of her: between architecture school and a job which began the day after graduation, she'd been working six and a half days per week, without ever taking a holiday or even a sick day, for over five years. This was her first fully free day in all that time. It was evidently completely overwhelming for her, like being released from a long prison sentence.
Obviously that's just one data point, and perhaps architecture isn't representative of other professions, but there you go.
On the weekend, the workshoppers rented a van and drove it up to Sedona, where they went hiking. After a few hours on the trail, she suddenly broke down sobbing. Eventually we got the story out of her: between architecture school and a job which began the day after graduation, she'd been working six and a half days per week, without ever taking a holiday or even a sick day, for over five years. This was her first fully free day in all that time. It was evidently completely overwhelming for her, like being released from a long prison sentence.
Obviously that's just one data point, and perhaps architecture isn't representative of other professions, but there you go.
That's a pretty interesting datapoint though thanks. It's possible I've just not met a wide enough group of people.
Think back though, my wife had a friend (engineer) who had been working solidly for 30 days without a break. I guess stretches like that do happen.
Think back though, my wife had a friend (engineer) who had been working solidly for 30 days without a break. I guess stretches like that do happen.
From what I've seen the long hours can sometimes create an emotional disconnect between the worker and his family, such that even when there is time off, they prefer to spend it separately.
Why is this a problem? What's wrong with living a reclusive life, if that's what you want to do?
I live alone and don't go outside unless I have to buy food. I work online, and make electronic music and play video games when I'm not working. It's how I choose to live my life and don't see anything wrong with it.
I live alone and don't go outside unless I have to buy food. I work online, and make electronic music and play video games when I'm not working. It's how I choose to live my life and don't see anything wrong with it.
They ain't making babies - ignore that they may or may not be producing value via online work.
That's 541k individuals and rising that are not going to reproduce in a nation whose majority population is aging[1] and whose overall population is projected to collapse by almost 15% in 2050. Imagine 40% of your population being 65+. With a TRF of 1.7, that's over 1 million potential young replacements that are missing from the economy. Many people in Japan are terrified of the increasing trend if not necessarily the number of current individuals.
Declining birth rates are the norm in the west and the simple solution to that is immigration. That doesn't work so well in Japan, which while perfectly polite to visitors is in many places extremely homogeneous and they like to keep it that way.
[1]: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/retirement/ret...
[2]: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/tag/population/
[3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/without-bab...
That's 541k individuals and rising that are not going to reproduce in a nation whose majority population is aging[1] and whose overall population is projected to collapse by almost 15% in 2050. Imagine 40% of your population being 65+. With a TRF of 1.7, that's over 1 million potential young replacements that are missing from the economy. Many people in Japan are terrified of the increasing trend if not necessarily the number of current individuals.
Declining birth rates are the norm in the west and the simple solution to that is immigration. That doesn't work so well in Japan, which while perfectly polite to visitors is in many places extremely homogeneous and they like to keep it that way.
[1]: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/retirement/ret...
[2]: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/tag/population/
[3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/without-bab...
Sucks for them. Maybe they will get over their xenophobia and start letting in immigrants once their problems get bad enough.
Racism is both bad AND stupid, and I think it is hilarious for them to be suffering the consequences of their stupidity.
Racism is both bad AND stupid, and I think it is hilarious for them to be suffering the consequences of their stupidity.
Aren't being yourself xenophobic by castigating them for having different values?
Theit system has a number of problems but it also has a number of advantages.
Besides, the countries who do let in immigrants are less xenophobic but not by a wide margin.
Theit system has a number of problems but it also has a number of advantages.
Besides, the countries who do let in immigrants are less xenophobic but not by a wide margin.
So culturally relativism basically?
I'm xenophobic by denouncing xenophobia?
Xenophobia is just another cultural value and if I disagree with it them IM the xenophobe?
I'm xenophobic by denouncing xenophobia?
Xenophobia is just another cultural value and if I disagree with it them IM the xenophobe?
You equated racism and xenophobia with a lack of desire for immigrants. Those are quite different concepts, even if there is an overlap.
Furthermore, you condemned an entire nation and wished harm upon them on the basis of a perceived breach of your own values, which I might add are not completely clear to me.
It doesn't have much to do with cultural relativism, but with the assumption that you know what's good for Japan better than they do.
Furthermore, you condemned an entire nation and wished harm upon them on the basis of a perceived breach of your own values, which I might add are not completely clear to me.
It doesn't have much to do with cultural relativism, but with the assumption that you know what's good for Japan better than they do.
eh Canada is a good example. We're a country of immigrants
3rd largest economy in the world.
Hosting the Olympics in 2020.
Their cultural icons Pokemon, Nintendo characters, etc are known around the world.
Very low crime rate.
Yeah total idiots those Japanese are.
Hosting the Olympics in 2020.
Their cultural icons Pokemon, Nintendo characters, etc are known around the world.
Very low crime rate.
Yeah total idiots those Japanese are.
They're not idiots by a long shot. But Japan is particularly racist. Living on an island and isolating yourself from the world for over a century will do that...
FYI: there are no laws that ban discrimination in Japan, for instance in the housing market. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan
FYI: there are no laws that ban discrimination in Japan, for instance in the housing market. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan
The article you posted directly contradicts the claim "there are no laws that ban discrimination in Japan" though it supports the prevalence of racism.
As someone living in Tokyo. This xenophobic country is glorious. The problem is largely overblown and people are beyond nice. Easy to get friends and to date. Only problem is the working hours, otherwise it's way better than most countries. Only other place that I like as much is Sydney. Protip: be thin and behave well (no macho attitude) and you'll do well.
I would not say you're wrong but I believe it's important to note that the racism is not blatant, but rather perverse. As an example, foreigners working in a large Japanese organization will often feel a clear glass ceiling blocking their career advancement, regardless of their results, because of not being Japanese.
Another form of xenophobia is with the rental market, where a large proportion of places is simply out of reach for foreigners, regardless of their income level. Positive point is that this is usually not the case for the more premium bracket.
On the other hand, immigrating to Japan is very simple for qualified labor, which is great for foreigners looking for some experience here.
Another form of xenophobia is with the rental market, where a large proportion of places is simply out of reach for foreigners, regardless of their income level. Positive point is that this is usually not the case for the more premium bracket.
On the other hand, immigrating to Japan is very simple for qualified labor, which is great for foreigners looking for some experience here.
That's more likely to do with that foreigners will not know perfect Japanese so you'll reflect badly on the company. It's not racism lurking. Especially since the language has so many levels of politeness that means that even bending of the words are different depending on who you talk to. Business Japanese is very difficult even for Japanese. But it's always easier to hide behind anger. Just realize that many of the things that make Japan great has a drawback to them. But I prefer that countries are different so you can find a place that suits you.
I don't see how this is relevant. Nobody is having babies in Japan, especially the shut-ins.
Immigration is "the simple solution" if the only thing you care about - selfishly - is that your retirement and pension benefits are being paid out.
Immigration is "the simple solution" if the only thing you care about - selfishly - is that your retirement and pension benefits are being paid out.
Japan has a cultural problem where women near/over 30 are not wanted. Men needs to be from a top company, otherwise no woman wants them. Cultural norms says it's taboo to nor marry anyone that is not Japanese.
When I was dating my ex, who is from Japan, a major part for not settling down with me was because I am not Japanese. She moved back to Japan, couldn't date anyone due to her age (late 20's). She ultimately dated/married a Japanese American and moved back to the US with him. I would imagine her husband being born and raised in America - could care less that she is 29.
When I was dating my ex, who is from Japan, a major part for not settling down with me was because I am not Japanese. She moved back to Japan, couldn't date anyone due to her age (late 20's). She ultimately dated/married a Japanese American and moved back to the US with him. I would imagine her husband being born and raised in America - could care less that she is 29.
Japanese society has mostly memetically accepted the cancerous idea that sex and love are bad or not for them. It's a lack of individual courage and unreasonable standards which result of, or are the consequence of, soft population control, whether intentional/not, collective/individual and necessary/not.
And now you are an expert on a society with hundreds of millions of people that dates back thousands of years. And you can diagnose all of its problems and report back to us. Good thing we have you adding to the conversation.
I guess I wasn't clear, I was responding to imaginology not the parent thread.
It's a problem that's suddenly gaining more interest in Japan because they aren't making babies. Getting more babies is a political platform that a lot of people are currently riding. Hikikomoris and NEETs are an easy, growing trend you can point to and say "this is why we aren't making enough babies, they need to do their part, our system is fine they're just lazy".
It's a problem that's suddenly gaining more interest in Japan because they aren't making babies. Getting more babies is a political platform that a lot of people are currently riding. Hikikomoris and NEETs are an easy, growing trend you can point to and say "this is why we aren't making enough babies, they need to do their part, our system is fine they're just lazy".
Shut-ins and NEETs are the last people you'd go to in order to improve demographics of any country. These are the people who generally avoid social contact much less talk to members of opposite sex.
I don't follow Japanese politics, but implicating NEETs in their demographic problems seems completely out of touch.
I don't follow Japanese politics, but implicating NEETs in their demographic problems seems completely out of touch.
> the simple solution to that is immigration. That doesn't work so well in Japan, which while perfectly polite to visitors is in many places extremely homogeneous and they like to keep it that way
In many countries we're seeking to repel this "simple solution" that is destroying us but are not allowed to.
Japan seems to be the only country in charge of themself.
In many countries we're seeking to repel this "simple solution" that is destroying us but are not allowed to.
Japan seems to be the only country in charge of themself.
Why is not reproducing a problem (to anyone but the Japanese who are against immigrants) ?
On a global scale, with almost all ecosystems in decline and a looming climate crisis, not reproducing/falling birth rates is a blessing for everyone.
The social services and retirement funded by taxes is pretty much a pyramid scheme of sorts. Supporting a large population of retirees requires an even larger population of working tax payers. Otherwise there is going to be degradation and cuts to services.
This is the big elephant in the room that I don't see many people talking about. All of those social programs are set up with a huge assumption of exponential population growth. When that doesn't happen, they risk collapse. You can try to fix it with immigration, but often they end up dragging on those same social programs, at the very least in the short term. Their kids might not, but do we have that kind of time?
...so we (as in society and the press) implicitly blame and shame the people who didn't cause the problem in the first place for not contributing their fair share to other peoples' problems.
That's a nice ironic load of bull right there.
That's a nice ironic load of bull right there.
> With a TRF of 1.7
TRF?
TRF?
Total Fertility Rate. Mean number of children, per woman, in the population. According to the CIA World Factbook, it's actually 1.4 for Japan, as of 2015.
You need about 2.1 for population replacement, because of factors like premature death.
And immigration is going so well in other places.
Because being solitary for too long has been shown to have adverse effects on your mental health and is correlated with being unhealthy. As someone who has done what you're doing I can say unequivocally that I regret every minute of it and wish that I could've spent that time actually connecting with people.
There are pretty specific set of criteria to be labeled as hikikomori and I'm not sure if you quite fit that definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
GP does not sound like a hikikomori; he even admits to going outside occasionally. If he wants to increase his hiki-level, he needs to reduce social contact as much as possible, and only come leave his home at hours when no one will notice him, if he leaves at all. The whole point is essentially self-imposed solitary confinement due to extreme fear/depression/social anxiety. Asking what's wrong with a reclusive life doesn't sound hiki to me at all.
I'm an introvert and tend toward reclusion, but still think that reclusion can be bad. We should interact with others to help them and to be helped IRL.
This is much more than just being introverted or working a job that has little social interaction. This is complete withdraw from society. Many of these people don't even use the internet for communication. They don't go outside. Usually a parent takes care of them but never sees them. Their care taker leaves their meals at their bedroom door and walks away. It's incredibly sad.
It's not what they want to do.
If you want a sobering view into the life of a hikki, browse wizchan for a few hours. These are not happy people.
If you want a sobering view into the life of a hikki, browse wizchan for a few hours. These are not happy people.
Eh... Wizardchan is a special place. First of all, it's not Japanese—most of the users there are American or European. Second, forums have a culture and tone. If curious people see posters be angry and mad at society, they will either join in because they share the same values, or go somewhere else. So basically Wizardchan could be considered a subset of NEETs that are angry and sad.
But in the end, I do agree most NEETs aren't happy. I think when we hear "not working or studying" we tend to think "vacation", not depression/loneliness/being ill.
But in the end, I do agree most NEETs aren't happy. I think when we hear "not working or studying" we tend to think "vacation", not depression/loneliness/being ill.
I think if half a million young people are doing it, it's worth at least studying right? No need to call it bad or good just yet.
According to the documentary I watched, a lot of these people are very intellectual but have some kind of falling out with society. Since Japan bases a lot of it's social norms on or around shame, these people become recluses because of their "failure" not because they want to play video games and be on the internet. A half a million people not contributing to a society that is already lacking in labor force cannot be called a good thing.
I don't think reclusiveness is the problem per se. These individuals are either fully or partially dependent on family or the government for the basic necessities.
Have you checked your vitamin D level lately?
If you're honestly happy doing that, I would agree and say there's nothing wrong with it.
Out of curiosity, what's your job?
I really wish they asked if they had friends, real or imaginary. And if they had income. And if they shopped online. That would make a big difference in what the survey actually means. The internet could arguably be far larger, faster, and more satisfying than the real world for these people. Maybe they just let the world come to them? I guess all I am saying is, hikikomori definitely ain't what it used to be.
There's a solo pen and paper RPG called Hikikomori (named after the phenomenon) which is quite unsettling to play.
http://dsg.neko-machi.com/hikikomori.pdf
http://dsg.neko-machi.com/hikikomori.pdf
Someone should make that as an app or web site. I think it'd be interesting for more people to experience it, and something less reliant on having dice and checking tables would be more accessible.
I agree that it sounds like a great web app (I had the same thought) but I think you need to be careful not to be too hand-holdy. Half the game is the journaling of the situation, and if you too hand-holdy I think you lose a lot of the impetus to do the journaling. Or at least to do it well.
Still, I'm definitely considering it for this one, or something like it.
Still, I'm definitely considering it for this one, or something like it.
I think that even without the journaling, it could give some insight into social phobia, depression and malaise.
This sounds like a fun (albeit depressing...) weekend project.
I'm not a recluse technically(i do leave the house when i need it), but i can understand the mentality behind it.
Socialization is not a walk in the park, its time-consuming and requires serious commitment/effort(there plenty of "difficult" people) - while having people on the internet as the social group doesn't place a burden on the person at all(he can leave or change the group any time without much investment).
Avoiding unnecessary social interactions reduces stress and allows more time to be dedicated to own pursuits, at some cost of appearing more awkward/maladaptive within social circles. A price many are willing to pay: the problem is that social interactions are unavoidable long-term and lead to low social status as established social circles create a psychological entrance barrier of shared expirience/in-jokes/culture which evolves with them(like e.g. insulated internet communities) where any faux-pas disqualifies one from being a member.
Does any one know if this happens in other countries? I remember watching a documentary about the social workers that help these young people make transitions from recluses to members of society. Although the article says that the number has decreased in recent years, I'd be surprised if it hasn't increased globally because of online gaming/communities.
(EDIT: The documentary I saw was called "Japan's Missing Teenagers" which aired on SBS in 2003. Really interesting but I can't seem to find it anywhere.)
There's a theory out there, "to see what the West will look like in 10-20 years, look at Japan today". It's most commonly applied to economics (permanent low growth, low inflation and ZIRP) and demographics (falling birth rate), but I think it's true of the NEET and hikikomori phenomena as well.
The "unemployed young male who just plays video games" demographic that recently got a writeup in the WSJ certainly seems to parallel Japan's NEETs. With hikikomori, it's more anecdotal, but when I flick through my Tumblr feed I feel like I see a lot of people who state outright that they just can't function outside. I think in a few more years it will be noticeable enough that we can say it's happening here "for real"
The "unemployed young male who just plays video games" demographic that recently got a writeup in the WSJ certainly seems to parallel Japan's NEETs. With hikikomori, it's more anecdotal, but when I flick through my Tumblr feed I feel like I see a lot of people who state outright that they just can't function outside. I think in a few more years it will be noticeable enough that we can say it's happening here "for real"
Consider, though, that people who can't function outside would be more likely to use the web (because they have little else to do). So it's not necessarily representative.
> when I flick through my Tumblr feed I feel like I see a lot of people who state outright that they just can't function outside.
I'm going to sound rude and this is out of anecdotal experience (and I know some people actually can't function outside) but you should be careful when people on Tumblr say that. I've found most are just bored or lonely teenagers who self-diagnose themselves random things like Aspergers, ADHD, depression, etc. for whatever reason (sometimes for a valid reason related to family/household dysfunction, other times just to appear more interesting and to fit in online). When I used Tumblr five or so years ago I remember following these people and the ones I kept in touch with well, to sound rude again, grew out of it.
I'm going to sound rude and this is out of anecdotal experience (and I know some people actually can't function outside) but you should be careful when people on Tumblr say that. I've found most are just bored or lonely teenagers who self-diagnose themselves random things like Aspergers, ADHD, depression, etc. for whatever reason (sometimes for a valid reason related to family/household dysfunction, other times just to appear more interesting and to fit in online). When I used Tumblr five or so years ago I remember following these people and the ones I kept in touch with well, to sound rude again, grew out of it.
I just posted a general explanation of its prevalence in only Japan. But here's another perspective from a Japanese psychologist who's been working with Hikikomori patients for 15 years+:
According to my clinical experiences, hikikomori has a history of attachment trauma with their mother (all biological mothers due to the absence of divorce in the families). When rejected emotionally by a mother, a young child hides his original self for protection, and creates a false self to adapt to the dysfunctional mother. The child grows to an adult who neither trusts nor shows his true identity to people. When the conflicts between pretending and hiding the true identify become unbearable, he would retreat into extreme degrees of isolation and confinement.
This phenomenon is observed commonly across my hikikomori clients. Hikikomori begins from dysfunctional mother-child relationships, which are influenced by the society that values group harmony and compliance over individual freedom. The syndrome began surfacing when Japan achieved economic success while the mothers with traditional values were unprepared to satisfy the children’s needs for love, individual freedom, and self-actualization. Hence, many hikikomoris find no place in Japan, feeling captive in the affluent but culturally oppressive society.
According to my clinical experiences, hikikomori has a history of attachment trauma with their mother (all biological mothers due to the absence of divorce in the families). When rejected emotionally by a mother, a young child hides his original self for protection, and creates a false self to adapt to the dysfunctional mother. The child grows to an adult who neither trusts nor shows his true identity to people. When the conflicts between pretending and hiding the true identify become unbearable, he would retreat into extreme degrees of isolation and confinement.
This phenomenon is observed commonly across my hikikomori clients. Hikikomori begins from dysfunctional mother-child relationships, which are influenced by the society that values group harmony and compliance over individual freedom. The syndrome began surfacing when Japan achieved economic success while the mothers with traditional values were unprepared to satisfy the children’s needs for love, individual freedom, and self-actualization. Hence, many hikikomoris find no place in Japan, feeling captive in the affluent but culturally oppressive society.
They're referred to as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) in the UK. As you mentioned, there's quite a few in countries like the US that don't leave their house often due to gaming addictions. I've seen many people on Steam showing north of 150 hours of games played in the last two weeks and I don't believe they're just leaving the game running.
A Palo Alto Networks NGFW has a category 'Media' which includes Video, snapchat, etc. Deny Media is quite effective against any form of behavior with a computer that supports NEET.
NEET is a term used in Japan, too, and it's not quite the same as hikikomori, but they're close enough that they're often used interchangeably.
It's a world wide phenomenon.
While more pronounced in affluent countries with generous benefits systems, it's basically happening anywhere where supporting +1 person has marginal increase in costs.
We need new ways of valuing, sharing, creating and utilizing human output that isn't solely fixed on the next quarter results.
PS: there is also an inherent risk of large demographics of idle people encouraging both lone wolves and mob mayhem. Busy people with friends, kids and what's inside vlogs generally don't suddenly become terrorists or overthrow the regime.
PS: there is also an inherent risk of large demographics of idle people encouraging both lone wolves and mob mayhem. Busy people with friends, kids and what's inside vlogs generally don't suddenly become terrorists or overthrow the regime.
[deleted]
Switzerland.
last few years, finally people are starting to acknowledging the problem.
last few years, finally people are starting to acknowledging the problem.
This is often depression from failure to meet early career expectations. The Japanese, like many Asian cultures, are a highly driven society where career goals are set very early in life by the parents. In such a competitive society, failure to secure a highly sought after starting job with a good company, after attending some of the best colleges & universities, is a social stigma, and causes withdrawal from friends and family members. Prolonged withdrawal often turns into a real clinical depression. The protective nature of the Asian family allows this withdrawal from society to continue longer than initially planned, and soon their motivation to move forward in life is lost. Prolonged lack of work becomes hard to explain in resumes and job interviews, which further perpetuates this unfortunate phenomena.
This societal situation combined with Japans's extreme economic shift (from miracle economy to great stagnation)to create this perfect storm that is Hikikomori.
This societal situation combined with Japans's extreme economic shift (from miracle economy to great stagnation)to create this perfect storm that is Hikikomori.
Japanese employment system is probably the major reason for this problem. New graduates is the most important and dropout are abandoned. From my own experience(I spent 3 years at home).
It's another sign of the global oversupply of labor and the inability to harness talents going to waste. Folks under twenty in the US are experiencing some of the very same pressures.
Cultural critics like to blame individuals for behavior like this, but in Japan's case it's mostly economic.
Japan's economy was export dependent for a long time. The Japanese would manufacture more than they consumed and sell the surplus to the world. This ended when the Asian Tigers repeated the strategy at lower cost. Meanwhile asset prices inflated wildly because people thought the good times would never end. Which they did in the early 90s.
With demand for Japan's surplus product less, and assets overpriced, Japan had to begin a painful process of deflation. I think house prices fell for over 20 years after the bubble burst.
Japan's economy began to bifurcate after this, with the remaining good jobs going to the best students and the other students left with temporary jobs. The stakes are high for Japanese students.
Fundamentally, the Japanese islands are crowded and not very resource rich. Exporting finished goods allowed the population to grow above the economic carrying capacity of the land, and now the population is falling to adjust to the new reality.
If Japan still had a go-go economy like it did in the 70s and 80s, I doubt there would be as many recluses.
Japan's economy was export dependent for a long time. The Japanese would manufacture more than they consumed and sell the surplus to the world. This ended when the Asian Tigers repeated the strategy at lower cost. Meanwhile asset prices inflated wildly because people thought the good times would never end. Which they did in the early 90s.
With demand for Japan's surplus product less, and assets overpriced, Japan had to begin a painful process of deflation. I think house prices fell for over 20 years after the bubble burst.
Japan's economy began to bifurcate after this, with the remaining good jobs going to the best students and the other students left with temporary jobs. The stakes are high for Japanese students.
Fundamentally, the Japanese islands are crowded and not very resource rich. Exporting finished goods allowed the population to grow above the economic carrying capacity of the land, and now the population is falling to adjust to the new reality.
If Japan still had a go-go economy like it did in the 70s and 80s, I doubt there would be as many recluses.
So other countries probably have a lot to learn from this by the sound of it?
Lesson #1: Don't try to preserve social harmony by delaying indefinitely the consequences of bad company decisions. Clean up quickly and effectively instead.
It seems like most countries have learned the lesson (or have never had to) and avoided the mistakes Japan has made, although the EU is headed in vaguely similar directions.
It seems like most countries have learned the lesson (or have never had to) and avoided the mistakes Japan has made, although the EU is headed in vaguely similar directions.
I can understand why these people are like this. As other people said, only the very top jobs and graduates count for anything, if you're not elite you may as well drop dead. This is starting to happen in other economies too, but I digress.
Also, the amount of what I'll call "social bullshit" is piled high (if you have a better, less provocative term, let me know). What is said is very far away from what is meant, and if you can't peel away the onion of social bullshit to discover what people really mean, communication is very difficult. Even playing patio11's game Stockfighter was very difficult for me to understand the directions, as the space between what you're supposed to do and what he suggests to do is very large (to me).
Also, the amount of what I'll call "social bullshit" is piled high (if you have a better, less provocative term, let me know). What is said is very far away from what is meant, and if you can't peel away the onion of social bullshit to discover what people really mean, communication is very difficult. Even playing patio11's game Stockfighter was very difficult for me to understand the directions, as the space between what you're supposed to do and what he suggests to do is very large (to me).
The people commenting in this thread to the effect of "what's wrong with this, I live like this too" just blow me away. This isn't a way to live, it's a way to hide. You have a mental illness and should seek support.
It must be nice knowing the "correct" way to live.
I maybe don't know the 'correct' way to live but I know of several incorrect ones.
I feel like for such a fundamentally social animal eschewing social interactions is not good. If other social animals (e.g. dogs) exhibit similar behaviours I would assume that they are sick somehow or they had some trauma. You can get social interactions from the internet but in my experience (and also from observing others) it's much harder for those to be fulfilling and it seems harder for people who get their interactions this way to be happy.
This seems relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_futility
Futility being the key term.
Futility being the key term.
Coming next: white America
Are there any stats on how many of these people are obese?
[deleted]
In Japan you're not mentally ill, you're a recluse.
In Russia you're not homosexual, you're a paedophile.
Doesn't this simply illustrate the awful way in which human beings are treated -- by countries slightly more backward than those that, at least, acknowledge the existence of mental illness, or sexuality? (BTW:I'm not equating sexuality with mental illness, but the way certain things are ignored, or labelled/conflated.)
In Russia you're not homosexual, you're a paedophile.
Doesn't this simply illustrate the awful way in which human beings are treated -- by countries slightly more backward than those that, at least, acknowledge the existence of mental illness, or sexuality? (BTW:I'm not equating sexuality with mental illness, but the way certain things are ignored, or labelled/conflated.)
I'm a recluse myself. Modern society has little to offer to most men that aren't top tier earners, looks etc.
You'll live in some shit tier city because you aren't making enough to move somewhere nice (or can't get a work visa), people around you are aggressive low IQ proles in Europe - always looking to pick fights (see https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1713078/moments-after-photo-of... ), if you aren't an aggressive muscular guy you'll just get some fugly harpy who will "settle" for you. There's just nothing in it for me.
I have been to Japan and the society is fairly autistic. People are polite but want to stay in their own little bubble. You could collapse on the street in Tokyo and nobody would give a shit if you don't block the entrance of a business. In the outskirts of Tokyo people live in bleak housing blocks that already look depressing from far away that make modern condos look like masterpieces.
Think this ten times the size: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Cwmbran_...
The society is super hierarchical, with old people being on top and young people earning almost nothing, jobs being hard to come by, guys not getting girlfriends / wifes cause strong independent women don't need no man and socializing with random people outside the internet is highly uncommon as well.
If I was in Japan I would be a recluse as well.
EDIT: Bring on the downvotes. I miss the usenet days where people actually had similar opinions to me and it was still a 99% male space where women were universally hated - long before fuckbook, twatter and young engineered brainwashed by colleges into becoming social justice warriors.
You'll live in some shit tier city because you aren't making enough to move somewhere nice (or can't get a work visa), people around you are aggressive low IQ proles in Europe - always looking to pick fights (see https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1713078/moments-after-photo-of... ), if you aren't an aggressive muscular guy you'll just get some fugly harpy who will "settle" for you. There's just nothing in it for me.
I have been to Japan and the society is fairly autistic. People are polite but want to stay in their own little bubble. You could collapse on the street in Tokyo and nobody would give a shit if you don't block the entrance of a business. In the outskirts of Tokyo people live in bleak housing blocks that already look depressing from far away that make modern condos look like masterpieces.
Think this ten times the size: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Cwmbran_...
The society is super hierarchical, with old people being on top and young people earning almost nothing, jobs being hard to come by, guys not getting girlfriends / wifes cause strong independent women don't need no man and socializing with random people outside the internet is highly uncommon as well.
If I was in Japan I would be a recluse as well.
EDIT: Bring on the downvotes. I miss the usenet days where people actually had similar opinions to me and it was still a 99% male space where women were universally hated - long before fuckbook, twatter and young engineered brainwashed by colleges into becoming social justice warriors.
> if you aren't an aggressive muscular guy you'll just get some fugly harpy who will "settle" for you
The irony in this statement is staggering.
The irony in this statement is staggering.
It is, yet it is still not wrong. "They should love me for me" works both ways!
> I have been to Japan and the society is fairly autistic. People are polite but want to stay in their own little bubble. You could collapse on the street in Tokyo and nobody would give a shit if you don't block the entrance of a business.
This might be more of a reflection of living in a large city, rather than being Japanese. In a rural area, you wave to everyone you meet. In a large city - Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, New York, etc. - your arm would fall off by mid-afternoon.
> a 99% male space where women were universally hated
Funny, I don't remember Usenet as a MRA haven, but perhaps we just visited different newsgroups.
This might be more of a reflection of living in a large city, rather than being Japanese. In a rural area, you wave to everyone you meet. In a large city - Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, New York, etc. - your arm would fall off by mid-afternoon.
> a 99% male space where women were universally hated
Funny, I don't remember Usenet as a MRA haven, but perhaps we just visited different newsgroups.
unimportant(2)
If you want to have an interesting and fun life don't waste your time being bitter. Your bitterness will achieve nothing, because no one is interested in it.
Let me be clear, they are not actively out there hating you because of the views you hold - they just hold no opinion at all about you, one way or the other.
I am not one of those people.
I am glad you are a recluse. You've made the right choice.
Good luck and goodbye
Let me be clear, they are not actively out there hating you because of the views you hold - they just hold no opinion at all about you, one way or the other.
I am not one of those people.
I am glad you are a recluse. You've made the right choice.
Good luck and goodbye
I'm going to have another go at this, because I just realised I did something I hate. I really wanted to make my comment something that could change your mind, rather than just express my displeasure at your opinions - so here goes...
Your statements about how you see the world are very black and white, but the world you are talking about is very very complex, and there are infinite shades of grey. If you went outside and interacted with other people without prejudging the outcome I think that you would have plenty of experiences which do not conform to your expectations of how the world is. I say 'expectations' because I don't think you've attempted to disprove your own assumptions - and I think your assumptions are based not on your own experiences, but on anecdotes from echo chambers (usernet, etc.) (now i'm assuming too much - but you can tell me if i'm wrong).
Maybe you have had some bad personal experiences that lead you to your views on harpy women, proles and aggressively muscular men. I would like to hear what they are.
Your statements about how you see the world are very black and white, but the world you are talking about is very very complex, and there are infinite shades of grey. If you went outside and interacted with other people without prejudging the outcome I think that you would have plenty of experiences which do not conform to your expectations of how the world is. I say 'expectations' because I don't think you've attempted to disprove your own assumptions - and I think your assumptions are based not on your own experiences, but on anecdotes from echo chambers (usernet, etc.) (now i'm assuming too much - but you can tell me if i'm wrong).
Maybe you have had some bad personal experiences that lead you to your views on harpy women, proles and aggressively muscular men. I would like to hear what they are.
Wizardchan is this way -> http://wizchan.org/
>I miss the usenet days where people actually had similar opinions to me and it was still a 99% male space where women were universally hated - long before fuckbook, twatter and young engineered brainwashed by colleges into becoming social justice warriors.
Is this a serious statement? I can't imagine someone would be so fragile and yet bold (blind?) enough to post that they miss their safe space while at the same time lambasting that perennial "SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS" boogeyman.
Is this a serious statement? I can't imagine someone would be so fragile and yet bold (blind?) enough to post that they miss their safe space while at the same time lambasting that perennial "SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS" boogeyman.
My wife and I visited Tokyo on vacation, and while I agree it seems like people don't care, there were a couple times we were arguing over maps that complete strangers came up and attempted to help with the little English they were able to speak.
We didn't actually need help, and we weren't mad at each other, we just discuss things loudly when we disagree about the best course of action. However, we were touched by their willingness to help out others, even though there was a language barrier. (They didn't know I speak some Japanese.)
So I have to disagree that you won't get any help if you have a problem.
Granted, we didn't visit the "outskirts", and it may very well be different out there, but we were in some non-touristy areas when this stuff happened.
We didn't actually need help, and we weren't mad at each other, we just discuss things loudly when we disagree about the best course of action. However, we were touched by their willingness to help out others, even though there was a language barrier. (They didn't know I speak some Japanese.)
So I have to disagree that you won't get any help if you have a problem.
Granted, we didn't visit the "outskirts", and it may very well be different out there, but we were in some non-touristy areas when this stuff happened.
> I'm a recluse myself. Modern society has little to offer to most men that aren't top tier earners, looks etc.
I fully respect that you have figured this out (because you're absolutely not wrong), but have you ever considered trying to become a top-tier male? Like, throw in a serious year or two of hard work, weightlifting, social skills improvement, cooking, grooming, study, wardrobe, etc etc, to see how the other side lives?
It's not "easy", but now I'm just wondering... since you've figured out that modern society has nothing to offer such men, which most men will NEVER truly understand, why not become the opposite?
I fully respect that you have figured this out (because you're absolutely not wrong), but have you ever considered trying to become a top-tier male? Like, throw in a serious year or two of hard work, weightlifting, social skills improvement, cooking, grooming, study, wardrobe, etc etc, to see how the other side lives?
It's not "easy", but now I'm just wondering... since you've figured out that modern society has nothing to offer such men, which most men will NEVER truly understand, why not become the opposite?
They obviously are not and can not be or become "top-tier males". That's the objective reality.
They don't want to be part of the system as it has nothing in it for them.
In other words, their existence as part of the system is perceived as miserable as - if not more so - than being outside of it. So why bother trying?
There's very little to no return on investment for their efforts in improving themselves (or being part of the system).
If due to pressing economic circumstances they were forced to work, they would not be any less miserable, perhaps more so.
In other words, their existence as part of the system is perceived as miserable as - if not more so - than being outside of it. So why bother trying?
There's very little to no return on investment for their efforts in improving themselves (or being part of the system).
If due to pressing economic circumstances they were forced to work, they would not be any less miserable, perhaps more so.
He might be very short or disfigured.
Ugh, I hate the height excuse. That might be offensive since I'm 6'0, but I know plenty of crazy 'successful' short guys. Is it a disadvantage? Of course. But nothing that can't be worked around.
Glad people like Ronnie James Dio didn't wimp out at their dreams because they weren't tall. But how many Ronnie James Dio's have we not had a chance to enjoy because they thought less of themselves? I hate it.
Glad people like Ronnie James Dio didn't wimp out at their dreams because they weren't tall. But how many Ronnie James Dio's have we not had a chance to enjoy because they thought less of themselves? I hate it.
>I fully respect that you have figured this out (because you're absolutely not wrong), but have you ever considered trying to become a top-tier male?
I don't get anything out of having sex with women I don't like and I generally don't find women to be likeable. Just like most guys I have been looking for love in my 20s just to find out that no such thing exists beyond a mother's love for her children. I look above average and dress above average these days and get a fair amount of unwanted female attention as they apparently love my facial expression of seething contempt for most people.
I don't get anything out of having sex with women I don't like and I generally don't find women to be likeable. Just like most guys I have been looking for love in my 20s just to find out that no such thing exists beyond a mother's love for her children. I look above average and dress above average these days and get a fair amount of unwanted female attention as they apparently love my facial expression of seething contempt for most people.
Thanks for sharing your point of view. Also, sorry that some people are picking on small parts of your comment rather than listening to your overall point, which I think is valid.
I do have one thing to say about housing in Japan. It does look extremely bleak, but I think the looks are deceptive, and much of it is actually of quite a high quality. The way it was explained to me by a Japanese person is that everything is designed with earthquakes in mind. Anything extraneous might fall off in an earthquake. Any decorative features, fancy light fixtures, or signage are excluded.
The result is that even the most important buildings end up looking like bland, featureless blocks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_60
I do have one thing to say about housing in Japan. It does look extremely bleak, but I think the looks are deceptive, and much of it is actually of quite a high quality. The way it was explained to me by a Japanese person is that everything is designed with earthquakes in mind. Anything extraneous might fall off in an earthquake. Any decorative features, fancy light fixtures, or signage are excluded.
The result is that even the most important buildings end up looking like bland, featureless blocks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_60
>You could collapse on the street in Tokyo and nobody would give a shit if you don't block the entrance of a business.
This literally happened when I was visiting Japan and your belief is invalid. My girlfriend fell down the stairs in the Tokyo train station during the rush hour commute and many strangers were concerned for her well being (to the point we had to decline several times being taken to a hospital).
This literally happened when I was visiting Japan and your belief is invalid. My girlfriend fell down the stairs in the Tokyo train station during the rush hour commute and many strangers were concerned for her well being (to the point we had to decline several times being taken to a hospital).
He was talking from a male's point of view though. Had it been you, and not a damsel in distress, do you think the same reaction would have occurred?
yes. have you been to tokyo?
i was offered help multiple times when standing alone by myself when waiting for something, or someone. i'm an asian male, pretty much indistinguishable from any random japanese guy.
i've been a lot of places and i have a hard time believing that you could fall down in the middle street anywhere on earth and nobody will help you, including new york, shanghai, other megacities.
excepting maybe some extreme examples like communistic societies at the height of the cold war, but that's it.
i was offered help multiple times when standing alone by myself when waiting for something, or someone. i'm an asian male, pretty much indistinguishable from any random japanese guy.
i've been a lot of places and i have a hard time believing that you could fall down in the middle street anywhere on earth and nobody will help you, including new york, shanghai, other megacities.
excepting maybe some extreme examples like communistic societies at the height of the cold war, but that's it.
I can't speak to that since it didn't happen to me, but several of those who offered assistance were also women so I'm not sure it was a "shining knight rescues damsel in distress" response.
Because that was an obvious accident.
If a random guy collapses on the street nobody would care.
If a random guy collapses on the street nobody would care.
Just a heads up... Hacker News is not a free speech zone. The slightest negative emotion in a comment will have it either disappear or you banned. Even just writing a vulgar word is risky here. It is absolutely nothing like Usenet. This is the private forum of a Silicon Valley business. It leans more toward the new generation of mobile startup culture than what you're from.
I sympathize with you being rejected after commenting about how you feel rejected. It isn't very fair. The virtual space used to be a refuge for recluses who were ran out of regular society. Physical appearance or health did not factor in because nobody could see you.
But the Internet isn't that place anymore. Now it is dominated by the same competitions. To get favorable treatment here you need to be beautiful or wealthy. If your account was "pg" you could write this and anything else and it would be voted to the top.
Sorry. You have an ugly personality, and it requires special compassion for anyone to not reject that. Not everyone knows what it feels like to be rejected and how it can push you further into ugliness. I don't have any solutions for that, just wanted to let you know someone out there recognizes the pain.
I sympathize with you being rejected after commenting about how you feel rejected. It isn't very fair. The virtual space used to be a refuge for recluses who were ran out of regular society. Physical appearance or health did not factor in because nobody could see you.
But the Internet isn't that place anymore. Now it is dominated by the same competitions. To get favorable treatment here you need to be beautiful or wealthy. If your account was "pg" you could write this and anything else and it would be voted to the top.
Sorry. You have an ugly personality, and it requires special compassion for anyone to not reject that. Not everyone knows what it feels like to be rejected and how it can push you further into ugliness. I don't have any solutions for that, just wanted to let you know someone out there recognizes the pain.
> But the Internet isn't that place anymore. Now it is dominated by the same competitions. To get favorable treatment here you need to be beautiful or wealthy.
I disagree; The internet is not one big homogenous blob.
> You have an ugly personality, and it requires special compassion for anyone to not reject that
I do agree with your assessment, but it seems that unimportant is actively working towards being rejected. Instead of trying to improve himself, he's happily playing the role of the reject, blaming society and "harpies" or whatever on all his woes.
I'm sure there are people whose instinct is to find the goodness inside folks like him, and god bless 'em - but it ain't me. When someone flings shit at my feet, I don't dig through it to see if they swallowed a diamond.
I disagree; The internet is not one big homogenous blob.
> You have an ugly personality, and it requires special compassion for anyone to not reject that
I do agree with your assessment, but it seems that unimportant is actively working towards being rejected. Instead of trying to improve himself, he's happily playing the role of the reject, blaming society and "harpies" or whatever on all his woes.
I'm sure there are people whose instinct is to find the goodness inside folks like him, and god bless 'em - but it ain't me. When someone flings shit at my feet, I don't dig through it to see if they swallowed a diamond.
It's not that simple--if you express negative emotion such as sadness and melancholy, it's easy to find support here. However if you use that negative emotion as a springboard for resentment, grudges, and generalized hate, as OP has, you won't find a good reception.
> To get favorable treatment here you need to be beautiful or wealthy.
Or just well spoken and reasonable? Sure well known celebs of the tech industry do perhaps get the "favorable treatment" of extra upvotes. But people aren't participating in these discussions just to get "favorable treatment", they're doing it for the intellectually engaging environment, the quality of which is a result of trading off some amount of unmitigated free speech
And it's not like dissenting opinions get flagged or even downvoted to oblivion - the grandparent isn't gray, for example. Only noise, hate speech and misinformation gets that treatment. In fact I'd argue that grandparent maybe should be, since he's citing a universal hatred of women as a positive value in a community - so I think it's still a lot closer to Usenet than you claim.
Or just well spoken and reasonable? Sure well known celebs of the tech industry do perhaps get the "favorable treatment" of extra upvotes. But people aren't participating in these discussions just to get "favorable treatment", they're doing it for the intellectually engaging environment, the quality of which is a result of trading off some amount of unmitigated free speech
And it's not like dissenting opinions get flagged or even downvoted to oblivion - the grandparent isn't gray, for example. Only noise, hate speech and misinformation gets that treatment. In fact I'd argue that grandparent maybe should be, since he's citing a universal hatred of women as a positive value in a community - so I think it's still a lot closer to Usenet than you claim.
I feel you're bitter about the anti-male sentiment that is rampant in our society and sadly, now also the internet. Rest assured, there are plenty of people who can value you as a person and a man. People with common sense who don't care about SJW stuff but instead just want to have fruitful interactions with other people. Don't let the negativity of people on the internet affect you.
> People with common sense who don't care about SJW stuff but instead just want to have fruitful interactions with other people.
Funny, when he himself isn't interested in fruitful interactions with other people - at least, not those people who happen to be women, or men who don't hate women.
Funny, when he himself isn't interested in fruitful interactions with other people - at least, not those people who happen to be women, or men who don't hate women.
Pretty sure that's only a defense mechanism and bitterness from past experiences speaking. Let's be frank: He would love to have fruitful interactions and if literally nobody makes a first step to get him out of there, he will be denied this opportunity forever.
Is it justice you don't like, or people who fight for justice?
It's usually futile trying to point out the hypocrisy of using "SJW" as a pejorative - people who use it thus tend to be several steps beyond the point of apprehending or caring about the linguistic dissonance.
I wonder if the introduction of plastics, bpa, or other chemicals have something to do with this and other issues we see growing over time. Likely we will not know for 50-80 years (see: Smoking, asbestos).
The worst part is that it will take decades for society to fix this.