OMFG! Japan is about to run out of people!

[Mennon]

Having no money is no excuse for not having kids. If it was, you wouldn't have been born. Yo mammas so poor I saw her walking down the street kicking a can and I asked her what she was doing and she said I'm moving.

[Tsuru]

I agree with AK here. As with so many other things, the emphasis should be on quality instead of quantity.

[GuyJean]

I agree with AK here. As with so many other things, the emphasis should be on quality instead of quantity.

But with AK, 'quality' equals zero..

GJ

[Tsuru]

The nice thing with this, is that it can

[GuyJean]

The nice thing with this, is that it can

The population has expanded at the same time people are having less kids. To me, this points to the problem not being the kids; The problem is people aren't dying fast enough!

So, if all you selfish, childless, 'quality' seeking, non-contributors-to-the-human-species, people could just hurry up and die, I could have the 12 kids my farm requires.

GJ

[dingosatemybaby]

The nice thing with this, is that it can

The population has expanded at the same time people are having less kids. To me, this points to the problem not being the kids]

Are you a Mormon?

[GuyJean]

Are you a Mormon?

No. But they want me.

GJ

[AssKissinger]

http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/8737.aspx

While the vast majority of Japanese believe the nation's shrinking population presents an economic crisis, others are hoping their children will get an easier ride into university.

[Greji]

Getting old in Japan has it's advantages..
I'm not pretty, but I'm hung like a mutant godzilla horse..GJ

I am the horse!

[kurohinge1]

[SIZE="4"]Japanese women wage fertility strike[/SIZE]

. . . During the six months we've been in Tokyo, my husband has been home early just once during the week, and that was for our 10th anniversary. He wasn't home when our son turned 4. I felt sad singing "Happy Birthday" to our little boy alone . . . more

[otakuden]

there are children starving and dying in abject poverty, without decent health care, and yet we need to pump out more kids. methinks japan needs to focus more on their current younger generation(s) and their present and future.

[cenic]

there are children starving and dying in abject poverty, without decent health care, and yet we need to pump out more kids. methinks japan needs to focus more on their current younger generation(s) and their present and future.

The declining population in Japan has resulted in a variety of consequences which you need to consider.

education:
with a declining population the meritocracy of Japan is failing. Few students, less competition. This comes at the heels of the "baby boom" in post war Japan which resulted in far too many schools being built. Therefore, schools are having to face closing up shop, or lowering standards.

elder care:
less taxable income means less for social services. fewer people having less children, means every new married couple would be expected to take care of 2 sets of parents.

employment:
with an increased population facing retirement age and the inability to fill these positions more and more are having to extend retirement.

I suppose the positive of the declining population has been the women's rights laws of the 1980s and on. This has been an attempt to get women into the work force. However, this creates a further paradox as women enter the work force birthrates will further decline.

ideological changes:
As we've seen with the shift in structure regarding education, employment and elder care all those lovely invented traditions of Japan are revealing themselves as imaginary.

then again ,I am sure all of this has been discussed. I just can't believe someone doesn't understand the outward affects of a declining population on a post-modern society.

I want to also clearify that this is not unique to Japan, but is affecting many countries including Europe and the US.

[Ketou]

The declining population in Japan has resulted in a variety of consequences which you need to consider.

education:
with a declining population the meritocracy of Japan is failing. Few students, less competition. This comes at the heels of the "baby boom" in post war Japan which resulted in far too many schools being built. Therefore, schools are having to face closing up shop, or lowering standards.

elder care:
less taxable income means less more for social services. fewer people having less children, means every new married couple would be expected to take care of 2 sets of parents.

employment:
with an increased population facing retirement age and the inability to fill these positions more and more are having to extend retirement.

I suppose the positive of the declining population has been the women's rights laws of the 1980s and on. This has been an attempt to get women into the work force. However, this creates a further paradox as women enter the work force birthrates will further decline.

ideological changes:
As we've seen with the shift in structure regarding education, employment and elder care all those lovely invented traditions of Japan are revealing themselves as imaginary.

then again ,I am sure all of this has been discussed. I just can't believe someone doesn't understand the outward affects of a declining population on a post-modern society.

I want to also clearify that this is not unique to Japan, but is affecting many countries including Europe and the US.

I think posters were moreover talking about sustainability issues rather than the 'outward effects'.

Although the points you bring up are valid, to argue that population growth is the only solution seems to be alarmist rather than logical.
A decline in GDP is not a problem considering that with productivity gains there will be a rise in GDP per capita. More wealth per capita is much healthier than just overall GDP.

[otakuden]

The declining population in Japan has resulted in a variety of consequences which you need to consider.

education:
with a declining population the meritocracy of Japan is failing. Few students, less competition. This comes at the heels of the "baby boom" in post war Japan which resulted in far too many schools being built. Therefore, schools are having to face closing up shop, or lowering standards.

elder care:
less taxable income means less more for social services. fewer people having less children, means every new married couple would be expected to take care of 2 sets of parents.

employment:
with an increased population facing retirement age and the inability to fill these positions more and more are having to extend retirement.

I suppose the positive of the declining population has been the women's rights laws of the 1980s and on. This has been an attempt to get women into the work force. However, this creates a further paradox as women enter the work force birthrates will further decline.

ideological changes:
As we've seen with the shift in structure regarding education, employment and elder care all those lovely invented traditions of Japan are revealing themselves as imaginary.

then again ,I am sure all of this has been discussed. I just can't believe someone doesn't understand the outward affects of a declining population on a post-modern society.

I want to also clearify that this is not unique to Japan, but is affecting many countries including Europe and the US.

your points are totally valid, and i don't disagree with them. but, i do disagree with the whole implied approach/mentality towards child-birth as more of an obligation/duty than of love. it's ok to have both, i think, but to emphasize and focus on one more than the other, to impress upon a generation a feeling of guilt that could later have a negative affect on the next generation isn't exactly positive either. theoretically speaking, we're in a period of a growing elderly population because past generations had kids, lots of kids, and thus now we're feeling the effects. it's neither good or bad, i think, but is it a cycle that should just blindly repeat itself?
it's a whole lotta gray.

[kurohinge1]

... but, i do disagree with the whole implied approach/mentality towards child-birth as more of an obligation/duty than of love. it's ok to have both, i think, but to emphasize and focus on one more than the other, to impress upon a generation a feeling of guilt that could later have a negative affect on the next generation isn't exactly positive either . . .

That's not how I understood the main articles or posts.

Express or implied, isn't the message as follows:

1. There are declining birth rates
2. The causal condition appears to be disincentives to having children
3. There will be unwelcome consequences, particularly if those disincentives are not addressed

[cenic]

I just want to reiterate, these are just some of the consequences of a declining birthrate, I have not provided any solution, thats up to the LDP to correct. Furthermore, birthrate alone is not the cause of the heisei recession, but it sure ain't helping anything.

[Buraku]

Japan's Frustrated Fathers
By Jeff Kingston
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115042213621682019.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It's tough being a dad in Japan, at least as far as tucking in the kids on their futons every night. Corporate Japan conspires against their best fatherly intentions: grueling working hours, lengthy commutes, and the practice of tanshin funin -- the relocation of husbands, minus their families, to distant branch offices for years at a time -- have made absentee fatherhood an epidemic over the past few decades.

Japan's fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime -- fell to an all-time low of 1.25 the latest sign of the threat to the world's second-biggest economy from an ageing, shrinking population.

[Crossed]

Originally Posted by cenic
The declining population in Japan has resulted in a variety of consequences which you need to consider

1st point: Although I agree that many of the effects of a population decrease are valid, I could not do so regarding the affects of the lower population on the meritocracy (taking it as a given that Japan is really a meritocracy: there are those who would disagree).

A lower population ultimately does not affect whether a country is a meritocracy or not. Yes, in the short term -- as the non-producing but still consuming older generation ages -- many jobs will be a "sellers market" for prospective employees. However, after the bulge evens out, there will be fewer demands on the system, which means fewer jobs -- matching the scale of the population -- which means people still have to compete.

Does a lower population mean that some schools would have to close? Yes. So what? To use an exaggerated example, a population of a 10,000 does not need all of the services provided to a population of 100,000. Instead of needing 10 McDonalds, they only need 1. Does this mean that people will be unemployed? Nope. Fewer people means fewer jobs, but also fewer people who need jobs.

2nd Point: As I said, many of your points are valid effects of a declining population. They will have to be dealt with. However, we have to deal with them sometime anyway. The population can't climb forever. Where is the limit? 240 million already seems pretty crowded; should we wait and deal with those problems when there are a billion people? 2 billion people? The same problems will occur, but on an even larger scale. Let's deal with it now, when we are only miserably crowded on this island, rather than catastrophically overcrowded.

[Ketou]

[quote="Crossed"]

2nd Point: As I said, many of your points are valid effects of a declining population. They will have to be dealt with. However, we have to deal with them sometime anyway. The population can't climb forever. Where is the limit? 240 million already seems pretty crowded]

Too right! Bring on the good times.

[cstaylor]

Let's deal with it now, when we are only miserably crowded on this island, rather than catastrophically overcrowded.

Japan has highly concentrated population centers (Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka). A change in corporate structure could remove the need to have 3 million+ people pass through Tokyo train stations every morning.

[Crossed]

Japan has highly concentrated population centers (Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka). A change in corporate structure could remove the need to have 3 million+ people pass through Tokyo train stations every morning.

There is some truth to it. Restructuring would ease the pressure, but I don't think it would ultimately be effective. First of all, there are cultural pressures: Japanese seem to really like to consolidate. They almost seem uncomfortable with the idea of spreading business/government/culture centers around, with the possible exception of Kyoto.

Let's consider what would happen if they did move, the government out into the "countryside" (more on that later). Even assuming 0 population growth, I could see temporary relief, but wouldn't be surprised if the corporations restructure in such a way that they have major offices in the new "government" town. But that is just a guess.

The real problem is this, though: Outside of Hokkaido, there is very little real countryside in Japan for them to move to. Even small towns have population densities that would be considered more appropriate for a city back in the U.S. Although there is undeveloped land out there, it would be tough to find some that a mountain goat would fall off of.

Or, if you like, you could start using up Japan's arable land for development. Not too bright as that moves the country from being unpleasantly overpopulated to dangerously overpopulated. It would take very little at that point to create a dangerous famine situation. We're on the edge of that danger now as it is.

And again, this is just assuming that the population remains stable. Add in a modest 1% increase, and you find things becoming deteriorating. Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper. Let's do it now when it is still possible to pay the bill.

[dimwit]

The real problem is this, though: Outside of Hokkaido, there is very little real countryside in Japan for them to move to. Even small towns have population densities that would be considered more appropriate for a city back in the U.S. Although there is undeveloped land out there, it would be tough to find some that a mountain goat would fall off of.

There is lots of open space in Shikoku, Chukoku and Kyushu. Still the towns and villages do appear to be cramped, but in fact when you consider that half the places are abandoned the really aren't that many people out there.

It is to me an interesting question as to whether the abandonment of rural Japan is a good or bad thing. Theoritically, it could open up Japan to more efficient and profitable farming, but from my own observation this doesn't seem to be happening. Farmland is merely being abandoned and little consolidation seems to be happening.

[cstaylor]

The real problem is this, though: Outside of Hokkaido, there is very little real countryside in Japan for them to move to. Even small towns have population densities that would be considered more appropriate for a city back in the U.S.

American cities, for the most part, are too spread out, where cars are an absolute necessity. I've driven through plenty of country side in Japan that could easily be converted to affordable, spacious housing.

I understand that some employees for large corporations would need to be near Nagatacho to suck up to the government, but the regular salaryman doesn't need to be there, except to show their hard-working faces to their immediate superiors to get on the promotion fast-track. That is the corporate change I'm referring to in my previous post: without a new style of work management, telecommuters get the shaft in terms of promotions ("out of sight, out of mind").

[Crossed]

American cities, for the most part, are too spread out, where cars are an absolute necessity. I've driven through plenty of country side in Japan that could easily be converted to affordable, spacious housing.

I agree with you that American cities are poorly designed, but it is not the point I was making. What I meant was that most small towns in Japan -- in the country -- have a population density similar to that of an American city, if not greater (since, as you point out, American cities are pretty dispersed).

I understand that some employees for large corporations would need to be near Nagatacho to suck up to the government, but the regular salaryman doesn't need to be there, except to show their hard-working faces to their immediate superiors to get on the promotion fast-track. That is the corporate change I'm referring to in my previous post: without a new style of work management, telecommuters get the shaft in terms of promotions ("out of sight, out of mind").

Yep, I agree that that change would help. I just don't see it happening.

But again -- and please forgive me if I seem repetitive -- we are just quibbling about numbers, really. If you don't think that Japan is overcrowded now, at what point would you say that it _is_ overcrowded? 400 million? 800? A billion?

[Mulboyne]

Japanese seem to really like to consolidate. They almost seem uncomfortable with the idea of spreading business/government/culture centers around

Ishihara is certainly uncomfortable with the idea:

While many views have been expressed on the basic policy on local decentralization, or the "Honebuto no Hoshin" (which means "thick-boned" or "sturdy" policy that sounds good but leaves me to question what is exactly so sturdy about it), the most important subject matter of this policy would be cutting annual expenditures. To achieve this objective would mean reductions in local finances, or in other words, drastic cuts on funds distributed to the local government by the central government. At the prefectural level, Tokyo is the only local government that is not receiving money from the central government. This has come about because of Tokyo's enormous efforts in areas such as administrative reform and fiscal reconstruction. Yet an incredibly outrageous proposal seeking to take away our money is surfacing based on claims that Tokyo alone is flourishing...Tokyo residents pay approximately 1.4 million yen per person in national taxes [but] only 7.5% is returned to Tokyo in the form of national disbursements. Although this is the current framework of finances, the central government is unreasonably trying to siphon off even larger amounts of tax revenues from Tokyo...more...

[Mulboyne]

[emperor]

didnt realise Japan has such a high rate of TB

[Charles]

didnt realise Japan has such a high rate of TB

Oh yeah, Japan has legendarily high TB rates. Haven't you ever wondered why many gaijin employees are subjected to annual chest X-Rays? TB in Japan is caused by foreigners.

[AssKissinger]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/2006/09/07/a_crisis_for_japans_welfare_state?page=full&comments=true#postComments

[ichigo partygirl]

Japan can hardly be called a welfare state really - i know he is talking about pension and aged care but a huge majority of this is shouldered by the people themselves. There is virtually no one (% wise)on benefits like unemployment, sickness, or childcare like in other nations. Look at NZ where u can make more money sitting on your ass milking the system than working for minium wage - thats a welfare state.