Slashdot Mirror
Percentage of Elderly In Japan Continues to Grow as Number of Children Drops
First time accepted submitter Cornelie Roe (3627609) writes in with some bad news about the population of Japan. "The number of children in Japan has fallen to a new low, while the amount of people over 65 has reached a record high as the population ages and shrinks, the government said.
There were an estimated 16.33 million children aged under 15 as of 1 April, down 160,000 from a year earlier, the internal affairs and communications ministry said on Sunday. It was the 33rd straight annual decline and the lowest level since records began in 1950.
Children accounted for 12.8% of the population, the ministry said. By contrast, the ratio of people aged 65 or older was at a record high, making up 25.6% of the population. Jiji Press said that, of countries with a population of at least 40 million, Japan had the lowest ratio of children to the total population – compared with 19.5% for the United States and 16.4% for China.
Last month, the government said the number of people in the world's third largest economy dropped by 0.17% to 127,298,000 as of 1 October 2013. This includes long-staying foreigners.
The proportion of people aged 65 or over is forecast to reach nearly 40% in 2060, the government has warned."
How appropriate. :P
The aging population relies on the tax base of the young to sustain any old age benefit program.
What happens when you don't have enough young people to sustain the program the old people depend on?
Will the young revolt? Will the old vote heavier taxes on the young so they can live their lifestyle?
There are massive socioeconomic problems that will not only impact Japan but America and other western countries.
The young will be piggy banks for so long before getting tired of it.
On the contrary, in a couple decades, things will be much worse in Japan. The number of retirees will rise, and the number of younger working people will decline. The ratio of retired to working people will rise, and there won't be anyone to pay for the medical care of the old people. That's a recipe for immense suffering, both personal and economic.
Japan currently averages about 1.4 kids per family. A stable, sustainable rate would be about 2.1 kids. (Not 2.0 because a small number will die before reaching reproductive age.) Japan's rate is much too low for a healthy society. Northern European countries have rates of 1.6-2.0 (plus some immigration of young people), while the US rate is 2.1 (plus some immigration). Those are healthy rates. Japan, for cultural reasons, is not even willing to supplement its 1.4 rate via immigration.
You are correct that the planet does not need any more human beings. But the solution is to decrease birth rates in Africa and South Asia (where they are as high as 7 kids per family in some countries), not to further decrease birth rates in Western countries, where they are already at or below sustainable levels.
Having lived in both Japan and the US, I've noticed that people in Japan tend to think "living in a small town would be inconvenient because I wouldn't be able to get to a train" whereas people in the US tend to think "living in a big city would be inconvenient because I wouldn't be able to drive my car".
So the Japanese tend to be drawn towards large cities (about 60% live in one of the 3 biggest metro areas - Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya) and Americans tend to self-organize into a fairly uniformly sparse suburban environment.
It's interesting how people can't seem to see beyond their society's local maxima, but anyway this leads to vastly different ideas of what it means to be "overpopulated".
When I lived in Japan I didn't find it to be overpopulated at all, even in the middle of Tokyo. The high population density isn't a problem that needs solving - it's a defining characteristic that makes the city great, and has attracted 35 million people to live there. There are plenty of rural backwaters north of Tokyo in Tohoku but not many people want to live there.
So what for? If a society prefers large cities, why not let them self-organize into a two or three big cities? Which is what Japan has pretty much already done.
I've been to Japan many times, and this problem could have been partially mitigated with immigration. But the Japanese are racist at best, xenophobic at worst. So, this is what they get. I mean you can't even get citizenship if you marry a Japanese, what the fuck is that.
I've never lived in Japan, but I've visited there many times over the last decade, and I disagree that it isn't "overcrowded." I never felt like I could be alone in Tokyo (I.e. >20m from another human). In addition, have you even used the Tokyo Metro during rush hour? Shinjuku station? They really do use polls on people, and you're packed in like a goddamm sardine. That's not life, that's not living. That's being a meat popsicle. No thanks.
"ou buy your stuff, in bulk if you one, pay $10 (1000-something yen IIRC), and voila they'll deliver it to your apartment. Every major train/subway station/nexus has a mall so shopping (and buying delivery) is also conveniently located.) Try to do that anywhere in the US."
You may know alot about Japan but your ignorance of the USA is showing here. What you describe is possible in many parts of the USA.
Our family hardly ever shops anymore, we just buy it all online and have it delivered. Groceries too. The only place we ever go out to is farmer's markets, because a) they don't deliver, and b) they're often more of an experience than just a shopping trip.
You are showing your ignorance here. Of course Japan also have online stores, but that's another thing entirely.
What the GP said was to be able to *physically* go to a store, *hand pick* what you want to pick (i.e. you can pick and choose, e.g., the fruits, one by one), and the pay at the counter THEN have the store deliver what you picked to your home.
Living in the US you might think that is stupid, why would you take the trouble to go (drive) to the mall and then not carry the stuff back home? The difference is, in Japan (and also applies to many Asian metropolis), as the GP mentioned, there are malls *everywhere*. Next to metro stations, around the corner, right beneath your home, etc.
So during the normal course of a work day, you would probably pass malls/shops on your way to work, during lunch break, and on your way home. Then it became natural for you to scan the shops and probably, once in a while, notice something you want to buy, but you are on your way to work/lunch break/dine with friends/etc and obviously *not driving*, so you don't want to carry the stuff with you around. THAT's where the delivery comes in to play. You pick, you pay, and they deliver while you go on your merry way, just 3 minutes spent.
That convenience of practically going through shopping malls along the way of everywhere you go is what GP meant. You are literally 10 minutes away from everything you need/want to buy, almost all the time, and you never need to "take time" to buy anything at all.
And no, Americans living in suburbs where they have to drive 10 minutes to buy toilet paper, and do a "shopping trip" to Walmart once a week just to stock up on groceries won't be able to imagine what it is like, the convenience of being able to buy a fresh apple (just one), on the way home, every day, by just stopping for 30 seconds at the grocery that you pass by daily anyway.
Oliver.