Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Percentage of Elderly In Japan Continues to Grow as Number of Children Drops

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the older-every-day dept.

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."

53 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Jiji press? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How appropriate. :P

    1. Re:Jiji press? by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...for those who haven't seen 10000 hours of anime (shame on you), JIJI is japanese slang for a man old enough to be a grandfather. It's like saying "old fart".

    2. Re:Jiji press? by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where I grew up, "old enough to be a grandfather" meant "30". Now my friends are having their first kids around 40.

      Something pretty basic is broken with work-family balance IMO. It's great that we left "one parent works, the other does family" behind, but "both parents work, and neither does family" is even worse. As automation increases, and unemployment with it, you'd think we could move to shorter work weeks and "both parents work, and have plenty of time for family too"!

      It's far easier medically to have kids in your 20s, and far easier to cope with their teenage years in your 30s than your 50s! Society needs to be built on more than just career, and I think we're getting it completely backwards with the ongoing division between workaholics and government-dependents.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Jiji press? by vivian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think perhaps when we get down to the last billion or so people we can start talking about extinction then. In the meantime, what we really need to do is figure how to build an economy that does not depend on perpetual growth forever - which in turn depends on an ever growing population and ever increasing resource availability.
      We need to be able to reach a stable equilibrium, or at least a dynamically stable system where the highs and lows are not too great.
      Part of that is keeping people employable past the age of 65, if we want to enjoy longer lives, and not declaring anyone over 50 as unemployable.

    4. Re:Jiji press? by sillybilly · · Score: 3

      Have you seen pictures of japanese people at public pools? Try google images, or, e.g. http://gmtristan.com/i-hope-yo... They feel overcrowded, and smart people when they are overcrowded they pop less kids, to adjust to comfortable levels, to what they can sense their resources - energy, food, room/space will comfortably accomodate tomorrow. Trying to predict tomorrow and adapting it to it today.

    5. Re:Jiji press? by knightghost · · Score: 2

      For most, retirement will never be more than a dream.

      True, but largely self-inflicted. The only thing stopping people in the US from reaching financial independence after 30 or so years or work and investment is a lack of understanding/education about how money works. It's a profound failure of our culture, that such a tiny percentage of people succeed at a task that requires only understanding, willpower, and patience (exactly the sort of things a functional culture is supposed to instill in each generation).

      And yet another factor is that when inflation, total benefits, and productivity are all factored, the median hourly wage is half of what it was 40 years ago. HALF. 50%. Sure, people can live on rice and beans to sock away more money, but the vast majority of people won't do that. Partly because, well, rice and beans suck, and partly because we are constantly educated (marketed to) that we deserve everything we want right now and that "later" will magically work out. "Can" is irrelevant - "Do" matters.
      Don't blame the people when the deck is overwhelmingly stacked against them.

    6. Re:Jiji press? by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 2

      Technology only goes so far. There are certain limits imposed by the laws of physics (e.g., thermodynamics) that are unyielding.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  2. This may be crass but... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may sound crass, but this is a problem that'll solve itself in a couple of decades, after which you'll have a much lower population on the island, which given the lack of space (especially in large cities) is probably a good thing.

    There are way too many people on the planet in general. Breeding more is NOT the answer. Do the best we can to take care of our elders, and when they're gone, let's be more responsible about population growth going forward.

    1. Re:This may be crass but... by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would imagine that Japan's cities will stay as crowded as ever for a long time. As the population in the countryside thins out and becomes greyer, what young people there are will flock to the cities for better opportunities. So, you'll have densely populated cities and an increasingly empty rest of the country.

      Look at Russia where the population has fallen significantly, but Moscow just keeps growing. If you visit the hopeless backwaters, all the young people there dream of leaving their collapsing communities for the big city.

    2. Re:This may be crass but... by Ardyvee · · Score: 2

      It seems something that the government could try to solve by trying to invest in these less-developed areas and turning them into attractive areas for industry and businesses, in turns making people want to live in the less populated areas. I have always found it odd that there is little push towards homogenizing the population and instead everyone just seems to head towards the one or two large cities, slowly getting overcrowded.

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    3. Re:This may be crass but... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Read this book (Planet of Slums) on how this is a world wide phenomena that is becoming increasingly intractable.

      We're doomed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:This may be crass but... by HangingChad · · Score: 2

      This may sound crass, but this is a problem that'll solve itself in a couple of decades

      It's not crass, it's just a biological fact. That's what pisses me off about people attacking social security and medicare, that problem will solve itself over time. Expenses will climb to a peak and then level off as the population declines. By 2035 that big, fat swath of baby boomers will start running into the meat grinder of old age.

      Focus on cost control and the actuarial tables will take care of the rest.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    5. Re:This may be crass but... by bluegutang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:This may be crass but... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      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.

      This is unnecessarily alarmist. In the early 1900s (until about 1940) the Japanese birth rate was approximately 4 times what it is now. Who do you think paid to feed all those kids or for their medical care, etc.? Yeah, conditions were worse, but the point is that all of those resources that previously went from working adults directly into raising kids are no longer necessary.

      As long as older people are relatively healthy, it's not like having to care for 2 parents (shared among their children) for 10 years more is going to require more in terms of food, etc. than taking care of 5 or 6 kids for 20 years as they grow up (as was needed in years gone by).

      Now I know the big objection about this is going to have to do with health care -- obviously older people cost more in terms of health care, but this is a relatively novel phenomenon, mostly having to do with a general push toward life extension without consideration of quality of life. Older people who are not suffering from chronic medical issues are probably not going to cost society as a whole much more than the multitude of children every family had in years gone by. But, to take an even more "crass" perspective, at some point humans will have to start seriously considering quality of life issues, rather than extending lives in pain for years or decades at great expense. Maybe we're not there yet... but unless someone comes up with the "fountain of youth" elixir in the next couple decades, a LOT of Western societies are going to need to start dealing with this issue.

      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.

      Yeah, who gets to decide what's "healthy"? The planet as a whole ecosystem, with us included, would probably be much "healthier" if we spent a few centuries with a declining birthrate on the order of Japan's. I agree with you that the bigger issue is large birth rates in other parts of the world, but -- if you're talking from a strictly environmental perspective -- we probably should be talking about a long-term decrease, not "healthy" stability.

    7. Re:This may be crass but... by afgam28 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:This may be crass but... by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:This may be crass but... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Japan, for cultural reasons, is not even willing to supplement its 1.4 rate via immigration.

      I agree with most of your post, but disagree with this one. Japan allows immigration of skilled labor. The difference between them and elsewhere is they *only* allow the skilled laborer, and not the rest of the family (unless, of course, the rest of the family is able to meet the immigration criteria individually). This filters out anyone who could possibly be a burden on their social systems. A side effect of this is that the few who do immigrate tend to assimilate into Japanese culture, but that is also necessary: their society does not have rules or laws spelled out for every little thing. There are things the legal system allows that no Japanese person would ever do, except in special circumstances. Trying to allow for legitimate exceptions in laws is hard, but when things are enforced by cultural norms, it's easier to have no law.

    10. Re:This may be crass but... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2

      You are wrong. People reproducing in places like Africa and South Asia use a tiny fraction of the resources a Westerner uses. In terms of the ecology, one American family consumes as many resources and energy as a village in east Africa. So, as far as the biosphere is concerned, the millions of poor africans and asians are one thing, but they're not nearly as much of a problem as Americans and Europeans.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    11. Re:This may be crass but... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It's hard to fight the inevitable. I've seen a lot of "investment" in dying communities where they try to turn them around and start growth again. It may work sometimes but I've yet to see it.

    12. Re:This may be crass but... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      I would imagine that Japan's cities will stay as crowded as ever for a long time. As the population in the countryside thins out and becomes greyer, what young people there are will flock to the cities for better opportunities. So, you'll have densely populated cities and an increasingly empty rest of the country.

      This. People who claim Japan overcrowded are only looking at numbers without the appropriate context. Japan is no small nation (just slightly smaller than California), and there is a lot, a lot of empty, rural spaces. Overcrowding might be a problem in the cities, but then again, Japanese cities are very well organized and clean so that overcrowding is not really an issue (I know, I've been there.)

      But the country as a whole is not overcrowded as it has the capacity to feed and clothe its population my modern, developed standards, a capacity that will have for the rest of this century and the next... barring Godzilla or something.

    13. Re:This may be crass but... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      Well, he lived there, so most likely his answer would be in the affirmative.

      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.

      That's a subjective position. It's your right to have it of course, but it is still subjective. I've been in Tokyo and Yokohama, and at first, the sight of so many people during rush hour is quite shocking. But people adapt. Outside of the monster commute (be it packed like a sardine or stuck on the expressway for 1+ hour... one way as it is the norm in many American cities), people adapt and seek/get what they want.

      The trade-off of the sardine commute is in living in a vibrant, elegant and financially rich (and relatively crime free) megapolis with all the benefits that come with it. I never really had a need of a car, not even for grocery shopping. There was a pharmacy on the first floor of the building where I was living, and a grocery store on the first floor of the building next door... and so on and so on...

      ... and the nice thing about the Japanese way of life is that most stores, even the smallest ones, have a delivery service. You 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.

      Here in the US we trade for space, which will always feel much better than the sardine commute, but then again, we have to drive just to get toilet paper. Few cities have trains for commute so a commute is not only long, but also physically consuming. When you get used to it, you can go zzz while standing in a Tokyo sardine commute. Try doing that when driving.

      And there there is the lack of crime. And the level of education that you encounter, customer service, etc, etc, etc. We don't have that here, and yet, we will call this life, but their way of life is not "life"? WTF?

      At the end of the day, we are dealing with subjective perceptions here. And you are entitled to it, so long as you acknowledge how subjective you are.

    14. Re:This may be crass but... by JanneM · · Score: 2

      It's easy to say we want to make the rural areas as attractive as the big cities. Notably, I've yet to see any credible ideas for actually achieving it.

      Big cities are amazing. Because of network effects and the efficiencies of small distances and dense accumulation of resources, competing directly is extremely difficult. It's like deciding you want to make a new, fledging social network as attractive to users as the current big ones. The only thing you could feasibly do in both cases is to push it as a niche for special interests.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    15. Re:This may be crass but... by Gramie2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Japan is nowhere near able to feed itself. It produced under 40% of its caloric needs in 2011. It does produce all the rice it needs (thanks to ridiculously subsidized and protected farmers), but is the world's largest importer of corn.

      I would also be surprised if it had any significant textile/clothing industry; everything now comes from other countries in Asia.

    16. Re:This may be crass but... by khchung · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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.
    17. Re:This may be crass but... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Something needs to occur to 'energise' them generate the need and desire for growth. In the Japan case there is no where to go, nothing new to achieve, just continuing on. They need the surge of change to drive adventure and a reach for the future. Likely they need to start looking at an EU style union, to promote change and balanced growth. The problem for them, especially considering the immigration rules which is an important part, is whom to partner with. The only logical regional partner at this stage would be Australia. For the obvious access to resources, opportunities for development, and the challenges represented in aligning the cultures. Creating challenge often represents the best means of stimulating growth, making the most of the advantages both countries offer to generate a far greater outcome via that union. Certainly not easy but it would definitely energise both countries. Other countries, perhaps just Pacific Island countries, could then be invited once the initial union had resolved most issues.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:This may be crass but... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Japan may be slightly smaller than California, but much of its land is highly mountainous and not arable. California is so productive because not only does it have large cities, it also has an enormous amount of agriculture, because it's mostly flat and has great weather for growing crops. Japan does not.

  3. Re:Good For Them by fizzer06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Japan is not a city.

  4. It has to happen sometime by dugancent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Economic policies based on an ever growing population are failed policies.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    1. Re:It has to happen sometime by garyebickford · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately nobody has ever come up with an economic model that is stable without growth in both population and economic activity. I expect that Japan's accelerated work on advanced robotics may be an effort to create a new model that replaces those people with robots and allows renewed economic growth with a shrinking but ever wealthier population - at least until SkyNet! :P

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  5. This is the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is not a problem at all. This is an indicator that Japan is moving even further into the Post-Industrial stage of their country's development. They are effectively controling their population growth, the rest of the world would do well to follow their example.

  6. Big problems ahead by hsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Big problems ahead by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happens when you don't have enough young people to sustain the program the old people depend on?

      Improve productivity through the use of automation, robotics, and AI, while simultaneously reducing resource consumption through the use of advanced composite materials and intelligent sensors. Progress happens. It is silly to extrapolate demography while assuming everything else will stay the same.

    2. Re:Big problems ahead by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "young" and the "old" aren't political classes, especially since one rather quickly becomes the other. In any case it's the middle aged who pay by far the most taxes and drive the engine of consumerism through property purchases, vehicle purchases, etc, not to mention taxation applied on company profits and the like. The economy is complicated.

      However Japan is an interesting case. The rise of the "herbivores", a phenomenon whereby young men are opting out of not just society but long term relationships on a reported scale I frankly have difficulty crediting, is a symptom of a society at war with itself. This isn't a deliberate attempt to control or reduce the population but rather a culture where traditional norms were thrown out en masse before and during world war 2, to be replaced by a fervid desire to excel on the national level right up until the early 90s, and now that's been done Japanese men are finding that an angry boss at work and an angry woman at home isn't what they want out of life.

      It's unknown territory, socially, and it remains to be seen if the west will follow suit.

    3. Re:Big problems ahead by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      Obligatory military service has been abandoned across nearly all developed countries, and besides, isn't one of the motivations for Japan's investment in robotics R&D being able to take care of the elderly even with a considerably smaller labour force?

    4. Re:Big problems ahead by stoploss · · Score: 2

      What happens when you don't have enough young people to sustain the program the old people depend on?

      Default, at least. A few years ago I decided to investigate why everyone was freaking out over Greece's 100% debt-to-GDP ratio but not the US' same level. I found that Japan has a *200%* debt-to-GDP ratio, yet eswentially everyone is silent about it. How does that work?

      Well, government debt is treated like a savings program there. People can buy government debt at their post office, etc. So, all these old people have been saving their money for years and years by buying these savings bonds. This hasn't been a problem for Japan so far because all these people are rolling over the debt as it matures (taking the money from the retired bond and using it to buy a new one).

      Much like a Ponzi scheme, this works until people want to cash out... then they find the money isn't there to do that. Who is likely to want to cash out? Well, perhaps elderly people who are retired and now are counting on using the money they saved all their lives.

      I know some economists like Krugman disingenuously state that a government in control of its own currency printing presses can never default, but that's a lie. If these people bought the bonds in good faith and the government decides to pay them off with hyperinflated, worthless currency that they printed, then that's theft (at least morally speaking).

      Not honoring one's obligations in debt is a default (ethically speaking), whether that's in the form of refusing to pay one's debts, disavowing debts, or paying them with worthless scrip.

    5. Re:Big problems ahead by garyebickford · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, actually they've been freaking out about the Japanese debt problem for a long time - 20 years or so. Most economists that I've read now believe that it would have been better to 'bite the bullet' back then and let the banks fail, then pick up the pieces. Instead they've been slowly bleeding to death for 20 years and dragging down the Japanese economy. See Iceland vs. UK and several other Euro countries. Iceland told the banks (and Europe) to F*-off - no "too big to fail" BS. The country went through some hard times for a few years, now they're doing well. But other countries all over Europe are now in the bleeding to death for 20 years phase. And, IMHO the US is going that way as well but we're doing it by inflationary theft.

      I read recently that Japan's 'safe' Postal Savings system had been exposed - it had been systematically and secretly looted by successive governments for the last 20 years, to cover up the financial problems and prop up the banks. It was originally a true savings system, but no longer. The money's not actually there any more. It's now financially more like the US Social Security system, where they're paying the present oldsters with money paid in by youngsters.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    6. Re:Big problems ahead by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      I know some economists like Krugman disingenuously state that a government in control of its own currency printing presses can never default, but that's a lie. If these people bought the bonds in good faith and the government decides to pay them off with hyperinflated, worthless currency that they printed, then that's theft (at least morally speaking).

      No, it's not theft. It's just the Super Chicken rule: they knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

      Bond purchasers know that currencies may be debased, and that governments may even just default; happens all the time. But they gambled that the likelihood of getting a return on their investment was greater than of losing it, and that it was a better option than putting the money elsewhere. But there's no rock solid guarantee that absolutely cannot be broken.

      Next you'll say that discharging debts in bankruptcy is immoral or something similarly stupid.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:Big problems ahead by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those gains don't accrue to everyone; they only accrue to the owners of capital.

      This is only true if you have tunnel vision. In the developed countries of North America and Europe, most economic gains in the last few decades have gone to the owners of capital. But if you look at the whole world, that is not true at all. The big gains have been at the bottom. Nearly a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Per capita GDP has gone up eight-fold in China, with 300 million Chinese entering the middle class.

    8. Re:Big problems ahead by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read my post, you will see that I disagree about countries that print their own currency. It's tantamount to a default if you spool up the presses and pay it off with worthless hyperinflated currency.

      It won't be "worthless" or "hyperinflated" if the debt is paid off in that currency.

      Hyperinflation is generally a phenomenon which occurs as part of a feedback loop -- country A owes money in country B's currency, for example. Country A runs the presses to pay the debt in currency B this month. To do so, it increases the monetary base of currency A; it then exchanges money for currency B. Those people who buy currency A to give out the B in exchange then spread the currency A money back into the economy, where inflation begins.

      Since prices are inflated and the monetary base in use has enlarged, the exchange rate between A and B changes, so A now has less worth in B's denomination. Next month or quarter or whatever, when A has to come up with money in currency B, it now has to print the presses even more, because the exchange rate is no longer as favorable. That results in more money flowing into the economy, more inflation, etc. Each payment thus requires more printing of the presses than the previous month, and the currency is devalued.

      Repeat cycle over a period of months or years, and country B never pays off debt, and its currency is completely wrecked by hyperinflation.

      Now -- if a country has sovereign debt denominated in its own currency, then the government is the only source of the currency. Thus, the government already effectively "created" that money by issuing the bond in the first place. Some other person or country or whatever holds that debt has already said that it will accept payment in currency "created" by that government.

      So, if country A now just decides tomorrow to run the presses and pay off ALL the debt, it can do so. Country A is guaranteed to be able to pay off ALL of its debt simply by an act authorizing payment of X dollars or yen or whatever. There is no possibility of the inflationary spiral above where it could require many multiples of X dollars or yen or whatever simply to pay off the debt, because the denomination already is ONLY X and X ONLY. The value of the debt is set.

      It is possible that some inflation will ensue after the debt is paid, depending on exactly how this is done, and what the people who get paid this "money" do with it. (I put "money" in quotation marks, because all of these transactions mostly happen virtually on computers between major banks and such, with no real currency transactions happening in actual physical money.) But, in reality, foreign owners of debt in currency A will probably act in ways to actively discourage inflation in currency A as long as they hold some debt in that currency... otherwise, the value of their investment will decrease. So, anyone who holds this debt has an interest in keeping currency A afloat and avoiding hyperinflation -- rather than if the debt is denominated in currency B, in which case all that matters is getting the value into currency B.

      But the point is that there is no need for the inflationary spiral to occur, because the money never has to go through the exchange process (and thereby doesn't necessarily change hands beyond the original holders of the debt).

      Now -- how investors in that country's government could react going forward could have serious economic consequences, depending on how it is handled. But the money originally flowing to those who own the debt will be paid in currency with its current full value, not "worthless hyperinflated currency." If you don't understand that currency actually originates through government production, and thus production of government debt effectively "creates" money already, I'd suggest you go back and read a macroeconomics textbook.

      One can argue about how crazy governments have to be to cause banks and investors and so forth t

    9. Re:Big problems ahead by NapalmV · · Score: 2

      [...] they may not be so happy to hear that their savings bonds and Social Security Trust Fund (cf. the SDR bonds that constitute almost the entire the Trust Fund) are risky investments that are subject to being debased and paid out with worthless scrip.

      I think they already know. They're just trying to beat inflation without taking extra risks. Government savings bonds are about as safe as the money they're denominated in, while their interest rate helps with reducing the effect of inflation.

    10. Re:Big problems ahead by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Robots still suck horribly bad at providing personal service and that's what care for the elderly and healthcare tends to be.

      Steady progress is being made in this field. Society isn't going to suddenly become gray tomorrow. It is going to happen over decades. Also, robots don't have to specifically be good at elder care. If they are good at mowing lawns, picking tomatoes, or unloading trucks, that still frees up human labor for other tasks, such as elder care.

    11. Re:Big problems ahead by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      Your analysis of the situation in Europe is flawed. The UK is doing badly, but other countries in the EU are well beyond pre-crisis levels now. Particularly France and Germany, and of course Germany not only bailed out its own banks but also a few other countries. Bail-outs worked well in some places, but were not a universal fix or suitable for everyone. Iceland probably made the right call. The UK did too, but then screwed it up by making everyone except the banks pay for it afterwards.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Big problems ahead by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The low birth rate is a complex subject but boils down to economics. Children are expensive.

      The herbivore lifestyle, from what I've learned of it (I'm renting a room out to a Japanese language student), is more than just about not having children. Men are eschewing long term relationships entirely, not to mention simply not taking part in the pressurised Japanese society of yesteryear. They don't have high paying jobs but are rather staying afloat and going cycling in the countryside.

      Men now have better entertainment options, as odd as that sounds, with the internet and various clubs, so prefer to have lots of money to spend on themselves instead of a wife and family

      I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that men are spending all their money on entertainment, if anything whiling away the hours is far cheaper these days than ever before. Plus I mean you have to ask what's going on when computer games are more attractive than the local womenfolk. Remember this is the country that invented the boyfriend shaped pillow.

      The way to solve it is to make make having children a lot cheaper.

      Again, money isn't really the issue here as far as I can tell. It's a profound rejection of the demand to be the best, to be a wallet, to be a dumb cog in the machine without being recognised and appreciated for it, and if the numbers returned by surveys are to be believed the Japanese economy is going to be in really serious trouble without them.

    13. Re:Big problems ahead by sjames · · Score: 2

      What wonderland do you live in? There are people who really really want the CPI to look rosier than reality. That's why it leans on things that are dropping in price but are totally unnecessary like large LCD TVs but it underweights food, clothing, and shelter as well as medical care.

    14. Re:Big problems ahead by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the cost of living is increasing way faster then inflation. The cost of living being those things that you have to have such as food, housing and fuel.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  7. cars stop crashing when they're totaled by raymorris · · Score: 2

    And after you total a car, it won't crash anymore.
    If nothing unexpected happens, social security might be solvent in 2060, if it still existed. There's just that pesky fault that it can't exist in its current form part the 2030s. We know how many people are in their 40s today, so we know how many people will be in their 60s twenty years from now. From that, it is simple arithmetic to see that we don't have the money to pay those people as promised.

    "Attacking social security"? Are you high? When you're about to crash into a wall, is steering around it "attacking" the car? We can see the wall. It's 20 years ahead of us. We WILL crash into the wall if we don't change course. To NOT ccorrect course is to choose to destroy social security, to drive full speed into the wall.

  8. You real what you sow by iONiUM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:You real what you sow by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      Plenty of countries don't offer automatic citizenship to people who marry one of their citizens. The US doesn't, for example. They don't offer green cards or right of residence automatically either. Friends of mine who got married in the UK tried to move to the US where the wife was a natural-born citizen but her British husband was refused leave to stay. They lived in the UK for several years and finally after many appeals her husband managed to get a green card and they moved to the US. As far as I know he still hasn't got citizenship, I don't know if he's applied for it.

      I know a few non-Japanese who are long-stay residents of Tokyo and environs. One is married to a Japanese woman and another has been engaged to a Japanese woman in the past but as far as I know neither wants citizenship.

    2. Re:You real what you sow by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a common misconception. FWIW you can't get citizenship of many countries, including the UK, just by marrying. In fact you can't even get a spouse visa for the UK just by marrying, you have to pass English languages tests and lots of other bullshit. I know, I have been trying to get my fiancée in for years.

      The Japanese culture is rather unique. The language is tricky, especially writing. The only other people who have a bit of a head start with the written language are the Chinese, and Japan isn't exactly on the best terms with them. For everyone else it's a huge barrier, but also rather essential to do many jobs. How can a nurse who doesn't read/write Japanese pass the nursing exam, or read the label on medication, or the doctor's hand-written notes?

      More over it takes time to assimilate. At first you feel like an outsider, but having lived in Japan for a while I'd say I'm not pretty well integrated. It's hard to explain but now I think and act that way I find foreigners stick out like a sore thumb as well. They often talk too loudly, or just position themselves awkwardly or ask un-subtle questions. Once you settle in though somehow Japanese people can just tell (and now so can I), and treat you without prejudice.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Two, One, or None by Scot+Seese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    - Children. Title solves global population problems. Two children to replace two parents, with the odd accident or illness to either parents or children statistically causing slow population shrink.

    Japanese families tend to be fairly careful with money, and as a result - as used to be the case with many WW2 generation elderly Americans - are sitting on piles of assets. What will occur is simply the balloon "inflate / deflate" effect. You work your entire life to amass savings and assets, you become elderly and require medical care or living assistance, and the balloon begins to deflate.

    So, good news, unemployed Japanese youth - Head off to city college and pick up that 2 year nursing assistant certification or complete a 4 year degree in anything medically relevant, and their deflating balloon will inflate yours.

    (Joke) you can just fast forward about 100 years, when the entire Western world will just be a giant medical service economy with only 3 types of entities: Elderly, people providing medical or living assistance to elderly, and semi sentient robots doing everything else.

    As the Dalai Lama once said, paraphrased, "People in their youth spend their health pursuing money only to become elderly and spend their money pursuing health."

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    1. Re:Two, One, or None by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The global population problem is largely solved. Did you know that the fertility rate in Bangladesh is 2.5 now? Education is in place and it works.

      Of course the population is still rising. Those children born in the 60s when the fertility rate was 7.5 all had a few kids in the 70s and 80s and so forth, and are all living longer than their parents. The number of children in the world is levelling off at about 2bn though, although as a percentage that is actually down about 10 points compared to the 60s.

      The world will level off at about 11bn people. Sounds like a lot, but more of that growth will be in Africa now. Africa has massive farming potential to feed them all, it just needs to be built up. 11bn is sustainable with current and near future technologies. Of course it could still go horribly wrong if Africa decides to trash its environment or screws up its agriculture, but that seems increasingly unlikely now.

      11bn is a big scary number, but not unsustainable or a massive threat to our lives in developed nations.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:Good For Them by garyebickford · · Score: 2

    Ah, I stand corrected. I did a quick google+wikipedia as well, but mistakenly read housing units as population. There are 1350 housing units per sq. mi. in Houston. (I picked Houston because when I lived there it had the lowest density of any US city.) As you pointed out, the population density is closer to 3500.

    In any case, my point was that this was the original parent's perception, as it is for most people in the US.

    I'll also note that the density in Bangladesh is about 1150. In most (all?) developed countries most of the people live in 'urbanized areas' - the percentages vary radically according to how that is defined. E.g. 1/2 of US residence live in the top 48 'urbanized areas', and 80% in all of them (which includes towns down to 2500 population.) -http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/

    I think perceptions like this are largely based on what we see in the media. For my part, I was surprised when I moved from Oregon to Massachusetts to discover that the whole state wasn't basically a suburb of Boston. I presently live six+ miles from the nearest supermarket. That's about as far as you can get in central MA, of course, but considering that MA is about the same size as Harney County in Oregon which has a total population of 7,000 - about the same as the town in MA that I live in - I expected to be living "downtown". I moved from central Oregon, which is a bit denser than Harney - Harney is about one per sq. mi., Deschutes is about 52. and in the part where I lived probably 5-15.

    Interesting surprise! I just learned that the population density in the state of MA is about 840. It's about the same as Japan! But in my part it's only 220 and I'm in the most rural part of the town.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  11. Umm, accepting only similar folks != no prejudice by Phil+Urich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More over it takes time to assimilate. At first you feel like an outsider, but having lived in Japan for a while I'd say I'm not pretty well integrated. It's hard to explain but now I think and act that way I find foreigners stick out like a sore thumb as well. They often talk too loudly, or just position themselves awkwardly or ask un-subtle questions. Once you settle in though somehow Japanese people can just tell (and now so can I), and treat you without prejudice.

    But . . . isn't that the entire problem, that they're prejudiced against anyone who doesn't talk and act exactly "correctly"? I think pretty much by definition people aren't prejudiced against people who are like themselves. Once you adopt every social convention and mannerism they no longer act so xenophobic towards you? That's not something to boast about, and you aren't really convincing anyone that the Japanese are tolerant of differences if it takes skillful, concerted effort in concealing and obliterating those differences before they're tolerant of you.

    Personally I find the idea of everyone having to adopt specific thoughts and actions lest they be judged to be horrifying (and the same reason I often feel quite uncomfortable in small towns in North America). And one of the things I will definitely judge a culture for is its intolerance of differences (see, again, small town North America).

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!