4 ms·

I'm sorry, but basically anyone familiar with the demographics disagrees with you. (1) a TFR of 1.2 is not slowly shrinking, it is a collapse (2) you end up a

I'm sorry, but basically anyone familiar with the demographics disagrees with you. (1) a TFR of 1.2 is not slowly shrinking, it is a collapse (2) you end up a dependency ratio of more than 1 retiree per worker very quickly. So no, it's not good news for anyone born today. (3) it is even worse, because Japan has the world's longest life expectancy. so that 1 child is going to have to support 4 generations of senior citizens. Any kid born today is going to be burdened by an incredibly expensive social net, making it even HARDER to afford to have enough children to even manage replacement. It is a serious catastrophe.

Gibbon1 11y ago
It's not that bad since Japans infrastructure requirements are falling as well. And old people often don't require as many resource inputs as children and working age people. Unless you are talking the US with it's relatively unhealthy older population and bloated healthcare system[1] [1] You know where someone is checking out, the system gleefully spends a hundred grand to make sure their last few months of life totally sucks
- jpatokal 11y ago
  Um, nope. Old people need a lot more health care than young ones, anywhere in the world: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccostsbyage.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccost...
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    It tends to balance out, while they need more health care, they use less of other resources. But put it this way, the US spends about 17% of it's GDP on healthcare. So an aging population is a serious issue. Say you double that and now it's 34% of GDP (yikes). Now consider Japan, 10%. And Japan has a significantly older demographic already. So say it rises 50% over twenty years to 15%. That's still better than the US right now. China's healthcare expenditures are 5% of GDP. Numbers from here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS
Retric 11y ago
Your wrong. Read up on the "per capita" effects of the Black Death which was linked to a temperary prosparity spike. In modern times. 2) the effects of declining population reduce the number of non productive children and increases the number of working childless females which more than compensates. It also drastically reduces new infrastructure needs. 3) your math is way off. A 65 year old worker +25y would be unlikely to have two 90 year old parents let alone four 115 year old grand parents. They would also have .7 children in the work force (65 - 25 ) = 40. So you don't stack more than one generation pluss it's 1.4 children per two parents. This is also just starting Japan had positive population growth in 2010. And negative 0.7% in 2014. The real issue for nations is needing positive GDP growth to keep up with external debt.
- scythe 11y ago
  >Read up on the "per capita" effects of the Black Death which was linked to a temperary prosparity spike. The Black Death decreased the dependency ratio. The birthrate deficit will increase it. Furthermore the "spike in prosperity" was generally overstated, and may have been a result of increased trade (due to Mongol influence).
  - Retric 11y ago
    It took between 150 and 250 years for some areas to recover so the dependency ratio was only impacted for a relativly short part of that. Foreign wars are a more common ways for the issues your taking about as they kill workers not children or the elderly. WWII failed to have the issues your talking about. PS: We might be entering a time when economy's are more manpower limited than resource limited, but unemployment trends in the US don't support that assumption.
    - scythe 11y ago
      WWII was devastating to the economies of Europe, Russia, East Asia, and North Africa. Do you just make stuff up or what? The period 1330-1480 was not marked by significant economic progress. Europe only started to get ahead of the rest of the world economically after the founding of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange around 1600.

Gibbon1 11y ago

It's not that bad since Japans infrastructure requirements are falling as well. And old people often don't require as many resource inputs as children and working age people. Unless you are talking the US with it's relatively unhealthy older population and bloated healthcare system[1] [1] You know where someone is checking out, the system gleefully spends a hundred grand to make sure their last few months of life totally sucks

jpatokal 11y ago
Um, nope. Old people need a lot more health care than young ones, anywhere in the world: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccostsbyage.png http://blogs-images.forbes.com/danmunro/files/2014/04/hccost...
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  It tends to balance out, while they need more health care, they use less of other resources. But put it this way, the US spends about 17% of it's GDP on healthcare. So an aging population is a serious issue. Say you double that and now it's 34% of GDP (yikes). Now consider Japan, 10%. And Japan has a significantly older demographic already. So say it rises 50% over twenty years to 15%. That's still better than the US right now. China's healthcare expenditures are 5% of GDP. Numbers from here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

Retric 11y ago

Your wrong. Read up on the "per capita" effects of the Black Death which was linked to a temperary prosparity spike. In modern times. 2) the effects of declining population reduce the number of non productive children and increases the number of working childless females which more than compensates. It also drastically reduces new infrastructure needs. 3) your math is way off. A 65 year old worker +25y would be unlikely to have two 90 year old parents let alone four 115 year old grand parents. They would also have .7 children in the work force (65 - 25 ) = 40. So you don't stack more than one generation pluss it's 1.4 children per two parents. This is also just starting Japan had positive population growth in 2010. And negative 0.7% in 2014. The real issue for nations is needing positive GDP growth to keep up with external debt.

scythe 11y ago
>Read up on the "per capita" effects of the Black Death which was linked to a temperary prosparity spike. The Black Death decreased the dependency ratio. The birthrate deficit will increase it. Furthermore the "spike in prosperity" was generally overstated, and may have been a result of increased trade (due to Mongol influence).
- Retric 11y ago
  It took between 150 and 250 years for some areas to recover so the dependency ratio was only impacted for a relativly short part of that. Foreign wars are a more common ways for the issues your taking about as they kill workers not children or the elderly. WWII failed to have the issues your talking about. PS: We might be entering a time when economy's are more manpower limited than resource limited, but unemployment trends in the US don't support that assumption.
  - scythe 11y ago
    WWII was devastating to the economies of Europe, Russia, East Asia, and North Africa. Do you just make stuff up or what? The period 1330-1480 was not marked by significant economic progress. Europe only started to get ahead of the rest of the world economically after the founding of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange around 1600.