3 ms·

Inverted pyramids don't last, and growing GDP at this level serves to benefit the rich, not citizens. If the Japanese don't struggle to find jobs and afford cos

Inverted pyramids don't last, and growing GDP at this level serves to benefit the rich, not citizens. If the Japanese don't struggle to find jobs and afford cost of living, if they have quality of life, what is the significance of a stagnant GDP?

mlyle 4y ago
Why do you believe inverted pyramids don't last? They last for a long time after you get the birth rate back up. And Japan's not gotten the birth rate back up. Indeed, it seems like the drag from having an older population does a lot to keep the birth rate down. Our best forecasts show Japan's population pyramid as still markedly inverted and still shrinking in 2100. (I don't agree with your other point either, necessarily, but I chose to ask about this one).
- slothtrop 4y ago
  > Why do you believe inverted pyramids don't last? Death. And there are trivial ways to keep fertility at replacement level and not negative, on par with most other 1st-world countries. A perpetually inverted pyramid would require that fertility rate shrink even further, until it approaches 0 - do we have a reason to believe this will happen? Notwithstanding, in 100 years the entire global population growth is projected to stagnate, which will make this a moot point. No one will be able to rely on immigration to grow perpetually.
  - hortense 4y ago
    > A perpetually inverted pyramid would require that fertility rate shrink even further, until it approaches 0 That is incorrect.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      Given a constant fertility rate over time any inverted pyramid would eventually straighten out.
      - hortense 4y ago
        If you take a constant fertility rate of 1, you'll always have an inverted pyramid, until there's no more pyramid. (I'm assuming that the life expectancy does not change significantly)
    - otagekki 4y ago
      A sub-replacement fertility rate will worsen an inverted pyramid situation, until the population eventually reaches 0
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > A perpetually inverted pyramid would require that fertility rate shrink even further, until it approaches 0 - do we have a reason to believe this will happen? Any fertility rate that's below replacement maintains an inverted pyramid, if you don't have a lot of death before old age. (Until the very last person dies, in a long long long time). Each person in the current breeding population produces fewer people in the next breeding population; this produces an inverted pyramid. > And there are trivial ways to keep fertility at replacement level and not negative, on par with most other 1st-world countries. No country that has fallen into population decline has found these "trivial ways" in modern times. (Not sure what you mean here by "negative")
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      The trivial way is an enforced two child mandate. To be provided at 25 years of age with a selected or assigned partner. It’s like mandatory military service, except for women.

mlyle 4y ago

Why do you believe inverted pyramids don't last? They last for a long time after you get the birth rate back up. And Japan's not gotten the birth rate back up. Indeed, it seems like the drag from having an older population does a lot to keep the birth rate down. Our best forecasts show Japan's population pyramid as still markedly inverted and still shrinking in 2100. (I don't agree with your other point either, necessarily, but I chose to ask about this one).

slothtrop 4y ago
> Why do you believe inverted pyramids don't last? Death. And there are trivial ways to keep fertility at replacement level and not negative, on par with most other 1st-world countries. A perpetually inverted pyramid would require that fertility rate shrink even further, until it approaches 0 - do we have a reason to believe this will happen? Notwithstanding, in 100 years the entire global population growth is projected to stagnate, which will make this a moot point. No one will be able to rely on immigration to grow perpetually.
- hortense 4y ago
  > A perpetually inverted pyramid would require that fertility rate shrink even further, until it approaches 0 That is incorrect.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Given a constant fertility rate over time any inverted pyramid would eventually straighten out.
    - hortense 4y ago
      If you take a constant fertility rate of 1, you'll always have an inverted pyramid, until there's no more pyramid. (I'm assuming that the life expectancy does not change significantly)
  - otagekki 4y ago
    A sub-replacement fertility rate will worsen an inverted pyramid situation, until the population eventually reaches 0
- mlyle 4y ago
  > A perpetually inverted pyramid would require that fertility rate shrink even further, until it approaches 0 - do we have a reason to believe this will happen? Any fertility rate that's below replacement maintains an inverted pyramid, if you don't have a lot of death before old age. (Until the very last person dies, in a long long long time). Each person in the current breeding population produces fewer people in the next breeding population; this produces an inverted pyramid. > And there are trivial ways to keep fertility at replacement level and not negative, on par with most other 1st-world countries. No country that has fallen into population decline has found these "trivial ways" in modern times. (Not sure what you mean here by "negative")
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    The trivial way is an enforced two child mandate. To be provided at 25 years of age with a selected or assigned partner. It’s like mandatory military service, except for women.