7 ms·

Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

44 points by llambda 14y ago

Retric 14y ago
The problem with extrapolating like this is it's assuming many things are constant like birth rate which are not necessarily the case. If you compare the birth and death rates they have only recently crossed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_1950.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_195... which means the value of land is increasing as more people compete for the same resources. For example, as the population starts to decline housing will become cheaper which will reduce commuting times and debt. Which will make it much easier to start a family and should increase the birth rate. It also dramatically reduces the need for new infrastructure.
seunosewa 14y ago
I think immigration is the best solution. There's no shortage of babies and young people in the world. The article notes that liberal immigration policies are not popular. Well, maybe that's the problem. I suspect that immigration will gain popularity when the problems caused by the ageing population become sufficiently severe. The problem will solve itself at the right time.
- zdw 14y ago
  Japan has always been very insular and has very strong anti-immigration policies. Also, their politics is probably more screwed up and dysfunctional than this article suggests, so any change seems unlikely.
- captaintacos 14y ago
  Immigration "would be" the best solution but we are talking about Japan in here. Not an "immigrant friendly" country like Canada, Australia or the US. Simply put... Japan is "allergic" to foreigners. Surprisingly the process to get a work/student visa in Japan is much more easier than in Australia or the US (I've applied to one or another in all these countries and it's such a breeze to do in Japan). Despite that, immigration remains low. For the foreigners here, last time I checked it was basically composed of about 80% of foreigners from China, 15% from Korea and the remaining 5% from the rest of the world. I suppose the difficulty of the language and geographic location has something to do. Racism as known in the West is rare, but the truth is, Japan has consistently failed to assimilate any foreign population and it is really difficult to explain how it is like. I guess it's definitely more like a Canadian "cultural mosaic" more than an American "melting pot". But the cultural mosaic has some sense of equilibrium. For the case of Japan it would look more like "patching the kimono with pieces of fabrics of different patterns". The thing is, under the hood, legally speaking, Japan is very open and welcoming to foreigners, but it fails to keep them in or assimilate them.
  - kfk 14y ago
    Hi, when you say "open", you mean also for workers? Do you have any potential advice for somebody looking for a job over there?
    - captaintacos 14y ago
      Yes, quite open for -skilled- workers and even more open to students. I emphasize the "skilled" part because trust me, you don't want to come all the way here to engage in low-skilled labor. Highly skilled work is already too life-consuming enough. However I don't know how the construction sector would be, it is the equivalent of the American military industry (i.e. that's where they will throw ridiculous amounts of money whenever they want to "stimulate the economy") and with the LDP winning the elections yesterday the pouring of concrete all over Japan will go back to usual. If it is skilled work, I recall any undergraduate degree overseas plus a job offer are the main requirements you need to get a work visa. Yes, no need to wait for a space to open as is the case with the H1 visa in the US. And I think this year the process got even easier. To get a contract, well, if you can speak Japanese then you are halfway there. If you can't, I can suggest: 1. The companies that seem to be hungry for IT/software engineers (judging from the amount of spam I get from recruiters), may take your from whenever you are, and where probably Japanese language skills are not important are: GREE, Rakuten, Amazon Japan. I think you can apply to those through their websites. 2. Message me so I give you a list of recruiting companies that seem to specialize in foreigners in Japan. 3. Some people recommend checking out www.gaijinpot.com from time to time.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  The Japanese are quite xenophobic and consider immigration to be a last resort. For this reason, they have invested (and continue to invest) large sums of money into robotics research, in an attempt to replace their working population without allowing mass immigration.
- powertower 14y ago
  That might be the best solution to maintaining head-counts in a more immediate manner. But it gets a bit more complicated. How would you solve the issue of no-go zones, crime and violence, incompatibility and intolerance, and lack of unity? Because those are all the things that increase in a non-marginal way when you mass immigrate a society and start replacing its identity, culture, and people with another. Would you build more prisons? Would you make excuses for the new people? What would you do exactly when that same society starts breaking apart?
lucian303 14y ago
This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful to the entire human population.
- altcognito 14y ago
  No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to return to replacement levels of child bearing, I don't see any evidence or reason that it would just yet.
  - lucian303 14y ago
    Why? Out of the author's solutions that have been discussed in Japan for decades, only one involves children (and that's related to daycare, not more babies), and the others involve changing a culture that needs to change to adapt to this. Then they would be an example to the world. If the planet cannot "easily" support the number of people we have now, please prove how. Because right now it isn't.
    - altcognito 14y ago
      Prove it? I think the burden is on you my friend, for yours is the claim that is extraordinary. The human population is growing easily. Food and space is ample. Hell, we grow food to make energy for vehicles, not people. No, everybody can't live like Americans, but not everybody wants to live like Americans. There are a lot of Americans who don't want to live like Americans. (You may be amongst them!) But for you to suggest that it is morally improper to have children because the world can't sustain it -- no, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and listen to this non-sense. You go ahead and prove that the world isn't supporting the population without utilizing corrupt governments. It is insanity that some would have us roll back to the population and energy consumption 1800's because they have cannot come up with a modern solution. Last, but not least, China reduced it's population. Would you call it a stellar example of environmental responsibility? Your problem is that you're conflating two completely different problems. Overpopulation (for today) is a non-existent problem. Fix destitution (a real problem) in the developing world, and birth rates will drop naturally. tl;dr I make some assumptions about environmentalists. Fight poverty, not birth rates.
ajross 14y ago
This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaster being posited. It means, broadly, that for a generation or so society will be burdened by a disproportionately large elderly population, and caring for them will require resources that we'd prefer to spend on other things. But eventually things will return to a steady state, just with fewer people. We'll manage.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Birthrate is 1.39 per woman. No, that will not reach a steady state. That's a constant decline.
  - lotsofpulp 14y ago
    If I recall correctly, ~2.3 children per woman is the replacement rate, i.e. keeps population steady. Of course, changes in longevity / infant mortality may have changed that statistic. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacemen... According to Wikipedia's source, replacement rate is ~2.1 for developed nations, so I would guess Japan is definitely not at a replacement rate at 1.4. Of course, replacement rates are just to keep population steady, but I would think a country with too many old people is still somewhat of a problem, unless you could figure out how to take care of them and/or make them productive.
- eriksank 14y ago
  Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.
  - 14y ago
greggman 14y ago
I watched a Japanese program where the government claimed in the year 3000 the population of Japan would be .... 7 people. Obviously I don't think it would actually get there but that is the current rate if nothing else changes (or rate at the time the program was aired) The segment ended with a tongue in cheek admonition to make a baby tonight for Japan :)
Nux 14y ago
It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global population is growing uncontrollably.
- AndrewDucker 14y ago
  Except the global population isn't growing uncontrollably. The USA has a birth rate just barely above replenishment (and dropping), Europe has dropped below replenishment rate, etc. Some pretty graphs here: http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html
- k_kelly 14y ago
  I think the real concern with this is not that we’ll have fewer people in Japan (a good thing) but that the system can’t support contraction. If you have a workforce in their thirties who are still at entry level positions or thereabouts, and a majority of voters between the age of 50 and 80, you end up with a political class that wins elections with pro-retirement and healthcare policies and a tax-base that has no way to pay for it. This is a recipe for disaster and it’s already happening in Japan. It could easily happen in any aging population.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not. Current projections are that global population will peak under 10 billion then start declining. China is going to peak in 2026 then start shrinking. Overpopulation is a solved problem for now. The big problem is that now all those people want to live like Americans.
btilly 14y ago
These demographic trends are, unfortunately, only temporary. From the point of view of evolution, birth control is a disaster. I have done exactly the activity evolution has programmed me to do to continue the species, regularly, for over 20 years. Only twice did it result in children, and both times were conscious choices on my part. However evolution knows how to face these disasters. There is a small minority of people who have the option of birth control, who have all of the same economic incentives that I do, yet choose to have lots of children. Their children are less likely to want to use birth control than mine. Thanks to exponential growth, that minority that chooses to have children regardless will become a majority. And after that point, voluntary birth control and economic incentives will not suffice to keep the population from growing. This is literally evolution in action.
- zeteo 14y ago
  You said it, brother (sister?). In each country there are subcultures (religious fundamentalists, usually) that have birth rates well above replacement. Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in recent decades but, with the kind of uninspiring, plasticky productions currently streaming out of Hollywood / big label music, that process is about to change. Let's just say, your radio is likely to play a lot more Christian rock in your old age.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    I'd say it's a lot more likely to be playing Mariachi than Christian rock...
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      You forget that Hispanics are also quite religious.
      - wilfra 14y ago
        But do they listen to 'Christian Rock'?
mattmaroon 14y ago
I believe the article is incorrect about one thing. Japan has a formal army. It's constitution forbids it from declaring war, but it still has quite a large military for self defense. Though, like about half the article, that is apropos of nothing.
known 14y ago
Japanese society strictly follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
RyanZAG 14y ago
Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty has led couples to delay getting married and having children. The shortage of public day care centers, especially in cities, has made the cost and burden of parenthood so high that today’s couples either have fewer babies or none at all. (Japan’s birthrate is just 1.39 children per woman.)" What happens when the population shrinks as a result of this? All of these problems magically right themselves. Shortage of public day care centers? Solved with lower population. Stagnant or declining incomes? Solved with a lower population, as each person can command a greater share of the economy (in aggregate) from simple supply/demand of labor. This is just a pendulum swinging back into equilibrium that will eventually be felt across the globe - and while worse for Japan's Gross GDP, it will improve Japan's GDP per Capita, the only truly important 'country level' measure for actual citizens.
- meric 14y ago
  That works, but only as long as the proportion of non-productive population does not increase too fast.
- halviti 14y ago
  You're only focusing on one side of the argument. Less young people means a small amount of young people paying for lots of older people, which is a large financial burden on the people able to work. (as well as many other factors) Also, GDP per capita is only used to measure money. There are many other factors that people might find important like happiness rankings, which to me happiness can be much more important than money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
- philwelch 14y ago
  GDP per capita doesn't go up when population goes down, because there are fewer people working to produce goods and services. There's no economy genie producing wealth that has to be divided among the population.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
I've modelled a society with 1.0 birth rate and everyone died. And it's not like died in a million years; no, the last "person" was born something like 150 years from the start. Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you can't have that and that's what make you a modern person. I guess most people will be living in fifty kilometer radius from a million plus population hub. That's what we should have.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Please don't make the mistake of assuming that any kind of growth is constant -- people respond to incentives and if the price of having a child goes up, people naturally respond by having fewer children. And yes, the price of child is the highest it has even been. Just to satisfy my curiousity, how many people were in your society to begin with? At what age did they reproduce? Was the reproduction constant or did it change between couples?
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    Of course society can heal, 'm just saying it's possible to get a badly incentivized society to crash itself and it won't be easy to fix the setup given the negative momentum. 10000. They reproduced between 25 and 35. You could tune the birth rate but it was constant for the simulation. People lived for 80 years. This kind of setup gave you a temporary boost and then a surprisingly hard landing.
watt 14y ago
Japan is overpopulated as it is. I fail to see anything wrong with population levels dropping, to some lower, sustainable levels. The low birthrate is caused by overpopulation: there's too little resources to give to babies, so it's impossible to have children. I would actually say, there's so little to go around, people can't form families (get a partner, be a couple - maybe because the courting ritual is too elaborate now), so less people are even able to have a go at having a child.
squonk 14y ago
How much of Japan's population syndrome is directly assignable to Japan's unique policies, versus the nature of first world countries in general? Japan's population has been essentially flat for the last 6 years: 127,773,000 in 2005, 127,817,000 in 2011. It is headed south as long as the birth rate remains so low. So no question that the rest of the world needs to understand the effects of negative population growth. A decreasing population will test many economic policies that relied on monotonically increasing population to be effective. I doubt we can predict all of the policies that will break.

44 points by llambda 14y ago

The problem with extrapolating like this is it's assuming many things are constant like birth rate which are not necessarily the case. If you compare the birth and death rates they have only recently crossed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_1950.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_195... which means the value of land is increasing as more people compete for the same resources. For example, as the population starts to decline housing will become cheaper which will reduce commuting times and debt. Which will make it much easier to start a family and should increase the birth rate. It also dramatically reduces the need for new infrastructure.

seunosewa 14y ago

I think immigration is the best solution. There's no shortage of babies and young people in the world. The article notes that liberal immigration policies are not popular. Well, maybe that's the problem. I suspect that immigration will gain popularity when the problems caused by the ageing population become sufficiently severe. The problem will solve itself at the right time.

zdw 14y ago
Japan has always been very insular and has very strong anti-immigration policies. Also, their politics is probably more screwed up and dysfunctional than this article suggests, so any change seems unlikely.
captaintacos 14y ago
Immigration "would be" the best solution but we are talking about Japan in here. Not an "immigrant friendly" country like Canada, Australia or the US. Simply put... Japan is "allergic" to foreigners. Surprisingly the process to get a work/student visa in Japan is much more easier than in Australia or the US (I've applied to one or another in all these countries and it's such a breeze to do in Japan). Despite that, immigration remains low. For the foreigners here, last time I checked it was basically composed of about 80% of foreigners from China, 15% from Korea and the remaining 5% from the rest of the world. I suppose the difficulty of the language and geographic location has something to do. Racism as known in the West is rare, but the truth is, Japan has consistently failed to assimilate any foreign population and it is really difficult to explain how it is like. I guess it's definitely more like a Canadian "cultural mosaic" more than an American "melting pot". But the cultural mosaic has some sense of equilibrium. For the case of Japan it would look more like "patching the kimono with pieces of fabrics of different patterns". The thing is, under the hood, legally speaking, Japan is very open and welcoming to foreigners, but it fails to keep them in or assimilate them.
- kfk 14y ago
  Hi, when you say "open", you mean also for workers? Do you have any potential advice for somebody looking for a job over there?
  - captaintacos 14y ago
    Yes, quite open for -skilled- workers and even more open to students. I emphasize the "skilled" part because trust me, you don't want to come all the way here to engage in low-skilled labor. Highly skilled work is already too life-consuming enough. However I don't know how the construction sector would be, it is the equivalent of the American military industry (i.e. that's where they will throw ridiculous amounts of money whenever they want to "stimulate the economy") and with the LDP winning the elections yesterday the pouring of concrete all over Japan will go back to usual. If it is skilled work, I recall any undergraduate degree overseas plus a job offer are the main requirements you need to get a work visa. Yes, no need to wait for a space to open as is the case with the H1 visa in the US. And I think this year the process got even easier. To get a contract, well, if you can speak Japanese then you are halfway there. If you can't, I can suggest: 1. The companies that seem to be hungry for IT/software engineers (judging from the amount of spam I get from recruiters), may take your from whenever you are, and where probably Japanese language skills are not important are: GREE, Rakuten, Amazon Japan. I think you can apply to those through their websites. 2. Message me so I give you a list of recruiting companies that seem to specialize in foreigners in Japan. 3. Some people recommend checking out www.gaijinpot.com from time to time.
w1ntermute 14y ago
The Japanese are quite xenophobic and consider immigration to be a last resort. For this reason, they have invested (and continue to invest) large sums of money into robotics research, in an attempt to replace their working population without allowing mass immigration.
powertower 14y ago
That might be the best solution to maintaining head-counts in a more immediate manner. But it gets a bit more complicated. How would you solve the issue of no-go zones, crime and violence, incompatibility and intolerance, and lack of unity? Because those are all the things that increase in a non-marginal way when you mass immigrate a society and start replacing its identity, culture, and people with another. Would you build more prisons? Would you make excuses for the new people? What would you do exactly when that same society starts breaking apart?

lucian303 14y ago

This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful to the entire human population.

altcognito 14y ago
No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to return to replacement levels of child bearing, I don't see any evidence or reason that it would just yet.
- lucian303 14y ago
  Why? Out of the author's solutions that have been discussed in Japan for decades, only one involves children (and that's related to daycare, not more babies), and the others involve changing a culture that needs to change to adapt to this. Then they would be an example to the world. If the planet cannot "easily" support the number of people we have now, please prove how. Because right now it isn't.
  - altcognito 14y ago
    Prove it? I think the burden is on you my friend, for yours is the claim that is extraordinary. The human population is growing easily. Food and space is ample. Hell, we grow food to make energy for vehicles, not people. No, everybody can't live like Americans, but not everybody wants to live like Americans. There are a lot of Americans who don't want to live like Americans. (You may be amongst them!) But for you to suggest that it is morally improper to have children because the world can't sustain it -- no, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and listen to this non-sense. You go ahead and prove that the world isn't supporting the population without utilizing corrupt governments. It is insanity that some would have us roll back to the population and energy consumption 1800's because they have cannot come up with a modern solution. Last, but not least, China reduced it's population. Would you call it a stellar example of environmental responsibility? Your problem is that you're conflating two completely different problems. Overpopulation (for today) is a non-existent problem. Fix destitution (a real problem) in the developing world, and birth rates will drop naturally. tl;dr I make some assumptions about environmentalists. Fight poverty, not birth rates.

ajross 14y ago

This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaster being posited. It means, broadly, that for a generation or so society will be burdened by a disproportionately large elderly population, and caring for them will require resources that we'd prefer to spend on other things. But eventually things will return to a steady state, just with fewer people. We'll manage.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
Birthrate is 1.39 per woman. No, that will not reach a steady state. That's a constant decline.
- lotsofpulp 14y ago
  If I recall correctly, ~2.3 children per woman is the replacement rate, i.e. keeps population steady. Of course, changes in longevity / infant mortality may have changed that statistic. Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacemen... According to Wikipedia's source, replacement rate is ~2.1 for developed nations, so I would guess Japan is definitely not at a replacement rate at 1.4. Of course, replacement rates are just to keep population steady, but I would think a country with too many old people is still somewhat of a problem, unless you could figure out how to take care of them and/or make them productive.
eriksank 14y ago
Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.
- 14y ago

greggman 14y ago

I watched a Japanese program where the government claimed in the year 3000 the population of Japan would be .... 7 people. Obviously I don't think it would actually get there but that is the current rate if nothing else changes (or rate at the time the program was aired) The segment ended with a tongue in cheek admonition to make a baby tonight for Japan :)

Nux 14y ago

It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global population is growing uncontrollably.

AndrewDucker 14y ago
Except the global population isn't growing uncontrollably. The USA has a birth rate just barely above replenishment (and dropping), Europe has dropped below replenishment rate, etc. Some pretty graphs here: http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html
k_kelly 14y ago
I think the real concern with this is not that we’ll have fewer people in Japan (a good thing) but that the system can’t support contraction. If you have a workforce in their thirties who are still at entry level positions or thereabouts, and a majority of voters between the age of 50 and 80, you end up with a political class that wins elections with pro-retirement and healthcare policies and a tax-base that has no way to pay for it. This is a recipe for disaster and it’s already happening in Japan. It could easily happen in any aging population.
rayiner 14y ago
It's not. Current projections are that global population will peak under 10 billion then start declining. China is going to peak in 2026 then start shrinking. Overpopulation is a solved problem for now. The big problem is that now all those people want to live like Americans.

btilly 14y ago

These demographic trends are, unfortunately, only temporary. From the point of view of evolution, birth control is a disaster. I have done exactly the activity evolution has programmed me to do to continue the species, regularly, for over 20 years. Only twice did it result in children, and both times were conscious choices on my part. However evolution knows how to face these disasters. There is a small minority of people who have the option of birth control, who have all of the same economic incentives that I do, yet choose to have lots of children. Their children are less likely to want to use birth control than mine. Thanks to exponential growth, that minority that chooses to have children regardless will become a majority. And after that point, voluntary birth control and economic incentives will not suffice to keep the population from growing. This is literally evolution in action.

zeteo 14y ago
You said it, brother (sister?). In each country there are subcultures (religious fundamentalists, usually) that have birth rates well above replacement. Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in recent decades but, with the kind of uninspiring, plasticky productions currently streaming out of Hollywood / big label music, that process is about to change. Let's just say, your radio is likely to play a lot more Christian rock in your old age.
- wilfra 14y ago
  I'd say it's a lot more likely to be playing Mariachi than Christian rock...
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    You forget that Hispanics are also quite religious.
    - wilfra 14y ago
      But do they listen to 'Christian Rock'?

mattmaroon 14y ago

I believe the article is incorrect about one thing. Japan has a formal army. It's constitution forbids it from declaring war, but it still has quite a large military for self defense. Though, like about half the article, that is apropos of nothing.

known 14y ago

Japanese society strictly follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

RyanZAG 14y ago

Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty has led couples to delay getting married and having children. The shortage of public day care centers, especially in cities, has made the cost and burden of parenthood so high that today’s couples either have fewer babies or none at all. (Japan’s birthrate is just 1.39 children per woman.)" What happens when the population shrinks as a result of this? All of these problems magically right themselves. Shortage of public day care centers? Solved with lower population. Stagnant or declining incomes? Solved with a lower population, as each person can command a greater share of the economy (in aggregate) from simple supply/demand of labor. This is just a pendulum swinging back into equilibrium that will eventually be felt across the globe - and while worse for Japan's Gross GDP, it will improve Japan's GDP per Capita, the only truly important 'country level' measure for actual citizens.

meric 14y ago
That works, but only as long as the proportion of non-productive population does not increase too fast.
halviti 14y ago
You're only focusing on one side of the argument. Less young people means a small amount of young people paying for lots of older people, which is a large financial burden on the people able to work. (as well as many other factors) Also, GDP per capita is only used to measure money. There are many other factors that people might find important like happiness rankings, which to me happiness can be much more important than money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
philwelch 14y ago
GDP per capita doesn't go up when population goes down, because there are fewer people working to produce goods and services. There's no economy genie producing wealth that has to be divided among the population.

guard-of-terra 14y ago

I've modelled a society with 1.0 birth rate and everyone died. And it's not like died in a million years; no, the last "person" was born something like 150 years from the start. Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you can't have that and that's what make you a modern person. I guess most people will be living in fifty kilometer radius from a million plus population hub. That's what we should have.

tomjen3 14y ago
Please don't make the mistake of assuming that any kind of growth is constant -- people respond to incentives and if the price of having a child goes up, people naturally respond by having fewer children. And yes, the price of child is the highest it has even been. Just to satisfy my curiousity, how many people were in your society to begin with? At what age did they reproduce? Was the reproduction constant or did it change between couples?
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  Of course society can heal, 'm just saying it's possible to get a badly incentivized society to crash itself and it won't be easy to fix the setup given the negative momentum. 10000. They reproduced between 25 and 35. You could tune the birth rate but it was constant for the simulation. People lived for 80 years. This kind of setup gave you a temporary boost and then a surprisingly hard landing.

watt 14y ago

Japan is overpopulated as it is. I fail to see anything wrong with population levels dropping, to some lower, sustainable levels. The low birthrate is caused by overpopulation: there's too little resources to give to babies, so it's impossible to have children. I would actually say, there's so little to go around, people can't form families (get a partner, be a couple - maybe because the courting ritual is too elaborate now), so less people are even able to have a go at having a child.

squonk 14y ago

How much of Japan's population syndrome is directly assignable to Japan's unique policies, versus the nature of first world countries in general? Japan's population has been essentially flat for the last 6 years: 127,773,000 in 2005, 127,817,000 in 2011. It is headed south as long as the birth rate remains so low. So no question that the rest of the world needs to understand the effects of negative population growth. A decreasing population will test many economic policies that relied on monotonically increasing population to be effective. I doubt we can predict all of the policies that will break.