Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/without-babies-can-japan-survive.html?ref=opinion
82 comments
This is wrong on a profound level. GDP is Gross Domestic Product. In other words, all the goods and services produced. The price level and quantity are deeply tied to demand and for most goods/services, demand is tied to the population. More people means more goods/services sold at a higher quantity and price. Economic growth is largely population growth. The Japanese economic stagnation is largely caused by their population stagnation and will certainly not be fixed by it.
More people means more goods/services sold at a higher quantity and price.
Can you explain why more people causes price to go up?
Quantity will certainly go up, but only in proportion to population, thus having no net effect on GDP per capita.
Can you explain why more people causes price to go up?
Quantity will certainly go up, but only in proportion to population, thus having no net effect on GDP per capita.
> Can you explain why more people causes price to go up?
Sure. As you know, price is the intersection of supply and demand. An increase in a population is, in economic terms, an increase in demand. This will cause the price level to increase.
Over time, supply will increase to match the new demand level, but to what extent and more importantly, the time frame involved, will be dependent on the good/service in question. The supply for some goods and especially most services, isn't easily increased. There is a finite number of lawyers, doctors, etc. to provide services and it take time to train more. Regulations get in the way, licensing, etc. And, of course, there are pressures on the raw materials used to manufacture goods.
Sure. As you know, price is the intersection of supply and demand. An increase in a population is, in economic terms, an increase in demand. This will cause the price level to increase.
Over time, supply will increase to match the new demand level, but to what extent and more importantly, the time frame involved, will be dependent on the good/service in question. The supply for some goods and especially most services, isn't easily increased. There is a finite number of lawyers, doctors, etc. to provide services and it take time to train more. Regulations get in the way, licensing, etc. And, of course, there are pressures on the raw materials used to manufacture goods.
So you are postulating a world where more people compete for a fixed set of goods and services? Sounds like a Malthusian nightmare.
Of course, in this world price goes up but quantity remains flat (in gross terms, not per capita). Real GDP per capita drops even if inflation drives up nominal GDP per capita.
Of course, in this world price goes up but quantity remains flat (in gross terms, not per capita). Real GDP per capita drops even if inflation drives up nominal GDP per capita.
> So you are postulating a world where more people compete for a fixed set of goods and services?
Is that what I said? I thought I said there's a delay between an increase in demand and an increase in supply, which results in an increase in the price level. In a world of constantly increasing demand you have a constantly increasing price level. In other words, real inflation.
In a world of stagnating population growth, you'll have stagflation at best, and deflation at worst. Guess what's happening in Japan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#In_Japan
Is that what I said? I thought I said there's a delay between an increase in demand and an increase in supply, which results in an increase in the price level. In a world of constantly increasing demand you have a constantly increasing price level. In other words, real inflation.
In a world of stagnating population growth, you'll have stagflation at best, and deflation at worst. Guess what's happening in Japan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#In_Japan
You were describing a world in which regulatory and material constraints prevent growth in supply to meet demand. As a simplified model, consider an economy consisting of only medical services (one of your supplied examples). Then:
Real GDP per capita = gross medical services provided / population
If population goes up but gross medical services stay flat, real gdp per capita falls. Nominal GDP per capita can rise of the elasticity of demand of medical services is greater than one.
Being temporary just means that real GDP per capita will eventually reach it's previous level - a temporary Malthusian nightmare rather than a permanent one.
Real GDP per capita = gross medical services provided / population
If population goes up but gross medical services stay flat, real gdp per capita falls. Nominal GDP per capita can rise of the elasticity of demand of medical services is greater than one.
Being temporary just means that real GDP per capita will eventually reach it's previous level - a temporary Malthusian nightmare rather than a permanent one.
> Being temporary just means that real GDP per capita will eventually reach it's previous level - a temporary Malthusian nightmare rather than a permanent one.
Human beings aren't static units of consumption and production.
Most productivity gains which result in real GDP per capita growth can only manifest themselves at specific economies of scale. Economies of scale realized after specific demand levels are reached as a result of growing populations.
The pressures which lead to innovation are directly tied to the pressures caused by additional demand and insufficient supply.
Can you name a single country with a decreasing population and a growing GDP? Or even a growing per capita GDP?
Human beings aren't static units of consumption and production.
Most productivity gains which result in real GDP per capita growth can only manifest themselves at specific economies of scale. Economies of scale realized after specific demand levels are reached as a result of growing populations.
The pressures which lead to innovation are directly tied to the pressures caused by additional demand and insufficient supply.
Can you name a single country with a decreasing population and a growing GDP? Or even a growing per capita GDP?
Remember what this article is about?
Japan.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ja&v=67
EDIT: This is, of course, also not related to inflation, as Japan has had deflation for years.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/japan-historical...
So perhaps I am not wrong on a profound level after all, considering my views are echoed by reality? Just throwing it out there...
Japan.
Population
2005 127,767,994 +0.7%
2010 128,057,352 +0.2%
2012 (est.) 127,530,000 −0.4%
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ja&v=67
EDIT: This is, of course, also not related to inflation, as Japan has had deflation for years.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/japan-historical...
So perhaps I am not wrong on a profound level after all, considering my views are echoed by reality? Just throwing it out there...
Why are you using purchasing power parity data? Japanese people don't live in America. They live in Japan. You are introducing local factors from the US into the data.
According to this:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
Japan's population begins to stagnate around 1996 or so.
Use this chart and restrict the data from 1996 to today.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-per-capita-at-curr...
Now use this chart:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth-annual
Again, restrict from 1996 and onward. Then select trend. A nice downward line trending toward 0.
The true effects of a stagnating population won't be felt for years. As the article notes, Japan's population is aging rapidly. That means fewer and fewer productive members.
According to this:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...
Japan's population begins to stagnate around 1996 or so.
Use this chart and restrict the data from 1996 to today.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-per-capita-at-curr...
Now use this chart:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth-annual
Again, restrict from 1996 and onward. Then select trend. A nice downward line trending toward 0.
The true effects of a stagnating population won't be felt for years. As the article notes, Japan's population is aging rapidly. That means fewer and fewer productive members.
Shortage of daycare centers may sort it self out before the economy gets completely screwed up, but soon after the declining production (due to less workers) will mean less taxincome for the government, which always means that school, daycare, the elderly and hospitals will be cut.
Workers might have been able to command a much higher salary a century or two ago, but in global world there is only so high the salary of an individual can go before the entire thing comes crashing down into a gigantic economic disaster.
Regarding gigantic economical disasters, consider what will happen when the current generations retire. Unless the government has put enough aside to pay for the retirement of all these people (very doubtful), then it must get whatever it can from the citizens who are working -- and with a very small amount of people working, that means that each worker will have to pay a lot more in taxes, which is not likely to lead to either economic prosperity or reelection of the politicians (even though their hands will be completely tied down).
Workers might have been able to command a much higher salary a century or two ago, but in global world there is only so high the salary of an individual can go before the entire thing comes crashing down into a gigantic economic disaster.
Regarding gigantic economical disasters, consider what will happen when the current generations retire. Unless the government has put enough aside to pay for the retirement of all these people (very doubtful), then it must get whatever it can from the citizens who are working -- and with a very small amount of people working, that means that each worker will have to pay a lot more in taxes, which is not likely to lead to either economic prosperity or reelection of the politicians (even though their hands will be completely tied down).
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.
A large portion of country wealth is often tied up in land and infrastructure. Wealth generally creates more wealth (through interest and similar), so the same wealth spread across a smaller number of people will push GDP per capita upwards.
Higher incomes are also closely associated with better education. If you keep the number of universities and schools constant while decreasing the population, you give a larger percentage of the population access to better education.
If a family has two children, the wealth of the family must be divided between both children and each child has less individual wealth. As you need wealth to start a business, a higher base wealth across the population means more chance of new successful businesses being started by these children.
If a family has no children, the estate will move into public control, effectively increasing GDP per capita for the surviving population.
A reason for a low birthrate in Japan is lack of financial security. This means that people who have low wealth are self-selecting out of reproduction, effectively moving their wealth into public ownership when they pass away and moving the average up as the proportion of low wealth to high wealth families is shifted.
So yes, practically, GDP per capita will go up in Japan as the population shrinks. The global economy is more complex than just 'producing shiny widgets', or China would be far more well off than it is. Capitalism in action.
EDIT: As pointed out by others correctly, increased welfare burdens from too large a proportion of retired citizens will have an effect. This can swing two ways: increased taxes, or reduced welfare payments.
If reduced welfare payments is chosen, it will cancel out the problem. Japan will hopefully choose this route out of self preservation.
If increased taxes is chosen, it will effectively tunnel income into the housing sector (old age homes, etc) and medical sector (medicine, life support, etc). The housing sector increase will be offset by a smaller housing demand from lower population. The medical sector is the big issue: if this wealth can be tunneled into Japanese medicine and health care, then it will simply be a transfer from taxpayers to Japanese in the medical sector. This would probably cause all kinds of distortions and should be avoided. However, it's not guaranteed to be a bad thing, I think anyway. You'll just have more Japanese going to medical school.
Higher incomes are also closely associated with better education. If you keep the number of universities and schools constant while decreasing the population, you give a larger percentage of the population access to better education.
If a family has two children, the wealth of the family must be divided between both children and each child has less individual wealth. As you need wealth to start a business, a higher base wealth across the population means more chance of new successful businesses being started by these children.
If a family has no children, the estate will move into public control, effectively increasing GDP per capita for the surviving population.
A reason for a low birthrate in Japan is lack of financial security. This means that people who have low wealth are self-selecting out of reproduction, effectively moving their wealth into public ownership when they pass away and moving the average up as the proportion of low wealth to high wealth families is shifted.
So yes, practically, GDP per capita will go up in Japan as the population shrinks. The global economy is more complex than just 'producing shiny widgets', or China would be far more well off than it is. Capitalism in action.
EDIT: As pointed out by others correctly, increased welfare burdens from too large a proportion of retired citizens will have an effect. This can swing two ways: increased taxes, or reduced welfare payments.
If reduced welfare payments is chosen, it will cancel out the problem. Japan will hopefully choose this route out of self preservation.
If increased taxes is chosen, it will effectively tunnel income into the housing sector (old age homes, etc) and medical sector (medicine, life support, etc). The housing sector increase will be offset by a smaller housing demand from lower population. The medical sector is the big issue: if this wealth can be tunneled into Japanese medicine and health care, then it will simply be a transfer from taxpayers to Japanese in the medical sector. This would probably cause all kinds of distortions and should be avoided. However, it's not guaranteed to be a bad thing, I think anyway. You'll just have more Japanese going to medical school.
There's no interest genie either. If no one can invest and earn returns on borrowed money, there's nothing to sustain interest.
Inherited wealth isn't enough to sustain anyone but the rich. GDP only measures new wealth anyway, not preexisting wealth. You have to continue producing goods and services. In fact, most forms of accumulated wealth (currency, securities, real estate) are really just shares of these goods and services as they're produced, but you need at least some actual labor for that to work.
If you selectively culled unproductive people, per capita GDP would go up. It's not clear that low birth rates accomplish this.
Inherited wealth isn't enough to sustain anyone but the rich. GDP only measures new wealth anyway, not preexisting wealth. You have to continue producing goods and services. In fact, most forms of accumulated wealth (currency, securities, real estate) are really just shares of these goods and services as they're produced, but you need at least some actual labor for that to work.
If you selectively culled unproductive people, per capita GDP would go up. It's not clear that low birth rates accomplish this.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. Lets break down the working population into categories:
This is just a few examples, but you could easily find far more. The root cause of this is the existing wealth of the country will enable more people to succeed as the population decreases. A further indication of this effect is that GDP per capita is strongly related to wealth.
[unique skills - ceos, etc]
X people
[highly demanded skills - top class engineers, specialty surgeons, etc]
Y people
[regular required jobs - doctors, pharmacists, designers, etc]
Z people
[unskilled jobs]
A people
[unemployed]
This is just a few examples, but you could easily find far more. The root cause of this is the existing wealth of the country will enable more people to succeed as the population decreases. A further indication of this effect is that GDP per capita is strongly related to wealth.
There actually are limits to physicians per capita. You wouldn't have a functioning economy where everyone was a physician. If the population drops by 10%, demand for physicians drops as well.
For engineers it's a supply side issue--we could productively employ many more engineers than we do, but it would take immense breakthroughs to have a population where everyone could be an engineer. That's what I meant when I said you'd have to selectively cull the unproductive. If you reduce the population, the remaining workers have to be more productive for per capita GDP to rise, and you still haven't shown that this would happen. It doesn't help if you only need 10,000 engineers when you can only produce 0.01 engineers per capita. You'd need this proportion to rise. How does lowering birth rates do this?
In other words--sure, you could probably have a very per-capita rich Galt's Gulch with only 1000 people. But reducing the population arbitrarily to 1000 people will not accomplish this.
For engineers it's a supply side issue--we could productively employ many more engineers than we do, but it would take immense breakthroughs to have a population where everyone could be an engineer. That's what I meant when I said you'd have to selectively cull the unproductive. If you reduce the population, the remaining workers have to be more productive for per capita GDP to rise, and you still haven't shown that this would happen. It doesn't help if you only need 10,000 engineers when you can only produce 0.01 engineers per capita. You'd need this proportion to rise. How does lowering birth rates do this?
In other words--sure, you could probably have a very per-capita rich Galt's Gulch with only 1000 people. But reducing the population arbitrarily to 1000 people will not accomplish this.
"If a family has no children, the estate will move into public control, effectively increasing GDP per capita for the surviving population."
I'd think that families that have significant wealth are the ones that are the most likely to have children, since they'd have no problems affording them.
I'd think that families that have significant wealth are the ones that are the most likely to have children, since they'd have no problems affording them.
It does if everything is made in highly automated factories and you have a lot of unemployed.
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
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
That works, but only as long as the proportion of non-productive population does not increase too fast.
Another reason why shrinking population won't magically solve Japan's problems is that they'll have smaller and smaller numbers of working-age people supporting larger and larger numbers of retirees, leaving the younger people even less money to spend on themselves and their children.
This is the same problem that's looming for the Social Security system in the U.S., and probably in most developed countries, as average lifespans increase. (A much smaller percentage of people actually lived to retirement age when the Social Security system was first created.) But this problem will hit Japan first due to their low birth rate.
This is the same problem that's looming for the Social Security system in the U.S., and probably in most developed countries, as average lifespans increase. (A much smaller percentage of people actually lived to retirement age when the Social Security system was first created.) But this problem will hit Japan first due to their low birth rate.
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.
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.
It also depends on culture. The article says that Japanese women don't find Japanese men as attractive partners because of low pay, long working hours for them, etc., but there's also the fact that young Japanese men just aren't that interested in having sex or pursuing women. This cultural phenomenon, known as Sōshoku danshi （草食男子）, or herbivorous men[0,1], has to end if things are going to turn around. These men are more interested in their hobbies and personal grooming. This image summarizes the problem well: http://i.imgur.com/SUVEp.jpg
In fact, it's often the opposite of what the article states - there's a trend among women called Nikushoku joshi （肉食女子）, or carnivorous women, where the women are actively pursuing men out of necessity.
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men
1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...
In fact, it's often the opposite of what the article states - there's a trend among women called Nikushoku joshi （肉食女子）, or carnivorous women, where the women are actively pursuing men out of necessity.
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men
1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...
The cultural changes you mention are not specific to Japan, they are global. For an in depth analysis of the issue I suggest F. Roger Devlin's classic paper 'Sexual Utopia In Power':
http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pd...
http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pd...
Birthrate is 1.39 per woman. No, that will not reach a steady state. That's a constant decline.
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#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.
Edit: 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.
Yes, there are some statistical flaws in the article, but the general point that Japan's population aging and that this is a problem is true.
You say that things will return to a steady state, but why do you believe that?
You say that things will return to a steady state, but why do you believe that?
[deleted]
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.
True, but not of the form we're seeing (e.g. the base for the exponent surely isn't 2!). (It also bears mentioning that other factors like increases in working lifetime and overall lifetime counteract the birthrate decreases). Right now we're seeing a "cliff" due to a change in the birthrate due to the very rapid change to an industrialized urban economy. That won't repeat.
Mistercrow asked the question above -I'll ask it here: Why do you think it won't repeat?
To my knowledge no other modern society has had a birthrate drop like this - to below this radically replacement and has then stabilized the birthrate at the replacement rate (or above). This really could be free fall...
To my knowledge no other modern society has had a birthrate drop like this - to below this radically replacement and has then stabilized the birthrate at the replacement rate (or above). This really could be free fall...
No modern society has seen the birthrate drop like this at all, regardless of the outcome, so we are in a bit of undefined territory. That doesn't mean it is bad, just differnt (which is enough to get a lot of people needlessly alarmed, sadly).
But is there a (modern) society that had a birthrate drop like this and perished as a result?
Virtually impossible?
Hardly. One generation where the average is 10 children per woman will boost the economy and permanently change the demographics; it may sound completely unrealistic, but it was the norm only a few generations ago.
And no, it didn't end when a lot of the children stopped dying in childbirth, as my grandfather had something like 8 brothers, and all of them made it into adulthood just fine.
Hardly. One generation where the average is 10 children per woman will boost the economy and permanently change the demographics; it may sound completely unrealistic, but it was the norm only a few generations ago.
And no, it didn't end when a lot of the children stopped dying in childbirth, as my grandfather had something like 8 brothers, and all of them made it into adulthood just fine.
It's biologically possible, but not economically possible. What would convince a couple who don't think they could afford to raise even a single child today suddenly decide that they could afford to raise ten children?
The entire infrastructure for this kind of endeavour -- that is, having lots of children -- has gone and not only in Japan. Biology does not work by restoring the birthrate, I suspect. I guess it rather works by exponentially growing the sub-populations who still have these high birthrates: 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16. In other words, I strongly suspect that most of the current Japanese population will have no descendants in a few generations, while a small, distinct subgroup will produce all of the population. So, all Japanese in a hundred years or so will descend from the few Japanese that tend to make ten children today.
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.
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.
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.
It isn't just religious fundamentalists - it's also people with low conscientiousness. They have no moral aversion to birth control, they just don't think too hard about the consequences of unprotected sex (it feels nicer, and condoms are at the drugstore three blocks away).
And while Mormon's rapid breeding might prevent demographic malaise, the rapid breeding of low conscientiousness people won't - the very trait that causes them to breed rapidly also causes them to be generally unproductive.
And while Mormon's rapid breeding might prevent demographic malaise, the rapid breeding of low conscientiousness people won't - the very trait that causes them to breed rapidly also causes them to be generally unproductive.
I have to call bullshit on this one. Most of us here, supposedly "conscientious" people, can trace our being here (in the existential sense of "being") to some ancestor with "low consciousness".
Birthrates are falling rapidly around the world, yes, including in places you may think are populated with "low conscious" people. The reason is very prosaic: urbanization. As people get crammed into smaller areas, they naturally start to reproduce less.
It goes back to the fundamental human urge to take care of our offspring: an overcrowded city is also a highly competitive city (Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York etc illustrate this best) so people who live in that environment that don't want to bring more offspring into the world.
Even in a country like India, the population growth is almost all rural. The birth rate of city-natives in big cities has dropped well below replacement level, and cities are gaining population because of immigration and within one generation those rural-turned-city-dwellers have low birth rate.
Birthrates are falling rapidly around the world, yes, including in places you may think are populated with "low conscious" people. The reason is very prosaic: urbanization. As people get crammed into smaller areas, they naturally start to reproduce less.
It goes back to the fundamental human urge to take care of our offspring: an overcrowded city is also a highly competitive city (Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York etc illustrate this best) so people who live in that environment that don't want to bring more offspring into the world.
Even in a country like India, the population growth is almost all rural. The birth rate of city-natives in big cities has dropped well below replacement level, and cities are gaining population because of immigration and within one generation those rural-turned-city-dwellers have low birth rate.
Both zeteo and myself are discussing differential birthrates between populations.
If population A (e.g. mormons, people of low conscientiousness) has a birthrate of X, and B (everyone else) has a birthrate of Y, with X > Y, then population A will eventually become the entire population. The eventual birthrate will be X.
Even if both birthrates are reduced by some exogenous factor K (e.g. urbanization, reducing from X -> K x X, Y -> K x Y), this fact doesn't change.
If population A (e.g. mormons, people of low conscientiousness) has a birthrate of X, and B (everyone else) has a birthrate of Y, with X > Y, then population A will eventually become the entire population. The eventual birthrate will be X.
Even if both birthrates are reduced by some exogenous factor K (e.g. urbanization, reducing from X -> K x X, Y -> K x Y), this fact doesn't change.
Both of you are missing something important. A population with a high birthrate will only achieve that dominance if the children remain in that population. A variety of religious communities have been able to maintain high birth rates, but do not retain all of their children, and their children therefore do not maintain birth rate.
One way to think of this is that, instead of the physical birth rate of people with the trait, what is the rate with which the trait manages to reproduce itself? A trait of "being Mormon" with an average of 6 kids, of whom 2 become Mormon, leads to a Mormon population of stable size, forever having 6 kids per couple.
If the Mormons manage an average of 2.5 Mormon kids per couple, then their population will grow without bound, though they may never be an actual majority of the population. However history shows that culture is malleable. They may grow that fast now, but a rapid social change can destroy the dynamic. (Witness Italy and Ireland, both strongly Catholic, with declining populations.)
Now contrast this with, say, a genetic trait that manifests as a strong desire to actually have children. Eventually you get a population of people who really want children, most of whose children really want children. This type of fundamental desire is more stable than a social construct.
I believe that there are such traits out there in the population. They are much more strongly favored today than in the past. Eventually those traits, whatever they are, will become more widespread, and evolution will have happened.
One way to think of this is that, instead of the physical birth rate of people with the trait, what is the rate with which the trait manages to reproduce itself? A trait of "being Mormon" with an average of 6 kids, of whom 2 become Mormon, leads to a Mormon population of stable size, forever having 6 kids per couple.
If the Mormons manage an average of 2.5 Mormon kids per couple, then their population will grow without bound, though they may never be an actual majority of the population. However history shows that culture is malleable. They may grow that fast now, but a rapid social change can destroy the dynamic. (Witness Italy and Ireland, both strongly Catholic, with declining populations.)
Now contrast this with, say, a genetic trait that manifests as a strong desire to actually have children. Eventually you get a population of people who really want children, most of whose children really want children. This type of fundamental desire is more stable than a social construct.
I believe that there are such traits out there in the population. They are much more strongly favored today than in the past. Eventually those traits, whatever they are, will become more widespread, and evolution will have happened.
I agree with your major point, but Ireland has a growing population in terms of birth rate. The only reason the overall population isn't growing is because of emigration between the ages of 18-25. The birth rate did go down during the boom, but its gone right back up to late 1970's levels during this current recession.
For some bizarre reason, Irish people love having babies.
Full disclosure: I am a childless Irish male in my older 30's, I know many people I grew up who have had kids since the economy went into the crapper.
For some bizarre reason, Irish people love having babies.
Full disclosure: I am a childless Irish male in my older 30's, I know many people I grew up who have had kids since the economy went into the crapper.
Thank you for correcting me on that data point.
I personally suspect that the long oppression of the Catholic Church under English rule lead to a cementing of how important it is to the Irish people. I further suspect that, in time, Ireland will become as secular as other countries. But that time is not yet here.
I personally suspect that the long oppression of the Catholic Church under English rule lead to a cementing of how important it is to the Irish people. I further suspect that, in time, Ireland will become as secular as other countries. But that time is not yet here.
>Both of you are missing something important. A population with a high birthrate will only achieve that dominance if the children remain in that population.
Great-great-grandparent:
> Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in recent decades but [...] that process is about to change
Great-great-grandparent:
> Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in recent decades but [...] that process is about to change
Point.
However I, personally, see no sign of that process changing. Popular culture does not have to be good to pull away the children of religious people. It merely has to be attractive. And popular culture is constantly, relentlessly, optimizing for shallow attractiveness.
However I, personally, see no sign of that process changing. Popular culture does not have to be good to pull away the children of religious people. It merely has to be attractive. And popular culture is constantly, relentlessly, optimizing for shallow attractiveness.
It doesn't even have to be attractive. It just has to be less oppressive than the religious culture.
I'd say it's a lot more likely to be playing Mariachi than Christian rock...
You forget that Hispanics are also quite religious.
But do they listen to 'Christian Rock'?
It's not really evolution, strictly speaking, unless you believe that the choice to avoid using birth control is somehow determined by a person's genes.
Weaker than that. Not determined, but just affected.
As a random example it is known that genes play a big role in causing ADHD, which is associated with a variety of risky behaviors, which might conceivably be correlated with increased reproduction rates.
If ADHD people has kids 10% faster than the rest of the population, then in something 30 generations, we'd expect over half the population to have ADHD. That's about 750 years. (I do not know if this is the case with ADHD. I'm throwing it out as a random example. For all I know there is no real difference. Or, in the presence of birth control, a 20% difference.)
It isn't just ADHD, though. Every possible genetically determined characteristic that limits how effectively birth control prevents you from having children is now being aggressively selected for. All else remaining equal, in a few hundred years we are likely to see significant behavior shifts in our species.
As a random example it is known that genes play a big role in causing ADHD, which is associated with a variety of risky behaviors, which might conceivably be correlated with increased reproduction rates.
If ADHD people has kids 10% faster than the rest of the population, then in something 30 generations, we'd expect over half the population to have ADHD. That's about 750 years. (I do not know if this is the case with ADHD. I'm throwing it out as a random example. For all I know there is no real difference. Or, in the presence of birth control, a 20% difference.)
It isn't just ADHD, though. Every possible genetically determined characteristic that limits how effectively birth control prevents you from having children is now being aggressively selected for. All else remaining equal, in a few hundred years we are likely to see significant behavior shifts in our species.
Cultural evolution? Cultures certainly behave like organisms. A culture of birth control could easily get out of hand and exterminate the group the espoused it. E.g. Shakers.
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_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.
If you compare the birth and death rates they have only recently crossed, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Hi, when you say "open", you mean also for workers? Do you have any potential advice for somebody looking for a job over there?
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.
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.
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.
Also, their politics is probably more screwed up and dysfunctional than this article suggests, so any change seems unlikely.
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.
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?
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?
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 :)
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Japanese society strictly follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global population is growing uncontrollably.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by 2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most people would like that.
Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer people using it? Sounds pretty good to me.
Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer people using it? Sounds pretty good to me.
It's not about the number of people, but the age distribution. In 2100 half of the Japanese may be over 65 years old, and it definitely wasn't the case in 1920.
The per-capita productivity growth rate in Japan the last twenty years has been around 1%/year (down from the 4-5% of the 1970-1990 era). At that rate, the average worker in Japan will be 2.4 times as productive in 2100 than today.
In the long run, productivity growth and technological changes will dwarf demographics. I'm not talking huge Mr. Fusion-style breakthroughs, just small improvements that we all see every day. The Radio Shack catalog from 1982 that was posted here a few days ago is a great example. The improvements since then happened so gradually that we don't even notice them until we look back 30 years.
In the long run, productivity growth and technological changes will dwarf demographics. I'm not talking huge Mr. Fusion-style breakthroughs, just small improvements that we all see every day. The Radio Shack catalog from 1982 that was posted here a few days ago is a great example. The improvements since then happened so gradually that we don't even notice them until we look back 30 years.
As someone who lives in the Detroit area, I find your comments amusing. In fairness, comparing Detroit to Tokyo is like comparing night and day. This isn't to say there wouldn't be adjustment issues though.
If by "Detroit area" you mean the Detroit metropolitan area, it's only lost 3% of its population between the last two censuses, not exactly a huge exodus. Around 15,000 net loss each year out of 4M+.
If you mean just the city of Detroit, then the comparison with rural Japan is not too far off: young people moving away from their homes because there are no jobs, leaving behind their parents and grandparents. Detroit is the rural Japanese fishing village with 1 grade-school kid in this analogy.
If you mean just the city of Detroit, then the comparison with rural Japan is not too far off: young people moving away from their homes because there are no jobs, leaving behind their parents and grandparents. Detroit is the rural Japanese fishing village with 1 grade-school kid in this analogy.
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.
If the planet cannot "easily" support the number of people we have now, please prove how. Because right now it isn't.
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.
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.
"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.