Society/Culture Japan population crisis

[barreness]

Aging population problems dont exist because of capitalism.

Alienation of workers from their production. Commodification of housing, dating, etc. Growth without limits. These are factors that effect reproductive rates from a capitalist framework.

State capitalism is no better, I mean war massively bumps fertility but that doesn't mean it's good.

The problem with an aging population is that more of the workforce needs to be involved in elder care? Is this really a problem

Capitalism deals better with aging population then any other system.

Pre bronze age? IDK kinda seems like this is a problem capitalism itself has created so to say it solves it better is silly, better than china? We'll see I guess

But yeh there's bigger issues to worry about, low fertility is a good thing looking forward, less tragic deaths

 

[Seeds]

Alienation of workers from their production. Commodification of housing, dating, etc. Growth without limits. These are factors that effect reproductive rates from a capitalist framework.

State capitalism is no better, I mean war massively bumps fertility but that doesn't mean it's good.

The problem with an aging population is that more of the workforce needs to be involved in elder care? Is this really a problem

Pre bronze age? IDK kinda seems like this is a problem capitalism itself has created so to say it solves it better is silly, better than china? We'll see I guess

But yeh there's bigger issues to worry about, low fertility is a good thing looking forward, less tragic deaths

I think you might be confusing (at least in the way im interpeting it) rising life expectancies with reduced fertility rates. They are two seperate things.

Improving health doesnt increase the amount of workforce needed for care. It just pushes back the age at which people need care and also boosts the amount of years people can work.

Lower fertility rates dont increase the amount of workers in elder care. They increase the proportion of workers in elder care.

But capitalism is also delivering us automation and reducing the amount of jobs in other areas. We cant complain about capitalism reducing the amount of jobs whilst also providing too many jobs at the same time. It cant be both now can it?

 

[Seeds]

What are you on about?

Ive just shown your assumption is completely false. Tax rates have had no influence on birth rates.

Lower birth rates are caused by changing social norms and increased access to contraception. Yes the under 40s have been screwed over by the baby boomers tax policies. But this isnt driving lower birth rates. If birth rates were driven by economic factors then how do you explain high birth rates 70,150, 300 years ago when young people were far far poorer then they are today.

 

[Gerard_waitley]

Alarming figures coming out of Japan

Japan's new births fall to record low, while fewer couples marry

The number of babies born in Japan falls for an eighth straight year to a record new low last year, according to government data and a top official says the country must reverse the trend in the coming years.

www.abc.net.au

Pretty much many families in Japan are only having 1 child and are waiting until later in life to do so. This is the effect of uber high living standards. Career standard are high, everyone wants to be successful in a job. Have visited Japan myself and can't believe just how well run everything is. Everyone, down to the most mundane of jobs, does everything with complete pride.


Unfortunately if things don't change Japan's population is set to decline to around 87 million by 2070 from 125 million right now. By then if things don't change 4 out of every 10 citizens in Japan will be aged 65 or older. That obviously isn't sustainable.


This is very relevant to Australia with Japan being such a huge trading partner.

What kind of stats do we have on trade with Japan? India is developing and could be a strong alternative.

 

[barreness]

I think you might be confusing (at least in the way im interpeting it) rising life expectancies with reduced fertility rates. They are two seperate things.

A reduced fertility rate creates an aging population, you can maths this seeds

My comment was on an aging pop not rising life expectancy

Improving health doesnt increase the amount of workforce needed for care.

How else do you improve health?

It just pushes back the age at which people need care and also boosts the amount of years people can work.

Nah the economically useful human lifespan(under capitalism) is the same as what it always was, we just keep them alive longer at the back end.
Pension age was 65 in 1909

Lower fertility rates dont increase the amount of workers in elder care. They increase the proportion of workers in elder care.

Which is what right wing economists are scared about. I guess Zidane was running the nationalist 'death of a nation' claptrap.
An aging population will increase the amount of workers in aged care, and the proportion as well because of lower fertility

But capitalism is also delivering us automation and reducing the amount of jobs in other areas. We cant complain about capitalism reducing the amount of jobs whilst also providing too many jobs at the same time. It cant be both now can it?

We can because automation has never reduced an individuals need for a job under capitalism, it has reduced the need for workers. If your job is automated and it now takes 1 hour instead of a fulltime week you don't get to sit back and work one hour for the same wage, you get another job to feed and house yourself.

I can't see automation coming into aged care in a large way

 

[ferball]

Ive just shown your assumption is completely false. Tax rates have had no influence on birth rates.

Lower birth rates are caused by changing social norms and increased access to contraception. Yes the under 40s have been screwed over by the baby boomers tax policies. But this isnt driving lower birth rates. If birth rates were driven by economic factors then how do you explain high birth rates 70,150, 300 years ago when young people were far far poorer then they are today.

That wasn't my assumption. Go argue with a mirror somewhere, then do a course in reading comprehension.