2012-12-19, 03:20 | Link #2661 |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Japan and much of the developed world can ramp up their food production by quite a lot. It will be costlier, and it will harm the environment in the long run, but Malthusian starvation isn't on the agenda. What primarily happened in Japan with its food production issues are two things, first is that the population decline hit the rural areas the hardest. The youth don't want to be farmers. Second is that the Japanese diet dramatically shifted over the decades from its historical basis on fish and rice and local vegetables to a much more diverse cuisine that uses ingredients from many foreign regions...to the benefit of world culture and my palate, so frankly the food survivalists can shut up on this second account, donburi banzai.
The other, far more immediate problem is that the modern capitalist model is not built to accept a long-term population downturn. That is anathema to everything it stands for. It is designed for growth, and assumes as a priori a long term trend of growth -- expanding businesses, more consumers, more workers, more taxpayers contributing into the social system -- and that means it needs a pyramidal demographic. The negative effects of a permanently contracting economy are structural and seemingly insurmountable. Japan is thus forced by its demographic circumstances and political difficulties (the total failure of leadership, the xenophobic immigration system, and the intense difficulties facing even local "non Japanese" to assimilate and acquire citizenship, which combined means the other developed nations' solution of immigration isn't realistic) to once again pioneer something for the rest of the developed world, but this time it has to try and invent a working paradigm for stable, effective economy based on the assumption of a long term declining or hopefully stabilized population. Maybe it will work out long term, becoming a truly sustainable society, but I fear the total failure of the Japanese political leadership means that the capability and will needed to bring about changes are just not there, and that means pain, a lot of pain, while the geopolitical region it is in is increasingly competitive just as its competitiveness declines. |
2012-12-19, 03:42 | Link #2662 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Quote:
I read that Japan usually has good relations with Brazil, and they (Brazil) have all the manforce and expertise required in agriculture. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2012-12-19, 03:59 | Link #2664 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
If it were for me, credits/rewards should be given to companies that are able to open a daycare center for the children of their employees. |
|
2012-12-19, 04:06 | Link #2665 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
If only life was that simple. The costs of raising kids regardless of the existence of day care are too high for the average Japanese to want to have them. It's a matter of the people not being up to the task, and not that of the government.
|
2012-12-19, 10:18 | Link #2666 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
Plus, having large families lead to the classic "welfare queen" argument anyway. |
|
2012-12-19, 11:00 | Link #2667 | |
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-19, 12:02 | Link #2668 | ||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2012-12-19, 12:12 | Link #2669 | |
Master of Coin
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-19, 12:14 | Link #2670 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
@DonQuigleone -- Yeah, that's for ONE child. The discussion is talking about population growth, so 3+ kids per couple .. and let's not forget comparative differences in cost-of-living.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph.../daily-chart-7 Reply hazy, ask again later |
2012-12-19, 13:59 | Link #2671 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-19, 14:08 | Link #2672 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Look at those numbers and adjust them for "non-essentials" and then apply an additional cost-of-living modifier depending on jurisdiction. Then multiply that by 3 kids. Then add on costs related to the cost of living of the parents themselves. This also wouldn't account for things such as: non-linearity of housing costs for larger family sizes, private tuition costs (private school? cram school? study guides?) and anything else that I've missed. I remember a study done a few years (decades?) ago that showed couples with college education and higher and were more firmly "middle" or "upper middle" class were less likely to have children or more than one child than the "very rich" and the "lower class" -- the "very rich" could afford the costs and the "lower class" had income assistance .. (as well as simply not being educated and aware.) Reply hazy, ask again later |
|
2012-12-19, 14:25 | Link #2673 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
My own family of 4 lived quite comfortable with my father earning on average 60-80k over the course of his career(my mother was a housewife), and my sister and I attended private school (but no tutoring). In addition our house got burnt down in a fire. However private schools in Ireland are partially subsidized. However we had the advantage that my mother did not work, which resulted in many cost savings (no day care for one thing). My mother did some part time work as we got older. We also got some loans from grandparents at certain times(around that fire in particular). Even in recession Ireland has high fertility rates (if anything they've gone up...). I don't know why Ireland is like this, maybe we just live more economically. However, college tuition does change the cost balance quite a bit, but then I have my doubts that college as it is now will continue into the future (that's a conversation for another thread though). |
|
2012-12-19, 15:01 | Link #2674 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
^ Sounds like you had a decent childhood and the grandparents help/support during a time of crisis is fantastic. I actually grew up in an incredibly impoverished household and was an only child, so I'm not even sure how much I personally "cost to raise" ..
Anecdotally, one of my affluent colleagues has two boys and his costs right now include $35K a year on private school. This doesn't include hockey gear and other extracurricular costs. Obviously children of higher income individuals cost more to raise.. Reply hazy, ask again later |
2012-12-19, 15:19 | Link #2675 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
About housing, high costs are unavoidable because of limited surface area to live on. I don't think we can debate on that. However about anything else... high prices are there because apparently no one in the past watched to make sure costs would not have such bad impacts in the long term. Meanwhile, why do you think many people in Germany, France, United States and Canada are consistently on the watch on pricing for anything? Of course, it's getting more expensive to live in Canada than it was in the past, but we have our share of experts counselling authorities on how to make sure prices on goods and salaries/wages go up hand in hand. With South Korea electing a woman today, perhaps it's time Japan elects a woman (preferably in her late 40s) as Prime Minister and hope she would be more sensible about the improvements required for the country's social situation. |
|
2012-12-19, 16:47 | Link #2676 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
KiraYamatoFan, you've missed the most important cost: That of education. If anything, that single cost weights everything else down. It might be you're used to your region's relatively "cheap" educational costs. That's not the case in Japan or Korea.
|
2012-12-19, 17:17 | Link #2677 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
Quote:
I'm all for paying more money to receive quality education and do whatever it takes to put high education standards at the level of Germany's. Meanwhile, there are several costs that could be cut elsewhere if that can take off some of the parents' fiscal burden. If some costs are more difficult to cut down, one suggestion would be to axe something major such as the farm lobby which takes everyone hostage by requesting high food import tariffs and thus hold high prices on food. The moral of the story, however, is that some sort of revolution must be sparked by a few people or by an angry populace in order to get rid of the old farts taking down the country down with them because they don't even know they are past their expiry date. edit: I found 2 links proposing interesting solutions in various areas. If the old farts in power can't see the goods in proceeding with such proposed changes, they are as good as to be sent into retirement without pension. http://savingjapan.net/2010/10/17/lo...ng-population/ http://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion.../np2010150.pdf I know I shouldn't be as passionate as I am since I have no Japanese relatives, but I just love this country too much to sit and watch its march towards downfall. Last edited by KiraYamatoFan; 2012-12-19 at 17:37. |
|
2012-12-19, 17:51 | Link #2679 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 40
|
That's one way to see it. Still, I'd feel more relieved if they get the boot and are forced into the "walk of shame" at the expense of politicians with revolutionary/contemporary ideas now instead of letting them run in circles for another decade to make things worse.
|
Tags |
culture, discussion, japan, japanese culture |
|
|