• RowRowRowYourBot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Japan is on the verge if major economic collapse if they do not increase the population

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      They’ll survive it, their markets and investments aren’t overvalued like ours are. They’ll crash, re-evaluate their societal priorities, and start to build again

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I mean every society has to rebuild after a crash, I’m just optimistic that they’ll do it faster

          • RowRowRowYourBot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            19 hours ago

            You might want to look into the population studies on Japan. They are pretty bleak

            • tetris11@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Got a summary? I know the onus is on me, but I’m not likely to dig much further

              • RowRowRowYourBot
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                18 hours ago

                Within 50 years the population will shrink to 70% of current levels with 40ish percent of the total population being elderly.

                • jackeryjoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  Within 50 years, the whole world population is going to shrink dramatically, and it will have nothing to do with declining birth rates.

                  • RowRowRowYourBot
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    That’s an interesting claim. Where are you getting that idea? Are you suggesting climate change will do this without decreasing birth rates?

                • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  18 hours ago

                  Yeah, but that’s only a problem if elderly orderlies is an underpaid job that no one wants, and if people can’t afford to live on it when choosing such a profession.

                  If the economy adjusts or society adjusts such that caring for the elderly is a highly sought out and secure job that can easily pay a mortgage, what’s the issue?

                  This is what I mean when I say they will crash and their economy will adjust.

                  • RowRowRowYourBot
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    16 hours ago

                    There aren’t enough tax payers paying into the system to sustain the end of life care, retirement funds/pensions/social security equivalents that an elderly population that large. when you have a 1:1 ratio of people paying in vs paying out your assistance levels will be extremely weak.

                    No nation can sustain that large of an elder population. It’s not economically viable.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      No, they’re absolutely not. Their GDP will majorly decline, but their QOL will stay the same or even improve and their GDP per capita also won’t see much change.

      Birtherism is bullshit.

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I’m interested to know how you believe the elderly will be cared for? Let’s assume for a moment they have no issues financially supporting the elderly, but physically who is supposed to care for them? Who will make up the nurses, doctors and caretakers now that their population pyramid looks like a chicken drumstick?

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Japan has a large amount of unused labor in the current demographic breakup of 29% elderly, Japan has a large number of educated inviduals, and Japan has a large amount of capital even without infinite growth shenanigans.

          Any failure to take care elderly even at 38% or even 50% would be a failure of the state as a result of greed or corruption. It’s a relatively simple task to accomplish. The year is 2025, automation replaced most other jobs a long long time ago.

      • RowRowRowYourBot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Their nation needs tax revenue. That depends on having people to tax. If the population declines too much they cannot afford to maintain social services and QoL will decline.

        None of this is particularly controversial or surprising.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          The services’ costs are dependent on the number of recipients. They’re already in the slump of elderly being a drain on the system, it can only get better not worse.

          The only concern of the population decline that I can see is the decrease in funding available for Military Expenses.

          And, if things get really bad, all they have to do is open up for immigration and able bodied workers will magically appear.

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              If Generation A has a higher number of people than Generation B then when Generation A dies off there will be a lower number of elderly. It’s a temporary slump. It might last a decade or more, but it is temporary.

              According to your source the Percentage of people aged over 65 peaks in 2042 or 2043 at about 38% if the government does nothing, compared to the 29.6% currently.

              Right now a lot of skilled workers are fleeing to the EU, so Japan could totally capitalize on that. Or it can just educate its population to be skilled labor and give all the low skilled labor (if that even exists) to immigrants. Immigrants work hard for lower wages and are less prone to crime, there is no good faith argument against that.

              • RowRowRowYourBot
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                19 hours ago

                The projected population of elderly people is projected to be 40% of the total population within 50 years unless substantial shifts happen. They are not replacing workers fast enough.

                Japan has never wanted more immigrants and soon they will need a LOT of immigrants. Japan’s traditional xenophobia might prevent them for getting enough people.

    • Cait@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      That’d require significant societal change to an environment where having children is actually manageable