On a non-Giants weekend, I thought a little economic/demographics discussion might fit in, particularly with this fascinating and scary article popping up today. As the linked article discusses, Japan's working age population as a percentage of the total is collapsing.
| Japan's population is just over 127 million at present, about 1.04 million less than its historical peak in 2008. But this decline masks drastic shifts in the country's demography. The number of people between the ages of 15 and 64 has declined by nearly 4 million, while the 65 and older cohort has shot up by more than 4 million. |
Clearly. some European developed nations are following a similar track, with longer life expectancies and declining birthrates. And none of these projections sufficiently incorporate all of the massive successes in medical treatment that will be coming down the pike over the next 15 years. (e.g., cancer, diabetes). Lots more people are actually going to die of old age, and the battle for "share of the pie" between those who are employed and those who are retired is going to be fierce.
The battles over "cradle to grave" style Eurosocialism will also be fierce. Ain't gonna work. And that's dempgraphics, not politics.
Link - (
New Window )
The wealth of the US has progressively moved into fewer and fewer hands, hence fewer children.
The % of income to pay for the basics is so very different now than it was from 1945-1970.
In other words, having a lot of money makes it LESS likely, not MORE likely, that you'll have kids.
I meant his cousin Antonio Cromartie.
The wealth of the US has progressively moved into fewer and fewer hands, hence fewer children.
The % of income to pay for the basics is so very different now than it was from 1945-1970.
Is this actually true? I don't have the ability to do research on this right now, but I'm curious as to whether this is actually true or not.
My perception is that we have redefined "the basics" such that income cannot keep up. Considering basic housing (not make countertops, etc., but housing equivalent to previous year's standards), food, utilities, medical expenses and transportation to household incomes, is it really true? I know that medical expenses have shot through the roof, but like housing, the standard for medical care has also changed significantly.
I also know that education costs have exploded, but I'm unclear on whether post-secondary education was considered a "basic" back then, or that again, we have redefined the term basic needs.
Not so anymore. I have been blessed with 2 daughters, 25 & 30 yrs. My wife and I surely would have tried for more if we could have afforded it.
3rd world & welfare children are a different case. They seem to bang out children due to not using or not caring about birth prevention devices.
Can you actually deny that there is less % of spending money for the average working family today compared to the past and those families are having fewer children out of necessity?
I do realize the wealthy are having fewer children too but I admit I do not know why.
More educated people have less children. Countries that have that issue, and are not open to immigration end up like Japan.
This was back in 2005-2006. He talked about Japan being one of those countries where they aren't having babies/children (approx. 1 or less per household?) ... and the population is getting older and older and subsequently shrinking.
The "writing" ... was "on the wall" for more than several years now.
I have a cousin that didn't want to have to expend any of the time and effort that being a father would take and said it would interfere with hanging out with friends and doing the things he enjoyed. Even to the point that he let a really nice wife leave him over the issue, how is that not selfish?
We have friends who have one child so they have that part of their life checked off but said they didn't want any more because of the time and financial sacrifice it would take, and they didn't want to sacrifice their lifestyle. The wife even admitted to my wife that she spoils their daughter because of the guilt she holds by their choice leaving her without a sibling and often alone. How is that not selfish?
Shit, I got conned into going to college under the impression that rich guys got laid more. So much for that.
I have a cousin that didn't want to have to expend any of the time and effort that being a father would take and said it would interfere with hanging out with friends and doing the things he enjoyed. Even to the point that he let a really nice wife leave him over the issue, how is that not selfish?
We have friends who have one child so they have that part of their life checked off but said they didn't want any more because of the time and financial sacrifice it would take, and they didn't want to sacrifice their lifestyle. The wife even admitted to my wife that she spoils their daughter because of the guilt she holds by their choice leaving her without a sibling and often alone. How is that not selfish?
Steve - I agree on the second example, and to some extent on the third. People differ on what advantage a sibling offers - I have three so I'm in favor, but I've heard compelling arguments that having one is better simply in terms of time/resources.
But that first guy - I think it requires some selflessness to be a parent, I don't think refusing that sacrifice necessarily makes you selfish. If he doubts whether he'd be a good parent, and opts out in order to ensure that he's got a better lifestyle for himself and not take the risk that he'd be a less than optimal parent, I don't think that's selfishness at all.
But the fairly blatant and pervasive sexism in Japanese society has created an environment where a lot of Japanese woman don't want to marry or even date Japanese men, making the situation much worse.
And the racism and xenophobia of the Japanese prevents them from back filling in the needed workforce with immigration.
Exactly so. I think that most people have children because they want to have children, not out of some obligation to carry on the human race or provide workers for the future.
I have a cousin that didn't want to have to expend any of the time and effort that being a father would take and said it would interfere with hanging out with friends and doing the things he enjoyed. Even to the point that he let a really nice wife leave him over the issue, how is that not selfish?
We have friends who have one child so they have that part of their life checked off but said they didn't want any more because of the time and financial sacrifice it would take, and they didn't want to sacrifice their lifestyle. The wife even admitted to my wife that she spoils their daughter because of the guilt she holds by their choice leaving her without a sibling and often alone. How is that not selfish?
Selfish? By whose standards? Not really something anyone needs to get judgemental about. On the flip side, I know lots of people who say, with all honesty, that had they had it to over again, they would not have had children.
Their reasoning was that they had them because that was what was expected of them. In other cases, I also know lots of people who are quite content with their having children and who cannot fathom not having any. It's just choices.
If someone wants to forego having them for specific reasons, that's likely a better choice than them having children who they may come to resent and who become the repository of their frustrations with goals or dreams not met.
There are a number of theories as to why affluent societies see declining birth rates, starting with increased opportunities for women (outside of motherhood) and extending to things such a kin theory and the decline in religious influences as societies become wealthier (most religions are very supportive of large numbers of children). There isn't a simple explanation.
I think if you did some research, the number of families with 2+ cars was a lot smaller than you remember. It may have been true in your neighborhood, but I seriously doubt it was true back in the 60's, 70's, or even the 80's.
Also - houses were different back then - much, much smaller and not filled with amenities that are commonplace nowadays (like his & her separate walk-in baths and closets in the master suite, marble countertops, 3-car garages, etc. Find me one of these in a 1960's era home and you're looking at a house built for the 1% of the time for sure.).
What about designer/fashion items? Sure, some people had them, but many, many more still made their own clothes in the 60's, and when they bought for their wardrobe it was no-name shoes and clothes.
The reality is that people who are trying to scratch out a living as janitors, etc. most likely live in homes that were built in the 1960's. Do they own them? Most of the time, maybe not. They probably rent. This has more to do with the challenge people have establishing a budget and sticking with it.
I use to be a banker until about 6.5 yrs ago. During my time in that profession I had the opportunity to work in credit and in private banking, exposing myself to some very wealthy people. Many of these people have serious credit issues as they cannot keep up with their expenses. I remember suggesting to one woman (ex-wife of a very, very famous actor), that she rent out the guest house on her $10 million dollar estate to give her a little extra cash-flow, since she was struggling to keep up on her bills with a monthly cash flow in excess of $60,000/mo. The thought made her stomach churn.
I have spent the past 5+ years working as a teacher at an alternative public high school. I have been in the homes of my students on many occasions. I have seen many people who cannot afford to pay for their own lunches, buy pencils or $.10 notebooks for their children's education, and for whom raising $15,000 to buy a home is not even a remote possibility paying $300/mo for cable/sat, internet and cell phone services, and watching it all on their 75+ inch smart TV's. How is this?
These people, both rich and poor, are suffering in actually very similar ways. Why can't having children happen nowadays? Most likely because we have raised our expectations for what children "need" to have. The very, very poor think they need to have smart phones for every member of their family. These same poor people will spend hundreds for a new tattoo if something meaningful happens in their lives, spend hundreds on H.S. graduation announcements, and throw lavish parties for one-year-olds, because they feel these are basic needs. Those on the other end of the spectrum cannot imagine a year where they didn't get to travel on vacation. They would never drive a used car, unless it was a classic/rare model and their fourth or fifth vehicle. They can't miss events like wine-tastings or ski-trip/spring break getaways for teenagers even when they have savings goals that aren't being met.
I've met a doctor with crippling loans and terrible credit issues who was trying to buy a model home in a country-club neighborhood with less than $10,000 to work with for all costs, including the down payment. He was okay with a $2500/month payment but couldn't come up with $11,000 to get the deal done. And he's not the only doctor I've met who can't make a $250,000+/yr income work for them.
We need to face some facts - we are living in an era where we are being advertised/sold to constantly, and too many of us are ill-prepared to face that onslaught with any kind of resources at all.
IMO, this is more likely the reason why people think they can't afford kids anymore.
In terms of fertility rate, US is still around 2.1, which is roughly stable for population in a developed country with relatively low infant deaths. (See Wiki tables, linked.) Doesn't mean no aging, but the aging is fairly slow.
Countries like Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary cluster around 1.35-1.4. Their aging graphs mostly look pretty similar. Big problem without substantial immigration, and now with the spike in terrorism, more countries are going to be very resistant to immigration.
Link - ( New Window )
Part of this discussion was about reasons some people choose to have less children. In the examples I gave selfishness as one of other examples of the reasons but that doesn't make it a wrong one. If someone feels that strongly about not having a child better they aren't a parent.
Here are the first two definitions of selfish I found.
1) concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
The examples I gave are the definition of selfish reasoning, but that doesn't mean they made a mistake in making that choice.
As countries have spent more time being developed, it's natural that the number of children needed would fall precipitously.
Similarly, changes in what jobs additional children can do in the house as well as a decrease in their value (from leasing or selling them outright) will naturally decrease their attractiveness.
Part of this discussion was about reasons some people choose to have less children. In the examples I gave selfishness as one of other examples of the reasons but that doesn't make it a wrong one. If someone feels that strongly about not having a child better they aren't a parent.
Here are the first two definitions of selfish I found.
1) concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
The examples I gave are the definition of selfish reasoning, but that doesn't mean they made a mistake in making that choice.
Actually, not at all. To me it sounded like you were presenting their choices as morally and ethically inferior. Hence the "selfish" nonsense. The implication is that, unless you have a damn good reason not to, you'd better pump out a few rugrats or face the censure of a more morally and ethically superior outlook.
Unfortunately, we all do this, but that doesn't make it any less unpleasant to hear.
I also don't think we should pass judgment on people who decide not to have kids. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and some would argue it's helpful to not bring unwanted children into a world that is arguably already overpopulated. In fact, I wonder if we should really be passing judgment on countries like Japan where populations are aging and will eventually shrink. On a planet that is already facing great strains to provide a growing population with the resources and lifestyles they aspire to, isn't it a good thing if countries and families keep some of their desires to grow in check?
Just let some immigrants in from the Middle East. There are lots of young Muslim men looking for new nations to expand to.
Can't see how anything can go wrong with this plan.
I think if you did some research, the number of families with 2+ cars was a lot smaller than you remember. It may have been true in your neighborhood, but I seriously doubt it was true back in the 60's, 70's, or even the 80's.
Also - houses were different back then - much, much smaller and not filled with amenities that are commonplace nowadays (like his & her separate walk-in baths and closets in the master suite, marble countertops, 3-car garages, etc. Find me one of these in a 1960's era home and you're looking at a house built for the 1% of the time for sure.).
I don't know the data, but I was born in 1967, so I remember growing up in the 1970s very well. We weren't rich (my father was a federal employee), but my recollection is that every family we knew had two cars and that many (if not the majority) of the families were one income families. I grew up in large houses on LI and (briefly) in Northern VA (these houses were a good 700-800 square feet larger than the one I live in now which is in a much lower cost of living area). The second house on LI had an inground pool and a ton of property and must be worth $700,000K at a minimum now. There's no way a single income family with an $80K per year federal employee is living in that house now. I imagine that the property taxes alone must be pushing $20,000 (if not more). Same with the house in Northern Virginia. That has to be worth $600K now at a minimum.
Just let some immigrants in from the Middle East. There are lots of young Muslim men looking for new nations to expand to.
Can't see how anything can go wrong with this plan.
An oft-noted barrier to said redress is that Japan is a markedly homogeneous and not so mildly xenophobic society.
America is very lucky in this regard. Although we face to a degree a similar problem, our options (including immigration) are considerably more forgiving. A sensible bill on the issue from Congress would go a long way to putting us on the right path. Unfortunately Congress is presentably a catastrophe and likely will be until at least 2020.
The us can engineer growth as it relaxes immigration limits, if it wants to.
Not to soud xenophobic myself but Belgium germany and France of done it with disasterous results.