Thread

More than 100k people in Japan are now aged 100 or older

217 points · 282 comments · karakoram

shoobiedoo · 1789687401 · focus · HN ↗
This article calls it a "quiet emergency" but even as a foreigner living in Japan there are alarm bells everywhere. And the government buying 150 F35's is just a slap in the face when there's a massive chunk of the population that is, very quickly, going to need extra care.
I looked into becoming a care aid myself as I'm tired of office culture in Japan and have some experience in that field. I was shocked to see that they start at less than 10USD, and working your way up takes years, decades even.
Continuing to kick this can down the road is going to be an absolute disaster.
1. PorciiVorbesc · 1789687780 · focus · HN ↗
  >And the government buying 150 F35's is just a slap in the face when there's a massive chunk of the population that is, very quickly, going to need extra care.
  I'm torn on this issue. I think the elderly and people in general should get a decent life, but on the opposite side we have Europe that's investing massively more in making its boomers richer and more comfortable than anyone in human history has ever been(average pension in France is now higher than the average salary), rather than investing that money in ensuring opportunities and prosperity of future generations, who are facing economic stagnation/degrowth and are forced to foot the bill for this elderly spending, with the guarantee the pyramid scheme they're funding will fail them when their turn comes to benefit from it.
  So perhaps Japan sees the defense capability those 150 F-35's bring to its future national security more valuable than keeping the elderly alive for a few more years.
  Yeah, it sounds harsh when you look at people like that, but taking care of people takes resources(money), and money is finite, so all these decisions are a game theory trolley problem, where you have to choose whose lives a country should prioritize the most: the past generations, or the future generations.
  Historically in the history of nations would be willing to sacrifice the elderly to prioritize the survival and growth of its future generations, that was the social contract of the tribe, that is until the western boomers came and decided they deserve to fuck the future of their nation if they can get wealthier and feel good till the end.
  I'm not saying there's one correct solution here, because I don't have it. I'm saying tough decisions have to be made from which there will be winners and losers, so a nation should choose the winners carefully, if it wishes to have a future.
  1. threethirtytwo · 1789688067 · focus · HN ↗
    When those boomers die where does the money go?
    RobRivera · 1789688212 · focus · HN ↗
    Tax man, funeral industry, late life casino runs, o o o o o o an investment in GVC gold
    NuclearPM · 1789688448 · focus · HN ↗
    Musk, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos.
    boringg · 1789693645 · focus · HN ↗
    Even though they have some money their wealth is trivial compared to the generational transfer.
    NuclearPM · 1789787324 · focus · HN ↗
    Trivial? Sounds like bootlicker-talk.
    Top 5 billionaires ≈ bottom 40% of Americans — roughly 135 million people.
    (The bottom quarter of households have essentially zero or negative net worth, so most of that $2.2T sits with people in the 25th–40th percentile range. It's an estimate — the Fed doesn't publish fine-grained slices — but 5 people vs ~135 million is about where it evens out.)
    phs318u · 1789689289 · focus · HN ↗
    The single biggest generational transfer of wealth in human history.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wealth_Transfer" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wealth_Transfer
    alexjplant · 1789700550 · focus · HN ↗
    I sincerely wonder how this is going to work given the large divergence in lifestyle preferences between these generations. Real estate especially will be an interesting one - lots of young people either cannot (due to employment situations) or actively choose not to live in the areas that their parents did. What will happen when these houses hit the market? How will this huge supply increase affect the people who do live there? Nobody I know is moving to Pennsyltucky to live in their parents' house even if it's free... will it crater property values for all of the hard-working townies who sunk their money into their own homes?
    lotsofpulp · 1789726624 · focus · HN ↗
    >will it crater property values for all of the hard-working townies who sunk their money into their own homes?
    It already has. Rural land prices going down in real terms is a decades old thing.
    hdgvhicv · 1789714668 · focus · HN ↗
    Feeding massive wealth inequality. Why work hard when your neighbour gets far better than you through inheritance.
    It’s an anti-meritocracy.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789863621 · focus · HN ↗
    >Why work hard when your neighbour gets far better than you through inheritance.
    You'll be forced to work harder than those with inherited wealth because otherwise you'll starve and go homeless from the exploding CoL.
  2. shoobiedoo · 1789688539 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree to some degree. There is also the case to be made that whereas in the past, young people would stay at home until they were married, and therefore assist their parents/grandparents, the rapid westernization (or "de-Japanization"?) of Japanese youth has them moving out asap into larger cities to be "free individuals" and those downstream effects on the elderly aren't anyone's fault, I guess.
    paulryanrogers · 1789691475 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you blame kids (especially those without siblings) wanting to strike out for a life and family of their own?
    They don't choose to be born. Have few/no rights to change how they're raised or their parents spend the family funds while they are minors. Often they have no choice over large portions of their education. To say they owe their parents decades of unpaid caregiving is absurd.
    shoobiedoo · 1789693183 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm speaking from a Japanese cultural point of view, here. To say that Japan has been wrong until now to focus on family values over rampant individualism, waiting until you are married to leave the home, and respecting the lives of the elderly until they pass on is one I've never heard before. And where do you get that their education takes a backseat by living with their parents? Post secondary education has always been a pillar in Japan.
    Until this most recent generation Japan (and the rest of the world) had no problem starting a "life and family of their own" as you put it.
    paulryanrogers · 1789734109 · focus · HN ↗
    > family values over rampant individualism
    This isn't binary. And it doesn't appear Japan has ever had rampant individualism. They seem to punish any personal expression and lifestyle outside very narrowly defined norms. Supposedly for "family values", which overwhelmingly benefit old men.
    > ...respecting the lives of the elderly until they pass on is one I've never heard before
    How is leaving a parent's home before marriage disrespecting the elderly? Are parents owed unpaid caretaking by people who had no say in birth, childhood, and youth?
    > Until this most recent generation Japan (and the rest of the world) had no problem starting a "life and family of their own" as you put it.
    I don't think the problem is the kids. I think the problem is cultural expectations of parents. When kids become adults they can choose any values they like. Parents don't have to agree, nor do they have to enable entirely selfish behavior. Of course if parents create an economic disaster and a culture of dependence, well, then everyone gets to reap what the parent's (and their generation) have sowed.
  3. shimman · 1789689997 · focus · HN ↗
    This is doing a lot of cover for an airplane that has massive supply issues and mostly seems to have been invented to extract more money out of allies to serve the US military industrial complex.
    An island nation under the protectorate of the US TOTALLY needs to spend over $300 billion over the needs of their people, okay sure. Makes sense I guess.
    Historically those that were greedy were banished from society so the community can continue thrive. How greedy are you willing to be since you're okay with sacrificing other humans for political ploys?
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789690385 · focus · HN ↗
    >This is doing a lot of cover for an airplane that has massive supply issues
    I'm not covering the damn plane in my comment. I was covering the nation's need for self defense which is gonna cost crazy money any way you slice it if your military wants to have latest gen "sci-fi" jets capable of beating Chinese ones.
    >An island nation under the protectorate of the US TOTALLY needs to spend over $300 billion over the needs of their people, okay sure. Makes sense I guess.
    The security guarantee that nations, like Japan in this case, receive from the US is not free of charge, it never was. It's paid in barter via purchasing US military gear like F-35s that supports the US economy and defense industry jobs. It's the same deal with the gulf states. Saudi Arabia and the others, accepted to trade their oil only in USD, making the USD the world reserve currency and the US the richest country in the world, and in exchange it received defense assurances form the US. That's always been the deal. Are there still people oblivious to this fact?
    shimman · 1789691023 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah I don't think it was a good look for a supposed democratic nation to sell weaponry to nations that rely on slave labor either, but there never was a good look for American imperialism. Still shocked to see people champion it still.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789691388 · focus · HN ↗
    > Still shocked to see people champion it still.
    Can you share who here is championing it?
    Also, you often don't have a choice, as imperialism is a constant throughout human history. If it's not the US it's gonna be someone else, maybe even worse. Now I'm not American, but if I were, and I'd need to make a choice between my nation being THE imperial power or someone else with different values than mine resulting me being at their mercy, then I'd rather me than them.
    But this isn't "championing it", this is choosing the pragmatic least-worst option.
    WarmWash · 1789693250 · focus · HN ↗
    >Are there still people oblivious to this fact?
    Most people think the US just goes around bullying people and kicking up dust. There is a genuine widespread belief that if the US didn't exist, the world would be living in harmonious peace, just like how the world was before WWII.
    WalterBright · 1789700531 · focus · HN ↗
    And WW1 came out of nowhere and nobody wanted it.
  4. dfxm12 · 1789691816 · focus · HN ↗
    From experience, elder care is more of a drain on the younger family members than the elder. It's not just financial either. Needing to take off from work to take the elderly somewhere, making sure they understand the medical situation, etc. Every country/situation is different though. Maybe pensioners in France can afford their own care, but I'm assuming they can't drive themselves to the doctor.
  5. janalsncm · 1789695578 · focus · HN ↗
    > average pension in France is now higher than the average salary
    This sounded crazy so I looked it up. I don’t think it’s quite true, but after you subtract taxes and living expenses (a lot of old people own their homes) and add investments, seems like retirees do have a higher standard of living than workers in France.
    red369 · 1789700063 · focus · HN ↗
    Thanks for looking into that - that claim also surprises me!
    It makes sense to subtract the taxes for a comparison between pension and salary, but by taking investments into account, and probably living expenses too, since they depend upon investments, I think you're doing too much work to support that claim.
    Presumably it is fairly standard for the average retiree to have more assets/investments than the average worker. Those assets generate income (or reduce living expenses). I think that is too different from the claim that the pension is higher.
    janalsncm · 1789760507 · focus · HN ↗
    To be clear, the claim is false as it is written as far as I can tell.
    That said, young people have a lot more expenses. They need to buy houses and raise kids and get bigger cars. Retirees largely don’t have to do those things.
    So I can imagine the frustration if I was trying my best reach basic life milestones while at the same time being forced to pay for people who already achieved those things.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789863999 · focus · HN ↗
    >being forced to pay for people who already achieved those things.
    "Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, like I did when I was your age."
    - Joe Boomer who bought his house for 20K and got a union job paying the equivalent of 80k today via a firm handshake
  6. schneehertz · 1789697821 · focus · HN ↗
    Even if Japan believes that spending money on young people is more appropriate than extending the lives of the elderly by a few years, the decision should absolutely not be to purchase large numbers of American fighter jets, but rather to use the funds to improve the birth rate, build infrastructure, transition to green energy, and support domestic industrial productivity. I cannot understand what purchasing fighter jets can do for Japan. Japan has in fact completely handed over its military sovereignty to the United States, and buying fighter jets is essentially just giving the United States a blood transfusion.
2. rightnutwingjob · 1789689669 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. thinkingtoilet · 1789690550 · focus · HN ↗
    We're not making these problems up. Reality exists. These problems exist. The government is doing it because the population is failing to do it on their own. It's very obvious and not up for debate. If it wasn't a problem, the government wouldn't have to do it.
    andy99 · 1789690780 · focus · HN ↗
    > If it wasn't a problem, the government wouldn't have to do it.
    This is certainly very different from my experience with what governments think they have to do.
  2. PorciiVorbesc · 1789690719 · focus · HN ↗
    >Why do people think The Government™ is able to, should, or can, solve everyone’s problems?
    Where do you see them demanding the government solve $ALL their problems?
    >The Government™ probably can solve defence.
    Agree.
    >It probably can’t solve your lack of desire to do the right thing and look after your aging parents.
    Is there a lack of desire? Or a lack of resources resulting as a consequence of how the modern developed economy works, where youth need to move away from the family to get a college education and skilled jobs, and in return the government taxes you to take care of your parents and your kids so that you can focus on maximizing your skilled productivity at work? Isn't this the modern (faulty) social contract?
    Sure, I can move back with my parents to take care of them, but then I won't have a job to earn money because all the industry in that town was hollowed out and moved abroad (also thanks to government actions of maximizing shareholder value).
    Now , if the government admits it can't solve elderly care and wants us to take care of our parents on our own dime, the it should also stop taxing us for a welfare state it can't provide and just focus on what it can, like defense. IIRC Switzerland works like that.
    Unfortunately, in our modern post-industrial economy we can't all go back to tribal/village lifestyles of our ancestors where we all lived on farms in multi generational households and we all took care of each other and lived only off the land. That would sound nice in theory, but it's not feasible anymore the way nations and economies are set up to work and compete against each other, unless we can somehow agree to fight wars from now on only with bows and arrows like our ancestors, instead of AI drones and cruise missiles needing cutting edge chips and SW made by singles with phds and no kids. We built this faulty societal system and now we're forced to live by it whether we want to or not.
    jll29 · 1789693154 · focus · HN ↗
    The Japanese fail to produce enough children.
    The country will either have to change or it will disappear soon.
    Most European countries have the same issue, but it is less visible due to immigration, which Japan does not have.
    shoobiedoo · 1789694394 · focus · HN ↗
    The population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. In 1930, the population of Japan was 64 million. Did it not exist back then?
    mango7283 · 1789695524 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair you'd need to consider how the percentage of young people looked in 1930 for that to be a meaningful comparison to today
    Danox · 1789696781 · focus · HN ↗
    Japan can easily operate with 60-80 million people in a country slightly smaller than California. And expand again in the future why not?
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789860845 · focus · HN ↗
    This. You CAN recover from an economic decline, you can recover from a demographic decline like what Japan is experiencing, but you CAN'T recover from demographic replacement, which is what the EU is experiencing.
    klrefg · 1789714582 · focus · HN ↗
    You should only be comparing the working age population or maybe even the ratio between that and retirees since absolute population is a deceitful metric.
    rightnutwingjob · 1789876859 · focus · HN ↗
    I just think there’s something qualitatively different between 64 million twenty-somethings and 64 million eighty-somethings.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789937893 · focus · HN ↗
    >The Japanese fail to produce enough children.
    Yes, and? What will those "missing" children do in a stagnant economy except contribute to watering down already low wages and increasing pressure on housing?
    >The country will either have to change or it will disappear soon.
    Massive doomerist over-exaggeration. Japan will be fine. Not an imperialist world super-power, but the Japanese people will be OK, better than 80% of the world's population.
    >Most European countries have the same issue, but it is less visible due to immigration, which Japan does not have.
    Yes and long term European countries will be worse off than Japan, due to the ethnic and cultural replacement and racial clashes and crime caused by their immigration policies. Japanese travel to Europe on vacation a lot, saw what imigration looks like, and don't want that. They'd rather stay a stagnant/shrinking but homogenous, safe and peaceful nation, rather than have a growing population of foreigners that replaces them and causes crime.
    What Americans/westerners fail to understand is that a nation's success, stability and long term future is more than its GDP and population number that must grow to the moon at all cost just to enrich the top 10% of asset holders while everyone else fights for the scraps, but it's the people and culture that made it great to begin with, not a faceless, borderless economic zone of corporations and workers. Nations that decline economically/demographically can always rebounce back(see post-WW2), but economic zones not so much, as when they fail, the corporations and migrants that came purely for economic reason, just move to the next economic zone, like locusts, since they have no ancestral ethnic and cultural roots tying them to that land incentivizing them to stick around through thick and thin and rebuild it.
    imglorp · 1789695940 · focus · HN ↗
    If the community isn't proactive with safety nets for elders, let's say the childless ones, those elders will become everyone's acute problems. Better to plan for it and better to share the cost to everyone. Some might call that a government.
    PorciiVorbesc · 1789861154 · focus · HN ↗
    >Better to plan for it and better to share the cost to everyone.
    And what do you do when your geopolitical rival is not doing that and using that money instead for their economy and military to maybe one day destroy you as they grow big and you grow small?
    Investments in humanity work when everyone is on the same page in good faith, not when you're rivals have imperialistic wishes and no democratic process or care for human rights to stop them.
    The other domestic issue is that if you make care for old people a guarantee for the elderly financed by a mandatory burden over the working population, then people have little incentive to be responsible for the future with their finances during their working age, making sure to not have kids and to spend everything because "why bother, when the government will take care of me?".
    >Some might call that a government.
    Some might call this wreckless planning of an unsustainable welfare state that can bankrupt a country.
    WalterBright · 1789701076 · focus · HN ↗
    > maximizing shareholder value
    Minimizing shareholder value will flatten the economy.
    Do you really want to live in a pre-industrial agrarian society? Not me. I like central heating, flush toilets, hot & cold running water, and Led Zeppelin music.
    [deleted] · 1789752602 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    nrr · 1789858644 · focus · HN ↗
    > Minimizing shareholder value will flatten the economy.
    Will it though? I'm curious what the empirical basis is for this causal claim, especially given that it ignores the wealth of gray area in between these two extremes. (That goes notwithstanding that I have zero idea what is meant by either "minimizing shareholder value" or how a flattened economy could look as an operationalized outcome. Neither of these are accepted terms of art with precise definitions.)
    There are some obvious counterexamples to look at, wherein a hypothetical firm doesn't intentionally maximize shareholder value or chooses explicitly not to:
    - A firm can choose to pursue long-term productivity gains;
    - A firm can pay higher wages or provide better working conditions and still generate substantial shareholder gains;
    - A firm can keep its earnings rather than pay dividends to have cash on hand for capital improvements; or
    - A firm can accept a haircut on its margins to expand along some axis, like manufacturing capacity or market share.
    Shareholder value is usually taken to be a function of the firm's expected future cash on hand (or, more precisely, the equity claims on that expected future cash on hand) and its exposures to various risks to that cash on hand (optionally quantified by people like me!), and the idea of maximizing shareholder value needs to be understood as having some kind of time horizon. Commonly, in the post-Jack Welch era, this time horizon is three months.
    On a much longer time horizon, however, sacrificing short-term shareholder gains for long-term productive capacity can very well be analyzed as shareholder value maximization.
    > Do you really want to live in a pre-industrial agrarian society?
    This seems to treat the grandparent post's social insurance and institutional design argument that shareholder primacy has contributed to the institutional arrangement that makes intergenerational care difficult as though it means, what, capitalism is bad, so we should return to farming.
    I'm unsure that I can draw a comparison between these two arguments. They're very different, and the parent post's reply doesn't establish the premise it needs. Industrialization and shareholder primacy aren't binary choices, and the mere existence of modern industrial prosperity doesn't establish the fact that our particular institutional arrangement producing it is in fact necessary for that prosperity.
    rightnutwingjob · 1789876748 · focus · HN ↗
    > Where do you see them demanding the government solve $ALL their problems?
    Look around you.
    Every weekend there is one group or another on the steps of parliament here demanding, essentially, the government be given more money and power.
    I tend to agree that governments should do more, or less dependening how you look at it, to encourage stronger families with more kids and better opportunities for them to live locally.
    By less I mean something like: ban abortion, and stop financially rewarding women for having children, and then more children, out of wedlock.
    By more I mean something like: the obvious thing: reduce income taxes on a per child basis, and stop all land taxes, for everyone, but especially families.
  3. justsomehnguy · 1789691521 · focus · HN ↗
    It's quite amusing how The Government™ is able to use the tax money to buy an overpriced useless military toys which solve nothing and cost trillions, but at the same time The Government™ can't spend that tax money on the care of their citizens.
  4. saulpw · 1789691879 · focus · HN ↗
    A 100-year-old's children are 70-80 years old themselves, if they are still alive. They very well might be not be capable of taking care of a 100-year-old person. And not everyone has children. Rather than throw up our hands and say "too bad", perhaps we collectively have some responsibility to take care of those who aren't able to take care of themselves?
    brailsafe · 1789695245 · focus · HN ↗
    and those 70-80 year olds may have children old enough to be going through menopause and any number of health issues themselves, along with their own adult children who may not have viable prospects for leaving home yet (if the dynamic is at all similar to other G7 countries). In Canada, I would be plenty old enough by now to have my own kids, and my grandparents, lucky though I am to still have them around, are old enough to be needing some help in their 80s. Thankfully they all have their own homes and can take care of themselves financially, but even if I was interested in having kids, there isn't really a viable financial strategy for creating a support structure viable for even myself long-term. Adding one other person to the mix isn't feasible and won't be in foreseeable future unless I made some dramatic changes solely for that purpose. Thankfully the Gen Xers in my family got in early to the whole "social contract" thing and seem to be handling what they can, and I contribute when I'm visiting by putting in the physical labor where it's useful. I can barely reliably pay for a basement apartment, and the way things are looking, that's about as far as it's ever going to get.
    antisthenes · 1789695616 · focus · HN ↗
    > perhaps we collectively have some responsibility to take care of those who aren't able to take care of themselves
    This is the cornerstone that all society rests upon. If a person argues that there is no such obligation, they do not understand the social dynamics of a civilization and you can be sure you're dealing with a sociopath.
  5. spacechild1 · 1789692678 · focus · HN ↗
    You certainly live up to your name.
  6. PostOnce · 1789692682 · focus · HN ↗
    These people are over 100, and have been paying tax to the Japanese state since before world war 2. They lived through world war 2, and they rebuilt japan afterwards.
    You're proposing to tell them they haven't "done enough", saved enough, paid enough tax, worked enough, sacrificed enough. You're assuming they all have kids to care for them.
    20-something billion dollars can pay for a lot of medicine and care that F-35s can't deliver.
    Defence is necessary to protect the people. But so is everything else. Medicine, food, affordable housing, education...
    If the state wants tons of money and sacrifice, then what is the point of protecting it if it provides nothing in return?
    This extends to everyone else in the developed world: if we're fucked anyway, why bother doing all this stuff the government wants? To protect the assets and incomes of the rich? So we can give all our life and labor to the lords and landlords?
    I'm not buying it, and I doubt the centenarians are either.
    totetsu · 1789694690 · focus · HN ↗
    Their kids are in the 70s and 80s too
    klrefg · 1789714449 · focus · HN ↗
    > haven't "done enough",
    The people who are over 100 probably had enough kids but in a few decades the generation that will start getting close to that age will only have themselves to blame since they didn’t have enough children (tax contributions can’t really compensate for that).
    rightnutwingjob · 1789716203 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    kiwih · 1789739808 · focus · HN ↗
    That's one anecdote, here's another: I live in Australia. My wife and I have both used Medicare multiple times - in fact, we've never used our private health insurance (despite the government requiring us to have it). Medicare delivered my child safely via C-section, and saw them through all their important health checkups after. Our total out of pocket was a couple of hundred dollars for some early extra ultrasounds.
    As for disability, my cousin is on NDIS. She is severely mentally handicapped - despite being 22 years old, she has the mental age of a 4 year old, and she will never improve upon this. Her NDIS plan makes sure that she is cared for and looked after while her parents go to work. In fact, NDIS even found her a "job" to give her purpose, she is able to sweep a local mall daily.
    Now, are there flaws with both Medicare and NDIS? Of course! NDIS is filled with corrupt providers and a hopeless bureaucracy. It would save a lot of money if the state just managed it directly and had the providers on the books instead of enriching pointless middleman businesses. Medicare, meanwhile, would probably do better if I didn't have to waste a portion of each paycheck on a private provider there's no point in using. I'd rather just pay that portion as extra taxes to better fund the hospitals that the private insurances send you to anyway if your job is too complex.
    If you aren't convinced of Australia as an example of actually a relatively good system, I'd encourage you to live in the US for a while, and try it out there. I lived in NYC for nearly four years and had a few health scares. Nothing was ever scarier than the bill :-)
    rightnutwingjob · 1789874956 · focus · HN ↗
    Why should I have to pay for your disabled relative?
    That just makes no sense, sorry.
    kiwih · 1789878665 · focus · HN ↗
    The good news is that you're likely paying a fraction of a cent on your taxes for my particular cousin alone. The good news is that fraction of a cent allows her family, including me, to be productive members of society. If your family, or even you yourself, become handicapped - perhaps through a sickness or an accident - we will be happy to return the favor with the fractions of a cent of our taxes that would go to you. A rising tide lifts all boats, and we all benefit when the least amongst us are well looked after.
  7. apsurd · 1789694636 · focus · HN ↗
    you’re on HN and it’s as if you’ve never even heard of “thinking in systems”
  8. rexpop · 1789695580 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, you see, when people invest their resources in any venture, they incur an "opportunity" cost.
  9. elzbardico · 1789697873 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, government money IS people's money. Maybe people don't want the government to take of their parents, but would enjoy paying less taxes so they could have money to do it themselves.
    Or people can't take care of their parents and grand-parents, because government expenditures transfered wealth from them to the rich via the Cantillon Effect.
    Nobody fucks complain about government fiscal profilgacy having enabled the golden age of Venture Capital based Unicorns through an unprecedent period of extreme liquidity in the markets. Nobody fucking ever complains that we went through an era of incredible levels of market concentration because of the fucking State fiscal habits.
    But, creating some remedy for woes of a working class that can't even bet some money on some Oracle CDSs, because this is not for NPC retail investors tastes. Yeah, that would be communism! Let them eat croissants!
3. stickfigure · 1789690944 · focus · HN ↗
  > buying 150 F35's
  Your immediate neighbor is going on an imperialist streak right now, and Xi says he wants the fireworks to start in his lifetime. I don't know if F35s are the right answer for Japan, but Xi isn't that young. Get ready however you can.
  1. echelon · 1789692672 · focus · HN ↗
    The F-35s are for the children and grandchildren. It's to safeguard their future.
    Democracy is important and it isn't free.
    noree · 1789693488 · focus · HN ↗
    If the Japanese are looking for technology to protect themselves against a heavily armed imperial force they should be mass producing Shaheds instead of paying tributes to the US MIC.
    strictnein · 1789693644 · focus · HN ↗
    They should be mass producing Iran's drone?
    rambojohnson · 1789694900 · focus · HN ↗
    who is winning that war right now?
    strictnein · 1789695436 · focus · HN ↗
    Holy non-sequitur batman.
    Why would Japan mass produce an inferior product when they would easily be able to design and build a far superior one? "Shahed" isn't just another word for drone, it's a specific company's name.
    hdgvhicv · 1789714105 · focus · HN ↗
    America would buy 150 American planes rather than build is own drones which would be superior to anything Iran builds, to keep America on side.
    rambojohnson · 1789778597 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    [deleted] · 1789738644 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    noree · 1789696132 · focus · HN ↗
    They certainly should not be buying 150 f35s judging by recent track records.
    strictnein · 1789696831 · focus · HN ↗
    There has been one US F35 damaged in combat. That's total, across all the areas its been in and all the countries that have deployed them, starting in 2018. They've been up against the best air defense systems in the world in Venezuela and Iran and they received a single scratch.
    The countries acquiring them are doing so because they are best strike fighters on the planet, and it's not even close. Unless you know something that Norway, Japan, England, the Netherlands, etc don't know?
    tw1984 · 1789700349 · focus · HN ↗
    give yourself a break. F-35 doesn't even have long range a2a missiles comparable to PL-17 in service. its radar is 2nd class at best, a full generation behind the Chinese counterpart and heavily rely on Chinese rare earth.
    it is 2026 now, partially de-industrialized US no longer has the best weapons in the world. that is why it is struggling to even beat Iran.
    orwin · 1789722915 · focus · HN ↗
    The radar might be second class (not sure I would go that far, it's not a Thales radar but it's still good), but the plane is built with EW in mind, and that makes it useful.
    What makes it bad is how hard the cooling is, its range without range extenders (that break stealth) and the maintenance.
    strictnein · 1790050077 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, I wonder why the F-35 doesn't have a couple of 20 foot long missiles hanging off the side of it. I truly can't think of a single reason.
    Clearly the Americans are just dumb. Or, maybe, just maybe, a stealth strike fighter uses an internal weapons bay? While the planes flying with the PL-17s strapped to it have the radar cross section of a city bus?
    tw1984 · 1790064800 · focus · HN ↗
    or maybe because the Chinese have been flying the J-36 for 20 months that has a large enough internal weapon bay for PL-17.
    kalleboo · 1789724893 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought the cable leaks showed that Norway picked the F35 due to diplomatic pressure from the US rather than an impartial test of suitability?
    hattmall · 1789696969 · focus · HN ↗
    Shahed drone's are not serious weapons of war. Japan could easily produce millions of them if needed. The drones are good for antagonizing and terrorising a civilian population. A few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties.
    In other words if Japan were in a position where they were willing to use drones to indiscriminately attack soft targets an F-35 would be about a trillion times more effective.
    nixon_why69 · 1789698608 · focus · HN ↗
    They were serious enough to defeat the US Navy and Air Force..
    ekianjo · 1789698659 · focus · HN ↗
    > few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties
    the current admin does not care about civilians casualties. remember the tomahawk on school girls? so what are they waiting for if it was that easy?
    qlte · 1789699975 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, it's laughable to think that somewhere in the DoD a map labeled like "Iran: Huge Undefended Drone Warehouses" has just been sitting around unused because Hegseth/Trump keep vetoing it on account of potential civilian casualties.
    Sure, we could easily wrap this whole thing up a couple days but the admin is choosing to remain stuck in a quagmire that's dooming GOP in the midterms. Based on a moral red line, of all things. Makes perfect sense.
    klrefg · 1789713780 · focus · HN ↗
    They obviously could start methodically destroying civilian infrastructure to cause a huge humanitarian crisis which might force the Iranian government to collapse. They have clearly chosen not to commit to that approach so far.
    Semkas · 1789719528 · focus · HN ↗
    These kinds of arguments are obviously vacuous: The US could also "win" any war with a non-nuclear opponent by nuking every major city. But the fact that they don't is not something worth calling restraint.
    gpt5 · 1789727916 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s definitely worth appreciating. The world could have looked very differently and might still fall into that trap.
    orwin · 1789722650 · focus · HN ↗
    They did that btw. Is there any railroad bridge still standing in south Iran?
    hattmall · 1789791566 · focus · HN ↗
    >remember the tomahawk on school girls?
    Realistically this happened due to high confidence with regard to the presence of a high value target. It's awful, but there was assuredly a calculus and the goal is less collateral damage over the long term. There wasn't just an oops missile or multi-year old intelligence.
    OTOH attack the drone capacity would require undetermined strikes on logistical networks and downstream suppliers. It wouldn't be hard, but there would be far more civilian casualties and many of the strikes would be non-beneficial.
    mysecretaccount · 1789699027 · focus · HN ↗
    > The drones are good for antagonizing and terrorising [sic] a civilian population. A few F35s and bomber squads could reliably deplete and destroy the entire Iranian drone stock and manufacturing capacity if there was the desire and higher tolerance for civilian casualties.
    Absolutely incorrect.
    - The purpose of these drones is to establish deterrence.
    - US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots.
    - Even if they could, the US has not been able to decimate Iran's drone stockpile even in the areas it can ~safely reach.
    The age of the fighter jet is over.
    galangalalgol · 1789701769 · focus · HN ↗
    Quite possibly. But shaheds aren't the answer either. After Fukushima, the plutonium 240 fuel for the breeders they don't want to run anymore has been piling up. Not as good as 239, but that is what they should be looking at.
    stickfigure · 1789705668 · focus · HN ↗
    Because of stealth jets, the US is capable of destroying every single power plant in the country, with all the horrible human cost you would expect. Exactly like Putin has been trying to do in Ukraine. Except, they could actually do it.
    Trump and Hegseth may be bumbling idiots but so far they have been showing restraint. The jets seem to be pretty effective at making big holes in the ground, I wouldn't call their demise just yet.
    jiggawatts · 1789707585 · focus · HN ↗
    It would be sufficient to destroy just the Asaluyeh gas infrastructure near the South Pars field. It's easily approached over the open sea where Iran has negligible air defences, and it is rather... flammable. It provides something like 75% of Iran's domestic gas supply and in turn fuels most of their power stations.
    Their economy would implode within days.
    Of course, this would be a horrific crime against humanity, comparable in impact on civilians to dropping a nuke on a capital city.
    Speaking of which: my partner knows next to nothing about warfare and while watching the news I had to explain that the US Navy submarine mentioned by the presenter isn't just for taking out enemy ships, it is a nuclear-armed "world ending" weapon that could simply... erase... a country. Or two. Probably three. In under an hour.
    nixon_why69 · 1789707738 · focus · HN ↗
    The scoreboard says otherwise. US jets can't even reach the northeastern half of the country because the refueling tankers can't get close enough to give them the range.
    Additionally, Iran had deterrence that you're not giving them credit for. If they destroyed Saudi and UAE's water desalination, it would be a mass casualty event.
    stickfigure · 1789748084 · focus · HN ↗
    B2s can absolutely reach the northeastern half of the country. So can cruise missiles. The current standoff is a choice, not lack of capability.
    Yes, I imagine deterrence is part of that equation.
    Nevertheless, it's too early to declare the end of the jet. We will probably get there someday, but that day is not today.
    nixon_why69 · 1789751957 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok, yeah, B2s flying from Missouri could do it, at great expense, with multiple refuelings. We're talking about putting doomsday cross-planet planes on missions to drop a couple 1000 lb bombs.
    Economics matter.
    mysecretaccount · 1789713899 · focus · HN ↗
    The US and Russia can destroy every power plant in their respective opposing countries with I(C/R)BMs, but this would involve breaking taboos of which even their respective leaders are fearful.
    The fighter jet is not capable of destroying every power plant in Iran without risking pilot casualties, an endeavor for which the US lacks political capital. The drone has no such issue. A rational nation would have shifted primary investment into medium-range drones many yesterdays ago.
    stickfigure · 1789748683 · focus · HN ↗
    > Russia can destroy every power plant in their respective opposing countries with I(C/R)BMs
    I don't think this is true. Sure if you count nuclear weapons, but that's not on the table.
    Russia has already used IRBMs. Even Putin tacitly admitted they failed to hit their targets. It's entirely likely that Russian ICBMs simply do not have the accuracy required to strike something as small as a power plant with a conventional payload.
    Even China is building stealth jets and aircraft carriers. The people making these decisions know more about their capabilities than you or me.
    Shipping through Hormuz is already up to about half prewar levels. I don't think Iran's strategy is working very well for them.
    belorn · 1789729945 · focus · HN ↗
    The war in Ukraine demonstrated how cheap drones could overwhelm more expensive defense systems and make favorable trades. It has now also started to show that, as defense against cheap drones has gotten better, more expensive jet drones are being used that can bypass the now cheaper and slower defense systems that is designed to target cheap drones. As such we can expect to see more expensive and faster defense systems. If they then want to make even faster and bigger drones they might make it so big that put a person in it to fly it, thus making it easier to reuse and better to adapt to different defense systems.
    And so the cycle is completed. The only real question seems to be if the pilot in the fighter jet will remain a benefit when the drone is increased to that scale.
    wisprp · 1789810128 · focus · HN ↗
    > The only real question seems to be if the pilot in the fighter jet will remain a benefit when the drone is increased to that scale.
    With the modern tech level, silicon-based systems can react faster, make fewer mistakes and feel less fatigue. So it all circles back to the relative wetware price.
    hattmall · 1789791133 · focus · HN ↗
    >- US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots.
    The casualty rate would not be high at all, though all casualties are significant. There would be some, but again this is why I said in a serious war, pilot casualties would be expected. It also would not be as if they need to hit the whole country at once. There would be fronts and lines and structured approach.
    Right now the US is working around internal issues with the IRGC. The US doesn't even want to destroy all of Iran's stockpile or production facilities. They only want to destroy those which are in the possession of the IRGC factions actively engaging in combat. Even more pressing than destroying the drones is eliminating the particular IRGC faction heads that are responsible for attack. The US isn't conducting any sort of sweeping campaign at all, every attack has been precisely targeted to hit certain commanders. Even the ones making headlines for civilian casualties. It's just more palatable to let everyone assume you made a mistake than to come out and say, "We determined there would be less collateral damage over an extended horizon if we conduct this strike now."
    jszymborski · 1789700149 · focus · HN ↗
    They would need and can manage both fighter jet procurement and drone manufacturing. Although a partnership with Iran, China's close ally, would probably be ill conceived.
    m4rtink · 1789723425 · focus · HN ↗
    Why not both ?
  2. mars-or_wars · 1789692885 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mars-or_wars · 1789693005 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    strictnein · 1789693592 · focus · HN ↗
    Not sure what history books you're reading, but the history of China is one of imperialism. China didn't just form with its current borders. It expanded and contracted and expanded some more for millennia.
    mars-or_wars · 1789693999 · focus · HN ↗
    China's borders today are essentially identical to what they were...
    ... when the U.S. Declaration of Independence was first uttered in 1776
    strictnein · 1789696117 · focus · HN ↗
    That is completely immaterial and makes absolutely no sense. An imperial power isn't one because its borders were set in 1776 (which they weren't)?
    Also.. this little event where they added something like 10% of the current size. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tibet" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Chinese_annexation_of_Tib...
    But I'm sure that wasn't imperialism because they had already conquered Tibet previously... in an act of imperial expansion.
    mars-or_wars · 1789802960 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    Insanity · 1789694249 · focus · HN ↗
    The borders were continuously shifting, but they did stay somewhat near a focal point for centuries.
    The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason.
    Highly recommend the book “How to hide an empire” which talks about the American version of colonialism.
    lovich · 1789696564 · focus · HN ↗
    The reason for our overseas empire was to maintain our economic dominance.
    If everyone voluntarily refused to touch boats and only trade oil for dollars we may have invested differently.
    Insanity · 1789700954 · focus · HN ↗
    "Maintain economic dominance" is a bit of a distorted view of late 19th century US colonialism. It was not a dominant economic power compared to colonial Europe. It was to boost the local economy for sure, with the guano islands. But colonizing the Philippines after the "war" with Spain was mostly to prevent European colonial powers from dominating that part of the world.
    The US didn't become economically dominant until after the first World War, when it already had an overseas empire for half a century.
    lovich · 1789702660 · focus · HN ↗
    I assumed the comment I was replying to was in reference to our constellation of military bases and the economic machinations post ww2.
    If it was referencing history prior to that then I would reply with the as you mentioned guano mines, fruit production, and keeping European powers out of our regional backyard after several scuffles with Spain and Britain at minimum.
    I’d also mention the boat touching still.
    The Marine’s Hymn doesn’t mention the Halls of Montezuma and the Shores of Tripoli for no reason.
    strictnein · 1789697121 · focus · HN ↗
    > The borders were continuously shifting, but they did stay somewhat near a focal point for centuries.
    Ok? They were still an imperial power. Having a stable border for a little while doesn't affect that definition.
    > The US meanwhile has an overseas empire for honestly no good reason.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    Insanity · 1789701088 · focus · HN ↗
    Not entirely whataboutism from my part (in my opinion), the thread above was talking about China and US imperialism in (now deleted) comments. It's not like I brought in the US out of nowhere although it looks that way due to deleted comments.
    Same for the first part you're commenting on, that was in direct response to the thread.
    kakadu · 1789694504 · focus · HN ↗
    > China didn't just form with its current borders. It expanded and contracted and expanded some more for millennia.
    As did everyone else?
    I don't see China having military bases all over the world and proping up "freedom fighters"
    strictnein · 1789695729 · focus · HN ↗
    I was responding to the incorrect assertion that China was the least imperialist country on the planet, which is clearly false. Maybe read the entire conversation before jumping in?
    kakadu · 1789702124 · focus · HN ↗
    You keep spewing apologist nonsense by refusing to acknowledge that the US is by far the most imperialist entity at the moment.
    In comparison, China is the least.
    matheusmoreira · 1789703117 · focus · HN ↗
    China has been very active in Africa as of late, and it has... Interests in my own country as well.
    defrost · 1789703735 · focus · HN ↗
    Interestingly China in Africa has been more commercial (not that "free" long term loans don't have a down side, and bribing "officials' to condone the sale of generational farming lands, etc. isn't a bad thing) than military - but where China has used mercenary forces .. it's most often been outsourced to US PMCs (Private Military Contractors)
    eg. In the Congo <a href="https://friendsofthecongo.org/erik-prince-in-congo-transnational-business-or-imperialism-by-a-different-name/" rel="nofollow">https://friendsofthecongo.org/erik-prince-in-congo-transnati... and elsewhere.
    klrefg · 1789713965 · focus · HN ↗
    > In comparison, China is the least
    You only know of two major countries in the world?
    strictnein · 1789735209 · focus · HN ↗
    The original post didn't mention the US.
    My response didn't say any country was better or worse than any other country, just that China had an imperialist past.
    The strange whataboutism you're doing and trying to "debate" things that only you have brought up isn't a compelling form of argumentation. Stating that I was defending and spewing "apologist nonsense" about the US, when I hadn't mentioned the US at all is just really odd. I can't tell if you're really young and haven't learned about how to argue points and/or you're from China and simply can't handle anything negative said about your homeland?
    iioiio · 1789699776 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    heaney-555 · 1789693089 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/china/" rel="nofollow">https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/china/
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitsun_Reef_incident" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitsun_Reef_incident
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_reactions_to_China's_maritime_activities_in_the_South_China_Sea" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_reactions_to_China's_...
    <a href="https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14954734" rel="nofollow">https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14954734
    mars-or_wars · 1789693196 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    0dayz · 1789694564 · focus · HN ↗
    Out of all smoking guns you selected... A space program for defense against icbm as an example of imperialism?
    What?
    You can criticize said program for being reckless and that it sets a new standard for how to launch impossible to destroy icbms but imperialism?
    Aeolun · 1789694736 · focus · HN ↗
    > In 2019, Donald Trump said the satellites would also carry offensive weapons.
    Yes.
    This man is going to single-handedly make it impossible for humans to ever reach space again.
    mars-or_wars · 1789698569 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    0dayz · 1789782846 · focus · HN ↗
    Absolutely, and that is horrible.
    matheusmoreira · 1789705677 · focus · HN ↗
    How is a planet wide constellation with offensive capabilities not imperialistic?
    The USA has officially killed the Outer Space Treaty with that system. We really do live in interesting times.
    0dayz · 1789782561 · focus · HN ↗
    By that logic how is an icbm not imperialism or airplanes that can fly across the world.
    mars-or_wars · 1789802846 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    voiceeh · 1789693680 · focus · HN ↗
    The PRC has made threats towards Japan. It makes sense to consider them in the context of Japan defending itself.
  3. litbear2022 · 1789693467 · focus · HN ↗
    Active-duty armed personnel stormed a neighboring country's embassy with a knife. It’s really hard to guess who is pursuing expansion.
  4. r3trohack3r · 1789694973 · focus · HN ↗
    The ministry of propaganda in China runs an English language international news channel available as an IPTV stream (<a href="https://tvexplorer.live/" rel="nofollow">https://tvexplorer.live/)
    If you want a better understanding of which world events China is not happy about, tuning in there to see what they cover unfavorably has been useful for me.
    They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
    isityettime · 1789695670 · focus · HN ↗
    > They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
    Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? You know, the actual imperial conquest for which their constitution prohibits them from having a standing air force?
    DaSHacka · 1789702925 · focus · HN ↗
    +15 Social Credit!
    [deleted] · 1789702998 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    conception · 1789703283 · focus · HN ↗
    Por que no los dos?
    carefree-bob · 1789715563 · focus · HN ↗
    I fail to see the logic here, can you spell this out for me? Are you saying:
    1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat?
    2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?)
    3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue.
    4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense?
    Which of these are you arguing?
    I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.
    amdivia · 1789717543 · focus · HN ↗
    I think its 5. that it is understandable for some countries to fear and be concerned when Japan arms itself.
    it's not a statement on what should be and shouldn't be, but rather attempting to provide reasons as to why China might not like this move, without resorting to claims of propaganda or the fear being illegitement
    zabana · 1789722858 · focus · HN ↗
    The irony of westerners accusing china of propaganda will never be lost on me.
    [deleted] · 1789748999 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    r3trohack3r · 1789754758 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m not sure it’s an accusation. It’s a state owned news network managed under the Central Propaganda Department.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Ch...
    carefree-bob · 1789731151 · focus · HN ↗
    The emotional reaction you are describing is just 'I don't like Japan, therefore any news of Japan increasing its defense makes me upset', and honestly I don't think this sentiment has any reasoning behind it, and doesn't need to be justified or defended, but in the same manner, it doesn't need to be heeded.
    Nations don't make security decisions based on the hatred of other nationals, or whatever hurt feelings they might have, they make spending decisions based on their own security needs.
    In the case of Japan, it has serious security needs because the US is much weaker now and cannot provide a defense shield, whereas China is both much stronger and also is making expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. That calls for more defense spending just as a rational response. It also calls for Japan to update its constitution as the postwar arrangement comes to an end, which they will do, and they will also develop nuclear weapons.
    Honestly it makes no sense for South Korea to not have a nuke if North Korea does. When you have a conflict between two nations, and one acquires nuclear weapons, the other side is driven to do the same. Look at India and Pakistan. In the past, the US kept a lid on things because it had such overwhelming dominance that it could be a global policeman and in that environment, individual nations didn't need to provide for their own defense, they had a policeman to back them.
    But that era is now over, and as much as people complained about the US strutting around like a global cop, they are about to see the consequences of a world without a global cop -- that is, the world as it normally exists. In that world, it makes no sense for Japan to not have a nuke if North Korea and China does, and soon South Korea will, too. My guess is that South Korea will go nuclear first.
    Just as it makes no sense for Iran to not have a nuke if Israel does. This is not a matter of hurt feelings, it is a matter of security balancing. It doesn't matter if you don't like Iran, or if you do like it, it's just a question of nations taking care of their own survival.
    All of this will happen, and we will look back on the period of non-proliferation as being an artifact of US global dominance, understanding that as US military dominance fades, nations will turn to measures of self-help in a hostile world.
    The whole world is changing, and we should face it with clarity and wisdom, not with hurt feelings. There are all sorts of repercussions to global trade, to global security arrangements, that are changing right now, and it helps to have your eyes open and think "well, how would each nation respond to this new threat environment" in a deliberate and realist perspective, rather than whether you like a given country or not.
    One example is what is happening right now in Saudi Arabia. The US promised to be Saudi's security guarantor in 1945, and historically the US has done this, but this is a role that the US can no longer play, so Saudi Arabia is now being beaten by Yemen, and is desperately appealing to the US for help, but there is little the US can do. Now Saudi Arabia is in a pickle -- it will also turn to nuclear weapons.
    One thing to think about is the moral hazard of these types of security guarantees - they incentivize client states to provoke their enemies, in this case Saudi Arabia invading and occupying Yemen, installing a puppet government, and blockading the nation. When you have the US at your back, you can take these provocative actions. But then comes a moment when you look behind and the Big Brother is no longer there.
    Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize.
    We are going to see major shifts happen as nations regionalize, many nations nuclearize, and new regional trade blocs form that disrupt global capital flows that we have taken for granted, especially if you formed your view of reality in the era when there was a Global Cop that had your back.
    munksbeer · 1789846208 · focus · HN ↗
    >Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize.
    I was nodding along to your post until this point. Where are you from? Russia is not an innocent party in all of this, which is what your post is implying. Secondly, there are already two European states (who are not Russia) with nuclear weapons.
    zeropoint46 · 1789938676 · focus · HN ↗
    That's interesting I actually didn't read it this way. I could be wrong of course but I didn't really think op was implying guilt or innocence on Russias part. Just more a statement of what's happening. EU is seizing ships, and they probably do think US will back them, maybe not so much recently haha. Don't think op was making a moral judgement on whether that's right or wrong.
    bulbar · 1789725899 · focus · HN ↗
    Germany is also pumping a lot of money into Military. Nobody in Europe seems to mind.
    Pretty sure China is unhappy not for history reason, but because of the current situation, which is that China tries to establish military dominance in the region and wants to invade Taiwan.
    akk0 · 1789730541 · focus · HN ↗
    > nobody in Europe seems to mind
    It's maybe not part of the public discourse so much, but I regularly hear ordinary people express their concern about this
    rozab · 1789733472 · focus · HN ↗
    Germany does not have public shrines to the perpetrators of genocide which heads of state pay respects at.
    There was no Kniefall von Warschau for Japan.
    throw0101a · 1789730749 · focus · HN ↗
    > Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China?
    I'm sure Uyghurs and Tibetans have an opinion on the pot calling the kettle black.
    leereeves · 1789740927 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't imagine modern Japan being a threat to modern China. That seems like David (Japan) vs Goliath, but unlikely to have the mythical outcome.
    philipov · 1789695674 · focus · HN ↗
    The person you're afraid of conquering you not liking that you're trying to defend yourself against conquest is not an argument against doing that.
    svpk · 1789696325 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think anything in their post said otherwise. I assumed they were just adding more evidence on to what the previous commenter was saying.
    djtango · 1789696865 · focus · HN ↗
    The strange and ironic thing here is that the subject and object of this statement can be either country.
    My wife is from Manchuria and my father is from Singapore. As much as my wife and I like the Japan of today, Japan appeared less favourably in our family history.
    [deleted] · 1789738389 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    [deleted] · 1789702174 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    Walf · 1789695733 · focus · HN ↗
    Japan is never going to voluntarily attack China. Even if there was a desire to, they know they could not win. Any military build up by the former is due to fear of the latter.
    0manrho · 1789703928 · focus · HN ↗
    Japan probably won't not attack China (I don't see why they would, not proactively at least), that's not what was being asserted. Japan however may defend Taiwan or allies/neighbors in the south china sea should things go hot there elsewise. And Japan have stated at least some interest in doing so which means that if China wants Taiwan, they might have to contend with japan.
    These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them.
    Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.
    Walf · 1789704803 · focus · HN ↗
    Any protest from China is just painting themselves as being in a defensive position, whilst they make claims over the oceans and territories that the international community disagrees with. Very much not defensive acts.
    stickfigure · 1789704961 · focus · HN ↗
    It's the Putin playbook. "It's NATO's fault we need to kill Ukranians!"
    hdgvhicv · 1789713217 · focus · HN ↗
    Putin actually invaded Ukraine. America has threatened to invade Greenland and made noises about Canada.
    What has China done new?
    Walf · 1789715359 · focus · HN ↗
    You don't have to drop bombs to invade. If you think China's not invading with its economic policies and activity alone, you're not paying attention. I'm in no way saying western nations are not guilty of the same and worse behaviours (look at how many legitimate governments have been toppled and sanctioned for daring to go against the USA), but China is not friendly.
    hdgvhicv · 1789718261 · focus · HN ↗
    I see, so your country doesn’t trade with China?
    Because they ultimately are managing better in the 21st century than any other country. America had its peak from 1945 to 2001. Britain ran the world in the 19th century. China is the new global superpower.
    In an ideal world America would have managed to keep a bipolar world going, but it has decided to abandon that in favour of short term boosts.
    Walf · 1789719860 · focus · HN ↗
    Quite the non-sequitur.
    It does, and I already wrote about western countries being just as guilty of invading, if not more so. None of what you wrote contradicts my point that China is actively expanding and using mainly economic tactics to do it.
    m4rtink · 1789722943 · focus · HN ↗
    Building up submerged reefs to military bases, harassing the Philippine navy regularly, massive fishing fleets strip mining the sea all over the world, melee weapon skirmishes with Indian soldiers in Kashmir ?
    [deleted] · 1789723594 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    bulbar · 1789726207 · focus · HN ↗
    China has been strategically preparing to do it for years now. It's not just talk from a crazy leader of a democratic country that will be gone in a few years, but is on the official roadmap of a dictatorship for at least a decade.
    throw0101a · 1789731033 · focus · HN ↗
    > What has China done new?
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_(1979–1991)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_(197...
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chinese_military_exercise...
    * <a href="https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/philippines-south-china-sea-vessel-collision-6394271" rel="nofollow">https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/philippines-south-...
    ImPostingOnHN · 1789737901 · focus · HN ↗
    Threatened to attack Taiwan, much like russia has threatened to attack many other countries.
    Also, China does regularly attack other countries' navies around the South China Sea with no legal justification.
    ImPostingOnHN · 1789826640 · focus · HN ↗
    Just this week:
    <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/china-vessel-rams-philippine-boat-refueling-mission-coast-guard-says-rcna598496" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/china-vessel-rams-philipp...
    seanmcdirmid · 1789716285 · focus · HN ↗
    Even if Japan doesn't want to defend Taiwan, the close geography makes conflict between china and Japan (and the USA) if China invades Taiwan.
    ii41 · 1789704367 · focus · HN ↗
    It's wild that people say this. Japan attacking China (and later the Western colonies, and later the US) knowing that it could not win was one of the most important events in the 20th century. There isn't a country as infamous as Japan for starting wars it cannot win.
    Also that attack happened on Sept 18, this very day, in 1931.
    stickfigure · 1789704708 · focus · HN ↗
    All of the people responsible for that are dead now. Every single one. Maybe there are still 100k people alive that were ~5yo at the time, but I don't think we can hold them culpable.
    Walf · 1789707485 · focus · HN ↗
    Not so wild when you realise that it's not the 1930s, and Japan isn't being led by an imperialist & expansionist regime. I'm not denying any past aggression from Japan, my grandparents fought them, but the situation is quite different now.
    csomar · 1789713383 · focus · HN ↗
    Based on historical and current events (USA) it takes roughly a couple of years for a country and its leaders to flip from pacifist to aggressive.
    orwin · 1789722283 · focus · HN ↗
    Japan is very much still jingoistic today, and Jingoism is what drove the Lugou bridge incident and the seconds sino-japanese war. While it was imperialism that drove the invasion of Korea and Manchuria in 1931, with a real need for resources and to give land and slave to industrialists, the 1937 war was totally dumbfuckery from jingoist sentiments. Basically Trump, but supported by 85% of the population.
    That's why fascism doesn't work btw. They end up believing their own lies and do the most egregiously idiotic shit.
    ido · 1789720661 · focus · HN ↗
    WW2 was over more than 80 years ago. Neither Japan nor China still have the same regime they had when this happened.
    m4rtink · 1789723316 · focus · HN ↗
    Arguably China was in quite a sorry state at the moment Japan started attacking it & they were quite successful as a result.
    It was the western colonial powers & most importantly the USA that they attacked & could not have realistically won against.
    throw0101a · 1789731410 · focus · HN ↗
    > There isn't a country as infamous as Japan for starting wars it cannot win.
    Except against Taiwan, Korea, Russia (1905), Manchuria.
    ashley95 · 1789695970 · focus · HN ↗
    I presume you mean CGTN?
    [deleted] · 1789700062 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    aussieguy1234 · 1789701271 · focus · HN ↗
    >They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
    Could be a strategy going on here.
    Before they invaded Ukraine, Russia criticized Ukrainian military buildup as "destabalising". Probably with full knowledge of their own plans to invade.
    lenkite · 1789712907 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia also criticized the ethnic cleansing of Donbass via artillery strikes on civilian areas - casualties and deaths reported daily in the LPR and DPR media, but never made a single peep in the Western news.
    hdgvhicv · 1789713644 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-superior-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russ...
    <a href="https://time.com/3042640/satellite-russian-ukraine-shelling/" rel="nofollow">https://time.com/3042640/satellite-russian-ukraine-shelling/
    Those strikes?
    lenkite · 1789716580 · focus · HN ↗
    I meant the strikes while the Minsk ceasefire was in effect - one that was admitted to by Merkel to merely buy time for Ukraine's arms build-up into the 3rd largest European military. And then used effectively to shell and kill Russian civilians including children. Not a SINGLE word in the Western media. There dozens of such daily reports in 2021 marking deaths and casualties as very banal. Never made a peep in the Western news.
    <a href="https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opolcheniya_novorossii_poslednie_svodki_s_frontov_dnr_i_lnr.html" rel="nofollow">https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opo...
    <a href="https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Daily_Report_Vienna.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Dail...
    <a href="https://www.interfax-russia.ru/military/news/547769" rel="nofollow">https://www.interfax-russia.ru/military/news/547769
    hdgvhicv · 1789718127 · focus · HN ↗
    There were massive amounts of violations of the various Minsk agreements over the years.
    This specific example was reported by afp. There was no evidence of it being a drone or a shell, and no evidence of who fired.
    <a href="https://www.currenttime.tv/a/31206031.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.currenttime.tv/a/31206031.html
    ImPostingOnHN · 1789737764 · focus · HN ↗
    > They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
    Much in the same way the same people are upset about Taiwan, the Phillipines, the USA, etc. are building up their military capacity.
    Also much in the same way russia is unhappy about Ukraine building up its war fighting capacity.
    The unhappiness could come from multiple things, but given China has themselves built up their own war fighting capacity to a much greater degree, it seems the primary motivation is seeking hegemony.
  5. NalNezumi · 1789752137 · focus · HN ↗
    >Your immediate neighbor is going on an imperialist streak right now
    There's indeed a neighbor (albeit with a large ocean in between) that have imperialist streak of abducting a head of state with its military and starting a war that is actively causing global economic damage. You never know what this one is planning to drag you in to, maybe provoke another big neighbor and get yourself dragged in to the lose-lose quagmire
  6. giardini · 1789759374 · focus · HN ↗
    A centenarian F-35 "divine wind" is the obvious solution - a descendant of the WWII kamikaze corps. I can hear the screams of "Tennoheika Banzai" (!Long live the Emperor!") as they deliver death to their enemies:
    <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kamikaze+&ia=images&iax=images" rel="nofollow">https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kamikaze+&ia=images&iax=ima...
  7. Haven880 · 1789953894 · focus · HN ↗
    You meant the other neighbour across the pacific? 150 F35 not going to do much really. You do know the incident over Iran with F35 and many others across Taiwan straits. China hasnt even flex their wartime muscle and already millions of drones a year production which each can be more effective and cheaper than the one used by Iranian. Plus you know America carrier fleet no longer near that region.
4. calvinmorrison · 1789691442 · focus · HN ↗
  > very quickly, going to need extra care.
  they don't "need" extra care, and at 100 years old, should be pretty content with concepts of dying without intervention.
  What is with the obsession in the world today about those on deaths door taking precedent over those who live today?
  1. NonHyloMorph · 1789691748 · focus · HN ↗
    Wtf is going on with the discourse here lately? Are you advocating for effective "euthanasia" by neglect?
    jll29 · 1789693750 · focus · HN ↗
    I disagree with downvoting the parent; I did not interpret their post as advocating neglect or euthanasia or anything else of a nasty kind.
    There is a point to be made that fewer and fewer people are ready to die - eventually.
    However, it arguably is the natural course of things, and the only thing more certain than taxes. I'm not saying this because I cannot imagine a world in which death was switched off. Instead, I would argue that it is also a GOOD thing that death exists, as it makes one's lifetime more precious knowing your days are counted (it's also good not to know how many of them you have left). There is space made for new generations, and their different (hopefully eventually better) ideas.
    strken · 1789715631 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems like you're thinking of "extra care" as some sort of life extension, while the GP thinks it means things like help showering and cooking, and the GGP is ambiguous and could believe anything.
    The inevitability of death is a philosophical question. I read the GP and maybe the GGP as talking about the more practical question of whether it's moral to let broke old people die from bedsores and starvation or whether we pay for nurses.
    calvinmorrison · 1789694755 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm advocating for "at 100 years old you're going to die pretty soon regardless of medical spending, and as a centarian, you should be prepared for this. no vanity or medical procedure will be cost effective and the world does not need more supercentarians, and japan does not need more old people. simple as.
    carefree-bob · 1789694978 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot of people really want to get their hands on the savings of the elderly, and are very angry when they see old people spending money.
5. Waterluvian · 1789691541 · focus · HN ↗
  The socialized cost of protecting your castle is massive. It makes for a very popular and very lazy target for this kind of “think of the children” (or centenarians) style rhetoric.
  Something I keep in mind when reading these kinds of opinions is that when war breaks out and moves through a region (think Ukraine), the elderly are common among those who cannot flee.
6. aaron695 · 1789697244 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
7. ekianjo · 1789698756 · focus · HN ↗
  investing in senior people is not good ROI but at the same time they are the ones who vote the most...
8. 999900000999 · 1789700499 · focus · HN ↗
  From the article. >While immigration has risen in previous years, foreigners only make up around 3% of the population and opposition to accepting more has grown.
  That 10 USD isn't for you , it's for an immigrant from a less affluent country. The Philippines for one. Although Japan also has a significant South Asian population.
  The tradition is you work a horrible job, but your kids get to grow up in a rich country with much better opportunities.
  Japan doesn't want immigrants though. They can fix there demographic crisis in a single year by opening immigration up.
  As for defense spending. The only issue is its not homegrown tech. Looks like Mitsubishi is actually working on a 6th gen fighter though.
  1. DaSHacka · 1789703381 · focus · HN ↗
    > Japan doesn't want immigrants though. They can fix there demographic crisis in a single year by opening immigration up.
    'fixing' one issue by swapping it out for another
    phyzix5761 · 1789703825 · focus · HN ↗
    Whats the other issue? Immigrants? That's a bit racist.
    DaSHacka · 1789704533 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, too much immigration all at once can infact stil be a problem, just a different one from an inverted population pyramid.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_crisis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_crisis
    inemesitaffia · 1789708877 · focus · HN ↗
    Migrants can be from the same ethnicity and still be an issue.
    You can tell because internal displacement can cause issues too.
    999900000999 · 1789716444 · focus · HN ↗
    Ok.
    What’s your solution then. Unless you can convince the average Japanese woman to have 3 kids and then hop in a time machine to do this 20 years ago, then immigration is the only option.
    Almost every advanced economy relies on low paid migrant workers to do crappy jobs.
    Occasionally you can pull these migrants from within the country like in China
    carefree-bob · 1789717548 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no solution needed. Populations go up and down, there is no need to for the arrow to always go up and to the right, particularly for overcrowded places like Japan and China. Japan with 50 million Japanese would be a much nicer place, just as China with 500 million Chinese would result in each of those people being happier. Let nature take its course.
    shoobiedoo · 1789726095 · focus · HN ↗
    Thank you. Finally a sane response. This place is nothing but "line must go up!!!" capitalist shills.
    lotsofpulp · 1789726801 · focus · HN ↗
    The only reason a solution is needed is because a problem was created by promising old people a ton of benefits. To deliver those benefits or expected quality of life, the country has to allocate a greater and greater proportion of the country’s productivity to old people.
    Obviously, this means less purchasing power for younger people, and they might not like that so much.
    fzeroracer · 1789728176 · focus · HN ↗
    'Let nature take its course' is such a naive take.
    The reality is that Japan (and countries following a similar path) are strangling the younger generation by saddling them with generational debt. They become responsible for taking care of an older population, with no guarantee of their own future as their own ability to retire vanishes and income goes to zero. It should be no surprise that the older block also votes to protect itself, as politicians skew far older than the rest of the citizenry. The result of 'nature taking its course' is a complete collapse of the government. In the long term this is certainly a solution but not a particularly good one.
    An argument could be made that a slow gradual decline would help ease these issues but you would need to convince people twice your age to willingly give up their benefits and things they worked for and were promised. What are the odds that you think that will work out?
    ponector · 1789732205 · focus · HN ↗
    Imagine if in the best scenario Japan is going to stop borrowing. Reducing the population will drive debt ratio up. Good luck to the next generation, say thank you to your grandparents who borrowed from you.
9. cameldrv · 1789704858 · focus · HN ↗
  Ultimately the problem is that Japanese people are not having enough kids. It's a huge emergency. It is recoverable, but it has to be done very soon or it will be much harder. Right now, 5.1% of the population is 25-29, prime childbearing years. If all of those people had 2.1 kids, and so did their descendants, Japan's population would stabilize reasonably well. The problem is that the 0-4 range is only 3.1%. Even if that generation has 2.1 kids, the population will be massively diminished.
  If that happens, the majority of Japanese people will be retired, and the cost to provide medical care for them will be astronomical compared to the number of people that can provide that care. It's easy to say "Japan is a rich country, they can afford it." However, medical care for old people is very labor intensive. Even if the old people have "savings", this is just a claim against the labor of young people. If the young people are too worn out from caring for their parents to have their own kids, the country dies out.
  The only solution I can think of is to provide massive incentives to have kids. Massive meaning something like "you get $40k per year for every kid in your house under 18", or "you get a free house when you have your first kid, and a bigger one when you have your second."
  Maybe this sounds extreme, but the alternative is that young people are taxed at punitive rates in order to provide care for older people. As the situation progresses, younger people will have even less kids because they can't afford them, and eventually they won't even be able to pay for a reasonable living standard for themselves. Older people won't care and will vote themselves excellent benefits, since they would have a good majority in voting. The only option younger people would have would be to leave the country, which only forces the tax rates higher. Eventually something breaks. It's difficult to predict exactly how it would go but it's not pretty.
  If Japan is to be saved though, it has to happen in the next 5-10 years or so, and the sooner the better. Once the population pyramid slides up another decade, you'd need the average couple to have 4 kids or so, and the incentives required to make that happen are not affordable, and wouldn't be agreed to democratically when the majority of the population is retired and wants the money for the remainder of their lives rather than paying for kids that would be too young to provide labor to care for them while they're alive.
  1. HaloZero · 1789706954 · focus · HN ↗
    Has any country really reversed the diminishing fertility rate with industrialization without religious zealotry? I honestly don’t think money is the factor here. Yes it matters but $40k is nothing. That covers maybe a year or two of daycare in the states. It needs to be a cultural change but not sure what would reverse it.
    Or we set a max age of the population where you off yourself. It’s the plot of Half a Life in Star Trek TNG
    JimBlackwood · 1789713364 · focus · HN ↗
    But why does it need to be reversed?
    We are at the same time experiencing all the challenges and consequences of depleting the planet of resources, a warming climate and shortages everywhere. Why can less people in a natural way not be part of the solution?
    hdgvhicv · 1789714524 · focus · HN ↗
    You’ll need to kill people off at say 70. Healthcare meds increase dramatically when you get older and older, and that means more people needed to care. When the worker:dependence ratio increases you end up with people emigrating or care reducing.
    mitxela · 1789722192 · focus · HN ↗
    That's where spreading the young population around via migration comes in, but people are racist and can't tolerate that.
    In your solution you also wouldn't have to kill people off. They would die naturally due to a lack of healthcare.
    swat535 · 1789732431 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would you have immigration in that scenario? Other countries would also lack people.
    johnnyanmac · 1789779455 · focus · HN ↗
    Other first world countries. The global population overall is still slightly increasing because 3rd world countries have plenty of children.
    As for the why: because historically that has always been a solution to lacking specialized talent or simply not having enough hands to perform a massive task. You don't want to pay domestic labor, so bring in foreign labor. This time it's a general problem.
    johnnyanmac · 1789779309 · focus · HN ↗
    >why does it need to be reversed?
    Because a major superpower dying out doesn't really benefit anyone except potential conquerors.
    hdgvhicv · 1789714441 · focus · HN ↗
    $40k is an average full time age after tax and student loans in the U.K
    But we’d rather tax workers to the hilt to pay for wealthy old people. Isla refreshing to see the op mention that “savings” are just a claim on future work. When there’s 10 billionaires who need care and 2 people who can provide it, how much will those carers charge.
    The other solution is high immigration. If you can import 18 year olds it’s win win win. At least for old rich people. Keep wages down, no tax money on new generations.
    cameldrv · 1789716043 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm saying 40k per year per kid per year. That's not a magic number, but it's something like where if you have 2-3 kids, one parent doesn't need to work because their income is replaced by a child subsidy. Alternatively, if both parents work, daycare is paid for, along with the other expenses of having a kid. Now, that does mean taxes have to go up a lot. Maybe you don't need such a high number. You could play around with it and see what works.
    On the other hand, prospective parents have to believe that the money will keep flowing, or the incentive isn't as strong. In that case, maybe something like giving new parents a house is a better bet because they'd own that regardless of what future governments do.
    ponector · 1789728382 · focus · HN ↗
    Has any country really tried?
    To have multiple kids you need bigger house, more stuff and more time.
    To have 2+ kids you either neglect them or should become stay at home parent. It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary.
    The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.
    johnnyanmac · 1789779653 · focus · HN ↗
    >It's only for rich, for families who can comfortably live on one salary.
    or collectivist societies. We completely forgotten the old adage: "it takes a village to raise a kid". 3rd world countries still increase in population because everyone chips in to care for everyone's kids, not simply staying within their own house raising their own kid by themselves.
    >The other thing is time: people who want many kids want to spend time with them, not at work. But without work they cannot afford kids. Catch-22.
    This is definitely another piece of the puzzle, one within the levers of government. Shorter work weeks for the same or more pay would alleviate this issue. But that's something the elite will fight tooth and nail to prevent.
    sandmn · 1789811569 · focus · HN ↗
    In 3rd world countries having children is also a retirement plan because government does not guarantee much for elderly. Not sure if developed countries want to go there though.
  2. shoobiedoo · 1789712272 · focus · HN ↗
    > If Japan is to be saved
    As I said in another comment, the population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. A hundred years ago, the population was 64 million, and that was at the peak of their colonial expansion.
    Yes I get it that the demographics pyramid would not be the same as it was in 1930, but this whole narrative that "Japan is dying" is at the very least spread to pull on heartstrings in order to fuel this lines must go UP ALL THE TIME hypercapitalist nonsense.
    Why can't a people wax and wane according to the needs of their culture and not the needs of bigwig bank accounts? Does Japan need a convenience store on every block? If every single convenience store disappeared tomorrow, you'd suddenly have a massive workforce able to go to school or care for the elderly, so here I am just yelling at clouds while the average Japanese person is more in line with your way of thinking that being able to buy a sandwich instead of making your own is the "Japan" they want to save.
    cameldrv · 1789715412 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem is that if Japan ends up with a population of 64 million in 2100, that is nothing like the situation 100 years ago. Almost all of those 64 million people will be retired and not creating any economic output, but requiring a lot of care. It's questionable whether the small working age population could even provide that care, much less all of the other things that a functioning society needs.
    Now it's certainly possible that AI will eliminate the need for anyone to work. That is a different question though than conventional demographic prediction.
    johnnyanmac · 1789780092 · focus · HN ↗
    >As I said in another comment, the population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. A hundred years ago, the population was 64 million, and that was at the peak of their colonial expansion.
    Japan has a population of 300m. a collapse of 60% of the population in 60 year is indeed a crisis.
    > fuel this lines must go UP ALL THE TIME hypercapitalist nonsense.
    It's less the population and more the numbers. There were probably a good 30-40m working class Japanese in that 1930's metric, and the retired population was probably in the singular millions.
    That model inverted. Based on the stats up chain, we have ~20-30m 21-25 year olds, and 100+ retired Japanese citizens. This isn't a scale to be balanced so much as a building crumpling in on itself. because unfortunately, old people will crush the youth in such a collapse.
    >Why can't a people wax and wane according to the needs of their culture and not the needs of bigwig bank accounts?
    Because the elite need peasants to server them, if you want a frank answer. Guess who most of the richest people in the economy belong to?
    Another reason why this is more of a "I'll take the youth with me" collapse. The rich are greedy.
10. cedws · 1789709922 · focus · HN ↗
  Japan desperately needs some defense of its own, American is an unreliable ally and Japan has no nukes. And we’ve seen what happens to countries with no nukes.
  1. fzeroracer · 1789717433 · focus · HN ↗
    To be completely fair, we've also seen what happens to countries with nukes as well. It seems like almost every major military power on the planet has been hollowed out by institutional rot and grifters and I would fully believe the same of China's military if they got into a stupid conflict like the US. Traditional military power doesn't matter in a world where a country can buy a hundred thousand drones for dirt cheap and make any sort of invasion suicidal.
  2. NalNezumi · 1789752764 · focus · HN ↗
    >While there are currently no known plans in Japan to produce nuclear weapons, it has been argued Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and many analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason.[32][33] For this reason Japan is often said to be a "screwdriver's turn"[34][35] away from possessing nuclear weapons, or to possess a "bomb in the basement
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_programs" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_progr...
    This is fact known for a very long time....
    The reason Japan won't have nuke is more so it's politically impossible. Even if USA and LDP wanted to, more than 80%+ of Japan (last survey I read) is strongly against it, and there's no way a reimpretation of the peace constitution can in anyway justify nuke, so a referendum is required
    Japan also have advanced space programs so the method of delivery, is also not something that is something they can develop quickly. (and more recently, also chips etc required)
11. bone_frequency · 1789715410 · focus · HN ↗
  Are these eldery people receiving extra care going to repel an enemy force when the time comes?
  1. mitxela · 1789722235 · focus · HN ↗
    Is China going to invade Japan?
    bone_frequency · 1789740962 · focus · HN ↗
    Is Japan going to be defenseless?
12. throw0101a · 1789732019 · focus · HN ↗
  > And the government buying 150 F35's is just a slap in the face when there's a massive chunk of the population that is, very quickly, going to need extra care.
  Japan is looking to increase defence spending to a whopping… 3.5% of GDP:
  * <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/09/15/japan/japan-defense-spending-35-gdp/" rel="nofollow">https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/09/15/japan/japan-def...
  Meanwhile social security spending is currently about a third of its budget (and debt servicing a quarter):
  * <a href="https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00895/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00895/

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.