Thread

1. 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. 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

         1. 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?

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. swat535 · 1789732431 · focus · HN ↗

                     Why would you have immigration in that scenario? Other countries would also lack people.

                     1. 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.

            2. 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.

         2. 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.

         3. 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.

         4. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

         1. 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.

         2. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.