Posted on 02/02/2008 2:01:05 PM PST by shrinkermd
...Fifteen years ago, Japan ranked fourth among the world's countries in gross domestic product per capita. It now ranks 20th. In 1994, its share of the world's economy peaked at 18 percent; in 2006, the number was below 10 percent...
...Japan's slide relative to other major economies is not a tabloid tale of suddenly squandered riches. It is rather an insidious petering out of growth, productivity and innovation -- and of political will to stop the slippage.
The slide has dovetailed with another quietly insidious crisis -- the petering out of the population. Japan has the world's highest proportion of elderly people and the lowest proportion of children.
By 2050, population decline will have reduced economic growth to zero, according to the Japan Center for Economic Research. Seventy percent of the country's labor force will have disappeared.
The undertow is already being felt here. Supermarket and department store sales have declined for 11 consecutive years. Toyota now is arguably the world's largest carmaker, but sales of new cars of all brands in Japan peaked 18 years ago and have been falling steadily since then.
Still, with the exception of increasing poverty among the elderly in shrinking rural towns, this remains a remarkably comfortable middle-class country, with good health care and infrastructure and a low crime rate.
Unemployment is at a 10-year low of 3.9 percent, although wages are stagnant or declining. Thanks to six consecutive years of (relatively slow) growth, the panic and deflation that accompanied the bursting of Japan's real estate bubble in the 1990s are gone.
"People here are rich, happy, safe and clean," said Oki Matsumoto, chief executive of Monex Inc., an Internet investment company. They also have more savings in the bank than residents of any other major wealthy country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Presently, they have a large surplus in balance of payments and a private savings rate unparalleled in first class economies; however, they are economically and culturally devolving.
What do you mean by “culturally devolving?” I’ve been there many times, and from what I can tell, the U.S.’s cultural devolvement has clearly outpaced theirs. No comparison.
The Japanese have proved themselves a resilient and creative people. The article may be true, but I wouldn’t bet against them yet.
The Japanese have an admirable culture in many ways. But there seems to be an element of nihilism and despair in it, perhaps because they have never really had a solid religion. Shintoism was the state religion, but it was used mainly to keep order, not to provide consolation.
In Japan you see the results of demographic decline. Unlike Europe, they are not importing labor. Presumably at some point they will shrink so far and grow so weak that somebody else will just move in and take over—maybe the Chinese.
Bump for later. Thanks.
Interesting point. Of course, the labor which Europe has been importing will in time be the new masters. Of course, the same is happening here.
While I hesitate to criticize, it's so easy to see how the Japanese could balance this.
They have rigid control of immigration, unlike the US. If you can control the borders, you can let in only the most desireable of immigrants and can enjoy the benefits of immigrants without so many of the drawbacks. (Unlike the US)
They ought to take in some very young Korean or other Asian immigrants, preferably young couples with infants who can assimilate into Japan.
I know--they're total zenophobes. It's the flip side of the US problem. But, I have to say, maybe I like the Japanese problem better.
What will they become, the "Shakers" (the old Christian sect in the US which required celibacy of all members) of the world? At least the Shakers prospered for a while because they took in so many orphans...
I agree that the US is declining more steeply than Japan is. You see the usual bad manners from kids on Japanese streets but coming from the West it’s nothing to really worry about.
One thing that can be said in Japan’s favor is that the massive real estate crisis of the US is unknown here. Housing is downright affordable compared to Japan of 10 years ago, or the US now. Inflation was non-existent until last year and a lot of prices are coming down. You won’t earn much on your savings, but you can borrow pretty cheaply for a home — 1.9%!
(Well, *I* can’t. I’m not a citizen and thus have to go hat in hand to banks charging more than double this, offering no better terms despite my 60% down payment and solid salary, and generally treating me like a sub-prime potential deadbeat. But if you’re a regular Japanese person, no problem.)
But a real estate market this easy to enter certainly bodes well for young families, which in general bodes well for the future. I’d keep my money in yen before I put in in dollars.
Yes, of course. Oddly, while I was spending a year in England I got to know a few Japanese academics there. They have a rough time, because even for a pure-blooded Japanese to leave the country for a few years makes them seem like outsiders when they go back.
It was especially tough on the women, who were treated as equals while they were in the West, and then expected to go back to subservience when they returned home.
So, Europe will bring in foreign workers and succumb to Islam. But Japan will admit no foreigners, and will gradually fade away, until they no longer have enough numbers to prevent some more vigorous people from coming in and taking their country from the remaining survivors.
Last one to die turn off the lights. I finished reading the article after my first post, and I was surprised that nothing more was said about culture and demographics, because that is where the problem is, not the economy as such.
And the Democrats want to take us in which direction????
USA: $41,416/per capita
Canada: $33,657
Switzerland: $32,137
Japan: $31,523
Germany: $30,380
U.K.: $30,193
France: $29,831
Sweden: $29,723
Italy: $29,209
Greece: $22,156
South Korea: $19,762
Saudi Arabia: $12,509
Libya: $11,149
Russia: $11,120
Mexico: $9,930
World Average: $9,304
Iran: $8,176
Colombia: $7,742
China: 6,742
Lebanon: $6,115
Venezuela: $5,973
Jordan: $4,573
Egypt: $3,847
Indonesia: $3,527
Iraq: $3,513
Cuba: $3,441
Vietnam: $2,751
Pakistan: $2,373
Zimbabwe: $2,318
North Korea: $1,731
Uganda: $1,728
Nigeria: $1,320
Yemen: $903
Afghanistan: $692
Somalia: $543
Gaza Strip: $538
Lefties, by their actions, are tending to push the USA down this list [currently #6 on this list: (Click HERE for the complete list ) ] Whereas conservatives' actions will tend to push the USA UP the list.
There's an animated sci-fi movie about this topic--i.e., how Japan might handle a growing segment of their population who can't take care of themselves. The show is called Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society. It's out on DVD and I think it's also shown occasionally on Adult Swim.
What they do is put them on just enough life support to keep the brain alive, and then connect their brain directly to the internet so they can live in cyberspace. The process is called "noble rot".
Population decline and changing demographics to a nation of retirees is the biggest problem. That is pretty much why we need to open the floodgates to immigrants in this nation — to replace the 30 million children that got aborted since 1973.
Of course, the immigrants must be LEGAL immigrants, they must be literate, skilled, healthy and not from the criminal class. We needed more immigrants, but not ILLEGAL immigrants!
Our population problem is no longer as El Presidente Jorge flooded this nation with every Tomas, Ricardo, and Horacio with a heartbeat. Now we are swimming in population. Problem solved. Too bad most of them were not the skilled, literate people we needed.
good post.
I always ask the dims why did sweden have the 3rd highest per capita income in 1970 and now- 40th and dropping?
In 1976 Chile and Peru had identical per capita income. Now Chile is 300% higher, why?
Of course I have never heard any sensible answers to these questions, but America’s advantage is soon to diminish.
In 50 years the Japanese will still be Japanese but much of the USA will be Mexican, and we are the smart people?
I do think they may start having more children if the population as a whole changes their mindset some what.
For many a older population is a wiser population.
I like this bit,
“What concerns political and economic analysts is that many Japanese politicians — and the voters they represent — do not understand how wealth is being created in the 21st century.”
Really? Toyota will soon be the worlds larges auto maker and GM is loosing billions and billions. Whatever you do don’t take advice from the same experts that GM has.
A controlled population is a more stable one. They do need to increase the birth rate at some point and I hope they will.
To flood your country with Muslims will prove to be a much worse choice. Most of us will get to see this in our lifetimes.
I have noticed many who consider Canada, the UK and all of Europe to be Socialist.
Oh, by looking at that chart I see Gaza Strip is just a tad more than what Obamahillacain thinks we slobs deserve.
This is the effect of oil. This is what happens when a country is forced to find some other basis than oil for its economic growth. The Japanese have adopted very well, and we ought to think about what they have done if we are intending to become less dependent on oil.
I think there’s a basic kind of death-wish in not wanting to have enough children to reproduce yourself.
Have you read the novels of Yukio Mishima? There’s some suggestion there of what happened when the Samurai culture broke down and then, basically, the imperial culture.
I would think that Mishima was only a case of a novelist’s gloom if not for the clear message of the demographics. And I also think of Endo’s novels, The Samurai and The Silence. There is a Christian turn there, yet also a very, very bleak vision of life under the Samurai code.
It is all a matter of degree, duration and direction of motion.
btt
Are you saying that us pale faces are “indigenous?”
However, the message of the demographics is far from clear.
In 2002, the population of Japan was about 128 million. In 1942, it was 73 million, and in 1875 it was only 35 million. What is the optimal population?
Canada and the U.S. are frontier countries — we’ve only known population growth. Japan had thousands of years with a population of under 35 million. What’s optimum today?
Technological developments over the last century (medicine, agriculture, etc.) have resulted in greatly extended life spans — and a population explosion. Extremist ecofascists would like to use any means necessary to reduce world population drastically. They’re insane — but, is unlimited population growth any more realistic or desirable?
Without immigration, the populations in Europe, N. America, and Japan are all declining. We have massive immigration to attempt to keep populations stable or growing — thus we have “multiculturalism”. Japan has placed a higher priority on preserving its monoculture.
If immigrant populations assimilate, or at least integrate — then the upsides to immigration can outweigh the downsides. If some immigrant populations (even a small minority) not only won’t integrate; but become openly hostile to the host society, where does that lead? I’m afraid that we’re about to find out.
What causes ‘demographic decline”,
or, Why do people have fewer babies?
bump from the only other FReeper who likes GITS.
Does anyone believe even the smartest of us today can predict the population trends of 2050? I think there is a game called Balderdash, and this is it.
I'm a native American. What are you? I was born here thus indigenous.
And as far as complaints from American Indians ---If Europeans hadn't come here and changed America the Chinese would have. This continent was wide open and under utilized
What causes population decline? Probably several factors, including the fact that in the modern world there is an economic penalty to having children, whereas in a more primitive world, a farming or hunting world, there are advantages.
But I think it’s mostly cultural decay. Japan’s culture is far more orderly than ours is, and it retains a lot of the old imagery, but I think it’s tired and nihilistic at its heart. Americans misbehave, yet many of them grow up and learn better. Our culture is much more adaptable to change than the Japanese culture.
Culture begins in religion. America still is one of the world’s most religious countries, despite all our sins and extravagances. As religion becomes less central, culture tends to decay. One of the best writers concerning this process is Oswald Spengler, “The Decline and Fall of the West.”
In 50 years the Japanese will still be human but much of the USA will also be human, so both are the smart people...depending upon what the Air Force is breeding at Area 51. ;)
Have you seen the video of his death? Absolutely amazing.
Put that way, you are right, of course. Japan grew, I presume, because they stopped fighting each other, as good warlords and samurai used to do, and because they modernized and gained the ability to import what they needed. I don’t know that much about Japanese agricultural change, but I know that the agricultural revolution in Europe that preceded the industrial revolution allowed them to grow much more food and to increase population.
But the size of the population doesn’t say everything. For instance, if you cut back population through war or starvation, it may have different results from cutting it back by not having children.
In Italy or Greece, for instance, everyone traditionally had lots of cousins, aunts, uncles, and family. My Great Big Fat Greek Wedding. But if couples only have one child, then there are no such things as aunts, uncles, or cousins. The nature of families changes.
The other obvious change in Japan is more and more old people and fewer and fewer young people or working people to support and replace them. Technology can provide ways to handle fewer workers, but it’s still going to result in a very different kind of culture.
It’s possible to argue that the British empire was in part the result of British fertility. Too many people; they had to go off and work or rule somewhere else. Now, of course, Britain is imploding.
Not enough energetic young people to carry the economy, because of a low birth rate (1.23 children per woman) well below replacement rate
The Japanese will soon discover that it doesn't matter if you have savings or a good pension plan, if there is no vigorous next generation to work in the companies that pay the dividends, and pay the taxes that support Social Security.
Over the long term, there is no substitute to raising competent children who would be willing to take care of you in old age. In the past, the deal was that you raised children, and the children would take care of you in old age, in exchange for inheriting the family farm or family business. Now, children are a net expense that many couples are choosing not to incur
To the middle class, babies are an expensive cost. It costs a lot to clothe, feed, and above all educate a child through college, maybe grad school, and then they might continue to live with you while they "find themselves"
To the welfare class, kids are an amusing toy, and a source of more welfare benefits
Contrast that to how things were a couple of centuries ago. Children were an economic asset on the farm, doing whatever work they were physically able to do from early childhood. When grown, the eldest surviving son would stay with the farm and support the parents in exchange for inheriting the farm when they died
Perhaps if we changed the tax system so that parents would get a percentage of their kids tax payments, in exchange for turning them into productive citizens, in a reversal of the welfare state?
fyi ping.
According to some, the British Empire was able to develop because Britain made enough progress on reducing infant mortality to have a lot of “surplus” young men to send colonizing. It makes me shudder to think what China will do with the 100 million (or thereabouts) surplus young men that resulted as a side-effect of their one-child policy.
Also, the agricultural revolution began in Britain earlier than elsewhere, enabling many more people to live on the same amount of land. A combination of things—crop rotation, fertilizers, draining of wetlands, among others—transformed food production and provided the wealth for the industrial revolution that followed.
Bigger families, more wealth, new ideas—the whole culture was energized.
Coming soon to an America near you
yep
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.