Posted on 12/18/2012 6:35:11 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
TOKYO
THE first grade class at the elementary school in Nanmoku, about 85 miles from Tokyo, has just a single student this year. The local school system that five decades ago taught 1,250 elementary school children is now educating just 37. Many of the town’s elegant wooden homes are abandoned. Where generations of cedar loggers, sweet potato farmers and factory workers once made their lives, monkeys now reside. The only sounds at night are the cries of deer and the wail of an occasional ambulance.
Nanmoku’s plight is Japan’s fate. Faced with an aging society, a depopulating countryside and economic stagnation, the country has struggled for decades to address its challenges. As Japan goes to the polls on Dec. 16 for parliamentary elections that will most likely mean the seventh prime minister in six years, voters need to demand that politicians address the most important issue of all: the country’s low birthrate.
Sadly, this issue is hardly being discussed on the campaign trail. Instead, parties are promising to lavish more money on special interests like construction companies, the main beneficiaries of public works spending.
Nowhere is the rapid aging of Japan more visible than in rural towns like Nanmoku, where 56 percent of local residents are over 65. Over the next 25 years, the proportion of Japan’s population that is elderly will rise from almost one in four to one in three. Sales of adult diapers will soon surpass those of baby diapers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Even if Japan’s population falls by 50%, it remains Japan. In 30-40 years, our population will be 400 million, and historical America will be long dead.
I have read that they rarely marry foreigners. Is that right? Do they stay single or have loveless marriages?
“In recent reading of the Japanese economic situation, I think you’re wrong on the issue of women not wanting husbands and or children. I see now quite frequent mentions of “herbivore men” who have no interest in women or sex (with anyone) and who are living with their parents into their late 20’s and 30’s, because their jobs don’t pay enough to break out on their own. These guys just show little interest, if any, in women or dating - which is sort of a pre-requisite for marriage and childbearing, yea?”
That pretty much describes liberalism...so Rush was right (of course).
1) Women of options other than staying home and having kids - and a good portion of them exercise that option (not even a majority, but enough of a minority to matter).
2) Because of the above, guys simply aren’t that important to them. I don’t think that human feelings and emotions have changed that much in single generations, but other things can change. For example, if I see a pretty non-immigrant, girl, I usually give her a dirty look, since I know that she likely hates guys and there’s a good chance she carries some disease. I’m thinking those zombie guys in Japan are also sick of being treated like crap from them. When I was in Europe there were a bunch of Japanese people at our hotel, some very attractive women, so I asked one of them why they were there. She gave me one of the coldest answers I’ve ever dealt with...and I’ll never forget that. She seemed to seethe at me, for some reason.
“Well, the article certainly has the wrong prescription. More government spending will neither help the economy nor encourage people to have more children. Why have kids just to stick them in government day care centers?”
I agree that more daycare won’t cut it. The writer probably has a couple of kids herself and the NYT doesn’t pay much unless you’re at the very top.
But to rule out government action means to sanction the demographic collapse of the society - since there’s nothing to stop it. That’s the problem...doing nothing doesn’t work in this case, because the forces that are causing women to not have babies has tipped the balance.
So what to do? In my opinion you make child-raising a career-choice for married women. In other words you pay them a decent amount of money, maybe something like $10k for the first, $20k for the second, $30k for the third, $20k each for the fourth through 8th (maybe a bit less, who knows). These women make up for the ones that don’t want to be bothered by kids. Oh yea, and you only apply to the type of women that you want having kids (that’s the hard part to implement). As to what I mean by that - it’s an exercise for the reader.
No, they won’t. What happens with a death spiral?
“Eventually they will have to liberalize immigration just to staff the nursing homes, I assume that suicide is no longer popular there post WWII.”
There won’t *be* any immigrants available.
So the government would pay the women money to raise their own children? You’ll see more marriage breakups, less marriage in general, etc.
The policy is now 35 years old. It’s too late for China. They are close to losing two generations. If you run back from 65, that means that everyone from 65 to 30 would be affected by this policy.
If it runs another 10 years, China is finished.
BFL.
“So the government would pay the women money to raise their own children? You’ll see more marriage breakups, less marriage in general, etc.”
Not if they had to stay together to collect the dough, which would also be required. No reason to subsidize single-parent homes, that’s as bad as what’s happening now.
Have affirmative action for men. Do not hire a woman if there is a qualified man available.
Provide incentives for having children. Have a retiree's pension be dependent upon how much taxes his children and grandchildren pay.
Allow the middle class to have as many children as they can afford to have.
Easy solution: rather than pay cash, have it be a tax credit, and make it able to be taken by the parents OR the grandparents. If you have kids, you effectively pay no taxes, and get money off the grandparents taxes. Effectively, you tax middle-class people for being childless.
No, it's not too late. The hidden part of the policy is that you simply euthanize those too old and sick to work. That's also the hidden part of ObamaCare.
Have affirmative action for men. Do not hire a woman if there is a qualified man available.
Provide incentives for having children. Have a retiree’s pension be dependent upon how much taxes his children and grandchildren pay.
_________________
Agreed, unless the woman cannot haave children
Have the same credits apply for adopted children.
Japan will survive just fine - they may have a reduced population - but it will still be Japan.
“Not if they had to stay together to collect the dough, which would also be required. No reason to subsidize single-parent homes, that’s as bad as what’s happening now.”
Stay together meaning what? They live together, they stay married? What if they don’t report their divorce? How would you ensure that only married women would collect? What if their husband dies?
I know the policy is well meaning, but I don’t think it would work well. We’d be better off cutting off policies that reward shacking up than we would be trying to help married women.
Look, I know this is counterintuitive, but 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, and so on and so on. Euthanasia doesn’t solve the problem of each generation being half the size of the previous generation. You’d have half the workers you had previous. Even if you killed everyone at 65, you still will have a worker shortage.
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.