Japan: Phasing Themselves Out?

[Indy Coug]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05...panese-people/

So if you do the mathematics, as they did, then the country will have no children within a millennium.

Another study recently showed Japan's population is expected to fall a third from its current 127.7 million over the next century.

Government projections show the birth rate will hit just 1.35 children per woman within 50 years, well below the replacement rate.

[Lost Student]

One interesting figure has come out of the diaper manufacturer Unicharm.

It announced last week for the first time ever sales of its adult diapers were larger than those for babies.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05...#ixzz1uaTFFn2c

Crazy.

[U-Ute]

Japanese researchers have now warned of a doomsday scenario if it carries on this way with the last child to be born there in 3011 and the Japanese people potentially disappearing a few generations later.

Yes, because things never change...

[Indy Coug]

Yes, because things never change...

Yeah, that's a ridiculous projection, but they are clearly below the replacement rate, which will cause a decrease in their total population. This is an issue in many countries now, including the US, China and many countries in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...0/apr/10040802

http://www.econ.psu.edu/~dshapiro/463iiib.htm

[Flystripper]

Yeah, that's a ridiculous projection, but they are clearly below the replacement rate, which will cause a decrease in their total population. This is an issue in many countries now, including the US, China and many countries in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...0/apr/10040802

http://www.econ.psu.edu/~dshapiro/463iiib.htm

sounds great to me.

[Chopperdave]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05...panese-people/

Nice of them to point out that the 1.35 children per woman is "well below the replacement rate." Otherwise I would have been uncertain about that. What is the replacement birth rate hanging out at these days? 1.67?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

sounds great to me.

Not so great when you see what happens in a place like Greece where they haven't been having enough kids to support their massive welfare and retirement entitlement state.

The US is like Germany and Japan in terms of productivity, and while Japan is going through a lost decade (isn't it in its second decade now?) things aren't catastrophic like they are in Greece (and soon to be in Spain, Portugal, Italy and maybe France).

We're going to have a helluva time supporting all the baby boomers. The boomers and Generation X supported the WWII generation and there were plenty of workers. But I don't think there will be enough Generations X and Y and the millennials to support all the boomers.

And to top that off, I read a story several years back that mentioned that in the aggregate, people that enter into the job market during recessionary or poor economic times have significantly lower lifetime earnings as opposed to those that enter into the market when things are good. It even accounted for the fact that these people may miss a year or two of earnings when starting out. It makes sense when you think about it. Imagine if the economy, say, two years from now is growing at healthy pace and the job market is good. Who are the job applicants that will be the most attractive? New college graduates and those that have had good jobs (i.e. laterals, and you're more likely to be good lateral if you graduated from college prior to 2007) will be in good positions. It's the people that graduated in 2009 and either couldn't find a job or have been underemployed that will continue to be at a disadvantage. We're going on five years now with kids that have gotten out college with bleak job prospects.

[Indy Coug]

Nice of them to point out that the 1.35 children per woman is "well below the replacement rate." Otherwise I would have been uncertain about that. What is the replacement birth rate hanging out at these days? 1.67?

Replacement rate is north of 2.00

[RobinFinderson]

Replacement rate is north of 2.00

Right, but I think Chopperdave was trying to say that Japanese people tend to be a little smaller than Americans, so maybe their replacement rate is less than it is in America.

[Indy Coug]

Right, but I think Chopperdave was trying to say that Japanese people tend to be a little smaller than Americans, so maybe their replacement rate is less than it is in America.

Well, if they can skew their male/female population ratio and then allow polygamy, they could get by with a sub-2.00 replacement rate.

[BigPiney]

Crazy.

They do have some crazy fetishes over there.

[edward777]

Yeah, that's a ridiculous projection, but they are clearly below the replacement rate, which will cause a decrease in their total population. This is an issue in many countries now, including the US, China and many countries in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...0/apr/10040802

http://www.econ.psu.edu/~dshapiro/463iiib.htm

He who breeds, leads. Those cultures not having enough kids will simply perish. I believe nations in Western Europe are pretty much a lost cause but there seems to be a steady rise in births in Russia and some Eastern European nations.