Japan's population to shrink by one-third by 2060

rednev

Japan Population To Shrink By One-third By 2060 | Fox News

That's quite incredible, really. For decades Japan has been the world's second biggest economic power, but by 2060, after already having been leapfrogged by China, it could well be overtaken by India, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and the UK (which will be the biggest economy in Europe by then), in terms of overall GDP. And, in terms of per capita GDP, they will stand very little chance of keeping up with most of the other advanced Western economies. It just goes to show the importance of good population control.

The solution is obvious, but despite the grim realities of the decline of their workforce, the country is still extremely stubborn when it comes to immigration. Race is that big of an issue in Japan.

Plechazunga

Bukkake has a lot to answer for

Sir Matt

Maybe if they didn't watch so much weird porn they'd be able to reproduce. Instead, lots of men go to hookers because they don't want to bother their wives with it.

Meh, if they decline quickly enough, it could save whale and tuna populations since they seem completely incapable of moderation or reason with regards to fishing.

philipb231190

adexkola

Is it that hard to immigrate to Japan?

at Plech

rcoobc

I'm not sure its been a economical power "for decades" although close enough I guess.

I've started many threads, and upset many people on this before, but Japan faces many many social problems and simply are not the utopia that Western disenchanted teenagers would have you believe.

rednev

Yes. Immigration policy is very tight. There hasn't even been a debate on the matter until very recently, despite the prospect of population decline having been obvious for some time. Current policy focuses mainly on short-term skills shortages, and because there are limits on the number of foreign residents in Japan who can receive citizenship each year, foreign workers are largely treated as temporary workers rather than potential new additions to the future Japanese population.

rednev

Until 2010, Japan was the world's second biggest economy all the way throughout the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 00s. During the 80s and 90s it was miles ahead of its nearest challenger for second place.

crappycraperson

Japanese are very protective about their culture, norms etc. Even more conservative and rigid about it than many other Asian countries which get coverage in the west. And that mainly IMO is the reason for tight immigration policy there. As it is there have been some cases of legal conflict in Japan concerning marriage dispute between a Japanese and non-Japanese. It is a fact if a sizable non-Japanese minority develops there, they will have to bring about some change in local and personal laws for their benefit.

rcoobc

According to wikipedia you are correct. I assumed the 90's slowdown effected their position but apparently not.

Sir Matt

When their population starts to disappear they'll be left with egg* on their face...

And by egg I mean cum.

Saliph

Rams

So, what is the immigration policy in Japan?

x42bn6

Brutality.

Leg-End

Average life expectancy's of 86-90 though thats pretty damn interesting.

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Considering historical references, is a country falling from economic grace really 'incredible'?

Does an economy need to be big for the standard of living to be high and the population to be happy?

Surely the problem will be a dwindling work force and as a result a dwindling tax income, and in turn the mass of OAP's draining the said tax fund.

rednev

On the one hand, we have Japan facing an enormous crisis due to a falling population, and on the other we have a number of countries elsewhere in Asia facing serious problems due to increasing overpopulation....and yet it doesn't click.

If aliens are looking down on us they will think we're utterly thick.

Jimy_Hills_Chin

I do find it incredible that there isn't even any serious popular debate about how to deal with the over population problem that we are surely going to face in the medium term future.

rednev

What's incredible to me is that they've allowed themselves to be in this situation without taking action.

The inevitable fall in relative per-capita GDP and social security issues are obviously much more worrying for everyday Japanese people than their future reduced status as an economic power, but it does have some implications. Powerful countries have an advantage when it comes to issues around things like trade negotiation, currency reserves etc. Japan's status as East Asia's sole economic power, prior to China's rise, gave the country enormous benefits.

rednev

Unfortunately waiting until we're at the cusp is the traditional human way.

Jimy_Hills_Chin

Like what and who benefits, the people at the top?

Am I correct in thinking that Scandinavia has the highest standard of living and citizen well-being in world, that they have managed that without anything like the global clout of an America or Japan?

Does being an economic super power really benefit the average citizen? Obviously a degree of economic prosperity is crucial to standard of living but do you really need to be able to bully all the other smaller countries to be prosperous as a nation?

711

As an act of supreme sacrifice, and with the greatest reluctance, out of altruism only, I am willing to impregnate any Japanese girls of prime child-bearing age (under 25 would be about right).

I am even willing to shave my pubes if necessary, as I understand this goes down very well in Japan.

peterstorey

Duh, how to ruin a pretty good joke.

snootyjim

sglowrider

Simple lower population growth explanation:

Smaller penises = harder slog for their weak sperm to reach thy scared grounds.

rcoobc

Absolute cunt of a country.

Team Brian GB

People have been saying that since Thomas Malthus came up with his main population theory in 1798 - as long as we have the ability to innovate, invent and engineer our way out of difficulties then there will be no such problems.

Team Brian GB

Scandinavia exists in the world order created by Great Britain and the United States - a world built on cordial relations, free trade, globalising markets, freedom of the seas and international stability. Scandinavia is at the mercy of that world order though it just so happens it allows them to thrive.

rcoobc

You do worry me. The fact that many countries export food to the developed world, and yet those very countries cant feed their own people should tell you something.

It will only get worse

Team Brian GB

The fact that the world has a population that has just surpassed seven billion and is increasing by one billion less than every fifteen years should tell you that your fact is irrelevant.

If the world could not cope with it then quite simply annual population growth would not be substantial.

As I said, the world's foremost theory on population was written in England before the industrial revolution reached critical mass, when this country was still agrarian and therefore population growth diminished wealth on a per capita basis. However the world we inhabit since the industrial revolution got underway is one where we can solve any crisis as long as we are dedicated enough to it - if we don't have enough clean water we can pump it in from the sea and clean it, if we don't have enough food we can create more effective fertilisation techniques thus increasing crop yields.

As long as we are capable of such then population growth can, and will, continue to be a fact of life.

Team Brian GB

Another part of his theory, so called 'Malthusian catastrophies' are redundant as well saying that population growth would be kept in check by disease and strife - he didn't count on a future where we could invent a cure to counteract any pandemic that may arise and in the meantime eliminate any risk factors.

The world population will reach ten billion and the world as a whole will be well.

rcoobc

If I said to you: "Does it matter from the UK's perspective if they import food from countries that cannot feed their own people" I imagine you would say that it's not the UK's problem.

The bottom layer of the pyramid is growing by number and percentage. Whilst an increased number of people may live in luxury, an even greater number of people will live in extreme poverty either to support them or as a direct consequence of those actions.

Does it matter if those people are in that situation whilst the 1st world has unparalleled luxury, or is it only our responsibility if its a consequence or is it even then? Many say no, and will bring out good old fashioned theories and theology to support those claims. But all that is noise.

Will the human population keep expanding? Of course it will. Doesn't make it right.

Team Brian GB

It is the responsibility of the third world to bring up their own living standards, not ours.

If Africa didn't spend the last fifty years fighting itself, pursuing vendettas and launching coups and civil wars it would be wealthier than it is. In Sub-Saharan Africa there is one country notable for maintaining stability, tranquility and good governance since gaining independence and that is Botswana. It is no coincidence that it's GDP per capita is ten times greater than the sub-saharan average.

cinc

Imagine how much greater their GDP would be if the fist world didnt build their whole empire on the resources of the third world.

Team Brian GB

Imagine how much poorer they would be if we didn't buy their resources, meaning they would have little access to western markets as there would be no reason to trade their currencies.

Africa likes to blame its problems on everybody else but itself when it is they who are the problem - fifty years ago there was little difference in wealth between Africa, South America and Asia yet the latter two have raised themselves, especially so in the latter case. Africa alternatively has still not grasped that economic growth requires prolonged stability and responsible government, the countries that have provided that in Africa are much wealthier than those which haven't.

cinc

Its convinient to limit the discussion to 50 years when the colonization of the now-third world started centuries ago. The western markets wouldnt be so big if the first world didnt rob everyone else in sight blind.

Team Brian GB

You can limit the discussion to fifty years ago because in that time span countries have risen from poverty to prosperity across the world, South Korea being a good example.

You can say the same about Hungary who alongside Austria took over half of Eastern Europe and providing the catalyst for the First World War in the process - if you are looking for screw-ups for history that is certainly amongst the biggest.

With regard to colonisation there is a huge difference between the practice of different countries - whereas the likes of Belgium and Portugal ran limited empires in the most brutal fashion possible, the United Kingdom focused upon economic development and it is no coincidence that former British possessions are far wealthier than their counterparts across the globe. You can count wealthy former French and Dutch possessions on one hand who also went down the evangelical route.

cinc

First of all Hungary wasnt a sovereign country between 1526 and 1920. Its ironic when a british man criticizes any other country of screwing up other parts of the world.

The fact of the matter is that if the first world gave back everything they've stolen from the third world (natural and human resources, trading positions), the third would be the first and vice versa.

I dont want to induce a guilt trip, but the way you're blind to the responsibility the first world (including Hungary) for the suffering of the third is mindblowing to me.

Team Brian GB

What utter rubbish, that is why the third world was so wealthy and endowed at the beginning of the 18th century was it?

The third world's problems are their own, it is their own corruption, their civil wars and their coups and counter coups that are the cause of their poverty. Africans were very quick to get the west out of Africa in the fifties and sixties yet they are not so quick to take responsibility for their livelihoods since then. As I said previously, third countries in the sixties that ran themselves in a responsible manner are now far wealthier than those who didn't - Botswana is one example, South Korea is another, Singapore is another, Saudi Arabia is another, Ireland is another. They are all countries that only two generations ago were impoverished that are no longer.

You only have to look at the likes of Angola - it spent twenty five years or so fighting a civil war up until the early 2000s, it was one of the poorest countries in the world as a consequence but now peace has returned it has sustained over the last decade the strongest growth rate in Africa.

Throwing around baseless assertions is a waste of your time and mine, as the evidence does not support it whatsoever.

Team Brian GB

And the world is better for the Pax Britannica than it would have been without it as the United Kingdom did more to create the world order we see today than any other country.

We were the leading advocate of the rule of law and liberty in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries - we exported them to our dominions across the world and embedded them into the cultures of Canada, Australia and the United States amongst other countries. It was Britain's power in the early 19th century that prevented Napoleon from accessing the Americas and it was primarily Britain that defeated Germany in the First World War - it was our navy that blockaded their ports and it was our money that financed the western front - Britain outspent the commonwealth, France, Belgium and Italy combined in that war. This is without mentioning our contribution to the Second World War - without Britain's actions over that 250 year period we would not see the likes of international tranquility and democracy spread across the world today.

We were responsible for the basis of international trade, it was our navy that defended the world's shipping lanes and guaranteed the freedom of the seas. We were the biggest advocates of international trade in the 19th and early 20th centuries which is what got it going on a significant scale and we were responsible for the governing of those seas and trade and thus we kickstarted a little known idea as international law.

This is without going into what we did in individual countries under our domain - the dominions are all amongst the wealthiest and most responsible nations in the world, no other country has ever ran colonies in such a way where as a consequence 400 million people live in as much splender today in them as in the United Kingdom itself, you only have to look at the flagship colonies of the former French Empire to see that one for yourself.

With regard to the Empire it was run in as utilitarian a fashion as an empire can be, up until the 1860s most of the empire was run by trading companies until the British Government took them over as they were concerned with their wellbeing. As such the British state never built such an empire and just inherited it, when they did take it over the acceleration of responsibility to the dominions kicked in whilst Britain started looking at offloading the rest. At the zenith of the empire in its scope and scale in the twenties was when we self-induced the end of empire with the imperial conferences and later the Statute of Westminster which meant by 1945 we were already well on the way to ended it. Whilst the French, the Portuguese and the Dutch were fighting losing battles to keep their empires - see Vietnam, Angola and Algeria, Britain gave up whole swathes of Africa and the Indian sub-continent by signing a treaty and running a flag up a pole.

Though as alluded to, perhaps the greatest British achievement on the world stage was the shaping and crafting of the United States. We built colonies in North America that were so proud of British ideals of the day that they thought Britain wasn't doing a good job of working by them. As such we were instrumental in creating a superpower in our own image which is why the Pax Americana so seemlessly took over from the Pax Britannica - it essentially is just an extension of it.


Britain's history in the era is most certainly not black or white, it is extremely complex but one thing for certain is that the world is far better off as a consequence of the Pax Britannica than if it had been without it.