|
0 members (),
6
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,541
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151 Likes: 54 |
Regarding: Japan: Japan is fast becoming the world’s oldest ever human population (by 2025, 27.3%, or 33.2 million people, will be aged over 60) (Cornelius, 1994: 378). Coupled with the aforementioned low birth rate, the problems Japan faces in the immediate future are acute. With Japan’s labour force expected to decrease by 10% in the next 25 years, the economic outlook is far from bright. In all likelihood the domestic market will shrink, production will fall3, the government’s revenue base will contract inexorably and it will struggle to meet welfare and medical payments for an increasing number of elderly as the dependency ratio (the number of workers supporting the elderly) will shift dramatically. In 1950 one elderly person was supported by 12 members of the working population, by 1990 it was 5.5 workers, and by 2020 it is estimated to be 2.3 workers. Naturally the government is concerned... This is from a very interesting paper. Although the government is acting to increase the birth rate, it's not working very well; the same paper states that Japan’s population will, undoubtedly, faithfully follow the predicted downward slide given the government’s lack of decisive action on either of the two possible options briefly examined in this paper. The former (that of effecting policies aimed at increasing the birth-rate) seems the most probable possibility, yet this alone will not be enough. There are also, arguably, numerous benefits to be gained by a nation through the latter of the options mentioned (increased movement of people by immigration), however, this requires debate and changes that society has probably not been prepared for yet. I would note two things: a) Japan's declining birth rate is the result of choice, not the result of state mandates, and b) it's rapidly becoming a problem for the nation.
Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,026
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,026 |
The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 so the US has a rate that will just maintain the population not grow it. I understand that the currant rate will keep the population constant, but given the limited resources in the future, we need to cut our population. Don't forget the .1 in the 2.1 of fertility for the U.S. - that .1 adds up over time. I think that Japan is doing a good job at sensible population growth. Rick, I don't think you understand... The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 and US is at 2.1 which means that it just holds the population stable. The .1 accounts for death of people before they reach the age of having kids or the death of people like you, that for one reason or another do not reproduce. I myself think that the world is getting overpopulated but you can't decree population in a way that respects individual choice. What kind of life is it anyway if you don't have the freedom of choice?
A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials. ~Chinese Proverb
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~Jon Hammond
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
OP
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
I myself think that the world is getting overpopulated but you can't decree population in a way that respects individual choice. What kind of life is it anyway if you don't have the freedom of choice? I agree with you. I proposed several pages ago to tie tax break incentives to the number of children that couples produce. In my example, a deduction for the first child only. Couples still have the freedom to have children.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
OP
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
I would note two things: a) Japan's declining birth rate is the result of choice, not the result of state mandates, and b) it's rapidly becoming a problem for the nation. This is a good thing. I think that "incentives" via tax breaks can also help people "make choices" as well.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,245 Likes: 33
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,245 Likes: 33 |
The U.S.'s fertility rate is too high, IMHO. That term has always bothered me. It’s usually not a question of how fertile the greenhouse is, but rather whether the seed is planted or not. A better term IMO would be the willingness quotient. Then of course we have the sticky issue of whether the crops should be thinned before maturity or not.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,026
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,026 |
I myself think that the world is getting overpopulated but you can't decree population in a way that respects individual choice. What kind of life is it anyway if you don't have the freedom of choice? I agree with you. I proposed several pages ago to tie tax break incentives to the number of children that couples produce. In my example, a deduction for the first child only. Couples still have the freedom to have children. Do you actually think that a $4,500 deduction on taxes will really curb people from having kids? I understand you're gay and do not wish to reproduce but tax break is the last thing on my mind when thinking about having kids. And that tax break, let's assume you are in the 28% bracket... you saved $1,260 on your tax bill... that will really make people stop having babies :sarcasm:
A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials. ~Chinese Proverb
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~Jon Hammond
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
OP
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
Do you actually think that a $4,500 deduction on taxes will really curb people from having kids? I understand you're gay and do not wish to reproduce but tax break is the last thing on my mind when thinking about having kids.
And that tax break, let's assume you are in the 28% bracket... you saved $1,260 on your tax bill... that will really make people stop having babies :sarcasm: How about adding that the State Education only pays for one kid - and the parents foot the education bill for the rest of the kids. Will that help "curb" the choice?
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,026
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,026 |
Do you actually think that a $4,500 deduction on taxes will really curb people from having kids? I understand you're gay and do not wish to reproduce but tax break is the last thing on my mind when thinking about having kids.
And that tax break, let's assume you are in the 28% bracket... you saved $1,260 on your tax bill... that will really make people stop having babies :sarcasm: How about adding that the State Education only pays for one kid - and the parents foot the education bill for the rest of the kids. Will that help "curb" the choice? So now you think having a dumber population that it actually already is could be the answer. As a tax paying citizen I would be offended if such a bill would even be brought up. I don't pay taxes for wars on 'terror' but if some money goes towards that it better go towards education as well.
A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials. ~Chinese Proverb
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~Jon Hammond
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
OP
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
What suggestions do you have Kap17 to "curb" population growth?
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
How about adding that the State Education only pays for one kid - and the parents foot the education bill for the rest of the kids.
Will that help "curb" the choice? Doubtful, rick. And what sense does it make to punish the child for the perceived sins of the parent(s)? Once the child is born it is by far and away in the best interests of society as a whole to see to it that the child is well-fed, healthy, and well-educated. Part of that education, I would suggest, should include health education and sex education, so that a larger proportion of those children will grow up understanding the values of a healthy lifestyle and less progeny. That, IMHO, is the best way to reduce the overuse of resources.
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
