
Without Babies, Can Japan Survive? - llambda
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/without-babies-can-japan-survive.html?ref=opinion
======
RyanZAG
Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The
reason for Japan's declining birth rate:

"Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to
have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s
prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made
Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty
has led couples to delay getting married and having children. The shortage of
public day care centers, especially in cities, has made the cost and burden of
parenthood so high that today’s couples either have fewer babies or none at
all. (Japan’s birthrate is just 1.39 children per woman.)"

What happens when the population shrinks as a result of this? All of these
problems magically right themselves.

Shortage of public day care centers? Solved with lower population.

Stagnant or declining incomes? Solved with a lower population, as each person
can command a greater share of the economy (in aggregate) from simple
supply/demand of labor.

This is just a pendulum swinging back into equilibrium that will eventually be
felt across the globe - and while worse for Japan's Gross GDP, it will improve
Japan's GDP per Capita, the only truly important 'country level' measure for
actual citizens.

~~~
philwelch
GDP per capita doesn't go up when population goes down, because there are
fewer people working to produce goods and services. There's no economy genie
producing wealth that has to be divided among the population.

~~~
RyanZAG
A large portion of country wealth is often tied up in land and infrastructure.
Wealth generally creates more wealth (through interest and similar), so the
same wealth spread across a smaller number of people will push GDP per capita
upwards.

Higher incomes are also closely associated with better education. If you keep
the number of universities and schools constant while decreasing the
population, you give a larger percentage of the population access to better
education.

If a family has two children, the wealth of the family must be divided between
both children and each child has less individual wealth. As you need wealth to
start a business, a higher base wealth across the population means more chance
of new successful businesses being started by these children.

If a family has no children, the estate will move into public control,
effectively increasing GDP per capita for the surviving population.

A reason for a low birthrate in Japan is lack of financial security. This
means that people who have low wealth are self-selecting out of reproduction,
effectively moving their wealth into public ownership when they pass away and
moving the average up as the proportion of low wealth to high wealth families
is shifted.

So yes, practically, GDP per capita will go up in Japan as the population
shrinks. The global economy is more complex than just 'producing shiny
widgets', or China would be far more well off than it is. Capitalism in
action.

EDIT: As pointed out by others correctly, increased welfare burdens from too
large a proportion of retired citizens will have an effect. This can swing two
ways: increased taxes, or reduced welfare payments.

If reduced welfare payments is chosen, it will cancel out the problem. Japan
will hopefully choose this route out of self preservation.

If increased taxes is chosen, it will effectively tunnel income into the
housing sector (old age homes, etc) and medical sector (medicine, life
support, etc). The housing sector increase will be offset by a smaller housing
demand from lower population. The medical sector is the big issue: if this
wealth can be tunneled into Japanese medicine and health care, then it will
simply be a transfer from taxpayers to Japanese in the medical sector. This
would probably cause all kinds of distortions and should be avoided. However,
it's not guaranteed to be a bad thing, I think anyway. You'll just have more
Japanese going to medical school.

~~~
philwelch
There's no interest genie either. If no one can invest and earn returns on
borrowed money, there's nothing to sustain interest.

Inherited wealth isn't enough to sustain anyone but the rich. GDP only
measures new wealth anyway, not preexisting wealth. You have to continue
producing goods and services. In fact, most forms of accumulated wealth
(currency, securities, real estate) are really just shares of these goods and
services as they're produced, but you need at least some actual labor for that
to work.

If you selectively culled unproductive people, per capita GDP would go up.
It's not clear that low birth rates accomplish this.

~~~
RyanZAG
I guess I wasn't clear enough. Lets break down the working population into
categories:

    
    
      [unique skills - ceos, etc]
      X people
      [highly demanded skills - top class engineers, specialty surgeons, etc]
      Y people
      [regular required jobs - doctors, pharmacists, designers,   etc]
      Z people
      [unskilled jobs]
      A people
      [unemployed]
    

As the population decreases, the demand for each of the sets should decrease
in proportion if per capita GDP would remain the same (ignoring wealth
effects). However, this isn't the case. If Sony needs 10,000 engineers to
create their phones for export to USA, they will still need 10,000 engineers
regardless of decreasing population. In addition, a medical school that takes
50 students per year will continue to take 50 students per year even if
populations fall, as the number of applicants is far in excess of 50.

This is just a few examples, but you could easily find far more. The root
cause of this is the existing wealth of the country will enable more people to
succeed as the population decreases. A further indication of this effect is
that GDP per capita is strongly related to wealth.

~~~
philwelch
There actually are limits to physicians per capita. You wouldn't have a
functioning economy where everyone was a physician. If the population drops by
10%, demand for physicians drops as well.

For engineers it's a supply side issue--we could productively employ many more
engineers than we do, but it would take immense breakthroughs to have a
population where everyone could be an engineer. That's what I meant when I
said you'd have to selectively cull the unproductive. If you reduce the
population, the remaining workers have to be more productive for per capita
GDP to rise, and you still haven't shown that this would happen. It doesn't
help if you only need 10,000 engineers when you can only produce 0.01
engineers per capita. You'd need this proportion to rise. How does lowering
birth rates do this?

In other words--sure, you could probably have a very per-capita rich Galt's
Gulch with only 1000 people. But reducing the population arbitrarily to 1000
people will not accomplish this.

------
ajross
This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP)
with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a
clear lie designed to draw clicks.

Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are
heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than
China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of
disaster being posited. It means, broadly, that for a generation or so society
will be burdened by a disproportionately large elderly population, and caring
for them will require resources that we'd prefer to spend on other things. But
eventually things will return to a steady state, just with fewer people. We'll
manage.

~~~
eriksank
Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains
the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One
child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no
problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.

~~~
tomjen3
Virtually impossible?

Hardly. One generation where the average is 10 children per woman will boost
the economy and permanently change the demographics; it may sound completely
unrealistic, but it was the norm only a few generations ago.

And no, it didn't end when a lot of the children stopped dying in childbirth,
as my grandfather had something like 8 brothers, and all of them made it into
adulthood just fine.

~~~
greenyoda
It's biologically possible, but not economically possible. What would convince
a couple who don't think they could afford to raise even a single child today
suddenly decide that they could afford to raise ten children?

------
btilly
These demographic trends are, unfortunately, only temporary.

From the point of view of evolution, birth control is a disaster. I have done
exactly the activity evolution has programmed me to do to continue the
species, regularly, for over 20 years. Only twice did it result in children,
and both times were conscious choices on my part.

However evolution knows how to face these disasters. There is a small minority
of people who have the option of birth control, who have all of the same
economic incentives that I do, yet choose to have lots of children. Their
children are less likely to want to use birth control than mine. Thanks to
exponential growth, that minority that chooses to have children regardless
will become a majority. And after that point, voluntary birth control and
economic incentives will not suffice to keep the population from growing.

This is literally evolution in action.

~~~
zeteo
You said it, brother (sister?). In each country there are subcultures
(religious fundamentalists, usually) that have birth rates well above
replacement. Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in
recent decades but, with the kind of uninspiring, plasticky productions
currently streaming out of Hollywood / big label music, that process is about
to change. Let's just say, your radio is likely to play a lot more Christian
rock in your old age.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It isn't just religious fundamentalists - it's also people with low
conscientiousness. They have no moral aversion to birth control, they just
don't think too hard about the consequences of unprotected sex (it feels
nicer, and condoms are at the drugstore three blocks away).

And while Mormon's rapid breeding might prevent demographic malaise, the rapid
breeding of low conscientiousness people won't - the very trait that causes
them to breed rapidly also causes them to be generally unproductive.

~~~
sridhar_vembu
I have to call bullshit on this one. Most of us here, supposedly
"conscientious" people, can trace our being here (in the existential sense of
"being") to some ancestor with "low consciousness".

Birthrates are falling rapidly around the world, yes, including in places you
may think are populated with "low conscious" people. The reason is very
prosaic: urbanization. As people get crammed into smaller areas, they
naturally start to reproduce less.

It goes back to the fundamental human urge to take care of our offspring: an
overcrowded city is also a highly competitive city (Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York
etc illustrate this best) so people who live in that environment that don't
want to bring more offspring into the world.

Even in a country like India, the population growth is almost all rural. The
birth rate of city-natives in big cities has dropped well below replacement
level, and cities are gaining population because of immigration and within one
generation those rural-turned-city-dwellers have low birth rate.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Both zeteo and myself are discussing differential birthrates between
populations.

If population A (e.g. mormons, people of low conscientiousness) has a
birthrate of X, and B (everyone else) has a birthrate of Y, with X > Y, then
population A will eventually become the entire population. The eventual
birthrate will be X.

Even if both birthrates are reduced by some exogenous factor K (e.g.
urbanization, reducing from X -> K x X, Y -> K x Y), this fact doesn't change.

~~~
btilly
Both of you are missing something important. A population with a high
birthrate will only achieve that dominance if the children remain in that
population. A variety of religious communities have been able to maintain high
birth rates, but do not retain all of their children, and their children
therefore do not maintain birth rate.

One way to think of this is that, instead of the physical birth rate of people
with the trait, what is the rate with which the trait manages to reproduce
itself? A trait of "being Mormon" with an average of 6 kids, of whom 2 become
Mormon, leads to a Mormon population of stable size, forever having 6 kids per
couple.

If the Mormons manage an average of 2.5 Mormon kids per couple, then their
population will grow without bound, though they may never be an actual
majority of the population. However history shows that culture is malleable.
They may grow that fast now, but a rapid social change can destroy the
dynamic. (Witness Italy and Ireland, both strongly Catholic, with declining
populations.)

Now contrast this with, say, a genetic trait that manifests as a strong desire
to actually have children. Eventually you get a population of people who
really want children, most of whose children really want children. This type
of fundamental desire is more stable than a social construct.

I believe that there are such traits out there in the population. They are
much more strongly favored today than in the past. Eventually those traits,
whatever they are, will become more widespread, and evolution will have
happened.

~~~
disgruntledphd2
I agree with your major point, but Ireland has a growing population in terms
of birth rate. The only reason the overall population isn't growing is because
of emigration between the ages of 18-25. The birth rate did go down during the
boom, but its gone right back up to late 1970's levels during this current
recession.

For some bizarre reason, Irish people love having babies.

Full disclosure: I am a childless Irish male in my older 30's, I know many
people I grew up who have had kids since the economy went into the crapper.

~~~
btilly
Thank you for correcting me on that data point.

I personally suspect that the long oppression of the Catholic Church under
English rule lead to a cementing of how important it is to the Irish people. I
further suspect that, in time, Ireland will become as secular as other
countries. But that time is not yet here.

------
Retric
The problem with extrapolating like this is it's assuming many things are
constant like birth rate which are not necessarily the case.

If you compare the birth and death rates they have only recently crossed,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_195...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_1950.svg)
which means the value of land is increasing as more people compete for the
same resources.

For example, as the population starts to decline housing will become cheaper
which will reduce commuting times and debt. Which will make it much easier to
start a family and should increase the birth rate. It also dramatically
reduces the need for new infrastructure.

------
seunosewa
I think immigration is the best solution. There's no shortage of babies and
young people in the world. The article notes that liberal immigration policies
are not popular. Well, maybe that's the problem. I suspect that immigration
will gain popularity when the problems caused by the ageing population become
sufficiently severe. The problem will solve itself at the right time.

~~~
captaintacos
Immigration "would be" the best solution but we are talking about Japan in
here. Not an "immigrant friendly" country like Canada, Australia or the US.
Simply put... Japan is "allergic" to foreigners.

Surprisingly the process to get a work/student visa in Japan is much more
easier than in Australia or the US (I've applied to one or another in all
these countries and it's such a breeze to do in Japan).

Despite that, immigration remains low. For the foreigners here, last time I
checked it was basically composed of about 80% of foreigners from China, 15%
from Korea and the remaining 5% from the rest of the world.

I suppose the difficulty of the language and geographic location has something
to do. Racism as known in the West is rare, but the truth is, Japan has
consistently failed to assimilate any foreign population and it is really
difficult to explain how it is like. I guess it's definitely more like a
Canadian "cultural mosaic" more than an American "melting pot". But the
cultural mosaic has some sense of equilibrium. For the case of Japan it would
look more like "patching the kimono with pieces of fabrics of different
patterns".

The thing is, under the hood, legally speaking, Japan is very open and
welcoming to foreigners, but it fails to keep them in or assimilate them.

~~~
kfk
Hi, when you say "open", you mean also for workers? Do you have any potential
advice for somebody looking for a job over there?

~~~
captaintacos
Yes, quite open for -skilled- workers and even more open to students. I
emphasize the "skilled" part because trust me, you don't want to come all the
way here to engage in low-skilled labor. Highly skilled work is already too
life-consuming enough. However I don't know how the construction sector would
be, it is the equivalent of the American military industry (i.e. that's where
they will throw ridiculous amounts of money whenever they want to "stimulate
the economy") and with the LDP winning the elections yesterday the pouring of
concrete all over Japan will go back to usual.

If it is skilled work, I recall any undergraduate degree overseas plus a job
offer are the main requirements you need to get a work visa. Yes, no need to
wait for a space to open as is the case with the H1 visa in the US. And I
think this year the process got even easier.

To get a contract, well, if you can speak Japanese then you are halfway there.
If you can't, I can suggest:

1\. The companies that seem to be hungry for IT/software engineers (judging
from the amount of spam I get from recruiters), may take your from whenever
you are, and where probably Japanese language skills are not important are:
GREE, Rakuten, Amazon Japan. I think you can apply to those through their
websites.

2\. Message me so I give you a list of recruiting companies that seem to
specialize in foreigners in Japan.

3\. Some people recommend checking out www.gaijinpot.com from time to time.

------
greggman
I watched a Japanese program where the government claimed in the year 3000 the
population of Japan would be ....

7 people.

Obviously I don't think it would actually get there but that is the current
rate if nothing else changes (or rate at the time the program was aired)

The segment ended with a tongue in cheek admonition to make a baby tonight for
Japan :)

------
squonk
How much of Japan's population syndrome is directly assignable to Japan's
unique policies, versus the nature of first world countries in general?

Japan's population has been essentially flat for the last 6 years: 127,773,000
in 2005, 127,817,000 in 2011. It is headed south as long as the birth rate
remains so low. So no question that the rest of the world needs to understand
the effects of negative population growth. A decreasing population will test
many economic policies that relied on monotonically increasing population to
be effective. I doubt we can predict all of the policies that will break.

------
watt
Japan is overpopulated as it is. I fail to see anything wrong with population
levels dropping, to some lower, sustainable levels.

The low birthrate is caused by overpopulation: there's too little resources to
give to babies, so it's impossible to have children. I would actually say,
there's so little to go around, people can't form families (get a partner, be
a couple - maybe because the courting ritual is too elaborate now), so less
people are even able to have a go at having a child.

------
mattmaroon
I believe the article is incorrect about one thing. Japan has a formal army.
It's constitution forbids it from declaring war, but it still has quite a
large military for self defense. Though, like about half the article, that is
apropos of nothing.

------
known
Japanese society strictly follows
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups>

------
guard-of-terra
I've modelled a society with 1.0 birth rate and everyone died. And it's not
like died in a million years; no, the last "person" was born something like
150 years from the start.

Having said that, why would anyone live in the remote countryside? In a rural
town? We can't bring modern standards of entertainment and culture to the
countryside. Museums, clubs with modern live music, theatres, circuses - you
can't have that and that's what make you a modern person.

I guess most people will be living in fifty kilometer radius from a million
plus population hub. That's what we should have.

~~~
tomjen3
Please don't make the mistake of assuming that any kind of growth is constant
-- people respond to incentives and if the price of having a child goes up,
people naturally respond by having fewer children. And yes, the price of child
is the highest it has even been.

Just to satisfy my curiousity, how many people were in your society to begin
with? At what age did they reproduce? Was the reproduction constant or did it
change between couples?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Of course society can heal, 'm just saying it's possible to get a badly
incentivized society to crash itself and it won't be easy to fix the setup
given the negative momentum.

10000\. They reproduced between 25 and 35. You could tune the birth rate but
it was constant for the simulation. People lived for 80 years. This kind of
setup gave you a temporary boost and then a surprisingly hard landing.

------
Nux
It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global
population is growing uncontrollably.

~~~
AndrewDucker
Except the global population isn't growing uncontrollably.

The USA has a birth rate just barely above replenishment (and dropping),
Europe has dropped below replenishment rate, etc.

Some pretty graphs here: <http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html>

------
lucian303
This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is
showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less
babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful
to the entire human population.

~~~
altcognito
No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach
replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the
number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a
happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable
long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to
return to replacement levels of child bearing, I don't see any evidence or
reason that it would just yet.

~~~
hudibras
At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by
2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but
with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most
people would like that.

Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who
wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40%
fewer people using it? Sounds pretty good to me.

~~~
kklimonda
It's not about the number of people, but the age distribution. In 2100 half of
the Japanese may be over 65 years old, and it definitely wasn't the case in
1920.

~~~
hudibras
The per-capita productivity growth rate in Japan the last twenty years has
been around 1%/year (down from the 4-5% of the 1970-1990 era). At that rate,
the average worker in Japan will be 2.4 times as productive in 2100 than
today.

In the long run, productivity growth and technological changes will dwarf
demographics. I'm not talking huge Mr. Fusion-style breakthroughs, just small
improvements that we all see every day. The Radio Shack catalog from 1982 that
was posted here a few days ago is a great example. The improvements since then
happened so gradually that we don't even notice them until we look back 30
years.

