JAPAN tells workers to go home & have babies

[theaveng]

 

Japan's government is telling its workers to take holiday & go home & have babies. Why? Because the population is shrinking. Source: BBC World News.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Who cares that the Japan's population is shrinking (or Europe's for that matter)? There are already too many humans on this planet, thereby disrupting the natural ecology. A shrinking population is a GOOD thing for Japan, not a negative.

 

 

 

 

BTW, when I have a child, it will be just ONE. I don't care how much my wife begs/pleads. One is enough. Two=Stress/heart disease.

 

 

 

 

 

[quosego]

Well, unless you like the destruction of the world economy, I would not suggest shrinking the population of both europe and Japan... No kid's means no young people means no work is done and a lot of old people.... Say goodbye to your playstations, BMW's, XTC pills and some very good darts players (yes I'm reverring to the all dutch Lake side finals :)).

[Chiggy]

I've got my ticket and my suitcases are packed.

[maverick]

any government that says 'take a day off work and go home and have sex' is on mylist of possble countries to move to.

 

thing is, you might not make the magic first time and have to try a different girl every time. lots of days off. yay

[S0V13T]

Thats really surprising. Japan has always been the forerunner in automation / robotics technology, so if anything they would want less children, like theaveng said (yes you read that right, I'm agreeing with troy)

 

The way I see it, when a child born today enters the workforce, not only will they have to compete against other people, but they will have a lot fewer job options by then, becuase machines / robots / androids / cylons will be doing a conciterable percentage of the availible work.

 

Was that a paid or unpaid holiday?

[TetsuoShima]

This has been going on in Japan and Europe for at least 20 years, if you look at the population diagrams of these countries.

 

I've been tought that this is a direct result of the wealth of a nation, in combination with some other factors of course.

 

The problem lies in the fact that lees workers may not necessarily lead to lower production, with automation and all, but it would lead to smaller 'usefull' markets for consumer products. Everything would become a lot more expensive. This can be partially balanced by the upcoming of some Oriental countires like China, but the way things are now, they don't yet make enough money (the people) over there to be able to compete with Western countries where 'purchasing power' is concerned. Thsi may change in the future though...

 

hmm, now where did I put my crystal bal... I need to see the numbers of the lottery for this weekend... :)

[Mav]

This shows how vastly different Japan and China are. Obviously they are totally different countries with totally different cultures. However they do have their similarities in alot of things from food, clothes, and family.

 

You'd never see China tell people to take the day off and have sex. If anything they'd make you work on your day off and have a visectomy after the workday to help cut down on child birth. (aka quite sad what they do about more than two children over there).

[Foil]

Who cares that the Japan's population is shrinking (or Europe's for that matter)? There are already too many humans on this planet, thereby disrupting the natural ecology. A shrinking population is a GOOD thing for Japan, not a negative.

 

There are people who would vehemenently appose that viewpoint. They would say that the world doesn't have a population problem, rather a lifestyle problem:

 

To grow one cattle requires the pasture land that would feed many more people on alternate crops than one cattle could.

 

Public transportation is not used by enough people

 

Land clearing practices in Africa are inappropriate in the fact that people destroy food crops to create land for mining or other uses that generally creates a boom, some rich individuals, and then a worthless peice of land after the resource is depleated (all because the many people who lived off the land were told they could have so much more...like television).

Afterwords, all they have is poverty.

 

We are only starting to forest properly using selective practices which will in the long run leave healthy forests that can provide for generations to come.

 

Basically, only a change in mindset will help improve the ecology. A change in population will do absolutely nothing since the few who would take advantage of the available resources will still be here and the people who were the stewards of their respective ecologies will die out because the mindset is to control "the population boom" (read: control the birthrate in poor countries).

 

Economies require a threshold of people to run and you either import through immigrantion (which usually end up not being able to practice their trades due to bad politics/laws) or you have a steady birthrate and maintain a healthy population. However, in this case, a healthy economy is a sustainable economy that is directly tied to the ecology. Japan lacks this as well as people.

 

[wahaha]

You'd never see China tell people to take the day off and have sex.

You'll never hear them even TELL people about sex. Imagine having to tell your foreign gf. That's why they have a population problem. No knowlege on the subject and how to control it.

[S0V13T]

Yeah, China isn't exactelly known for their human rights / freedom of information.

[theaveng]

Who cares that the Japan's population is shrinking (or Europe's for that matter)? There are already too many humans on this planet' date=' thereby disrupting the natural ecology. A shrinking population is a GOOD thing for Japan, not a negative.[/quote']

There are people who would vehemenently appose that viewpoint. They would say that the world doesn't have a population problem, rather a lifestyle problem: To grow one cattle requires the pasture land that would feed many more people on alternate crops than one cattle could. Public transportation is not used by enough people. Land clearing practices in Africa are inappropriate ...

 

Everything you just said, supports the "we'd be better off with less humans" argument IMHO. Less humans = more open land = less competition for resources = less debate over how to use them. Ya know, nobody living in 1700 said, "We lack space". That's because there were fewer people & plenty to go around.

 

 

 

As for Japan, they fear a lack of young people means nobody to take care of the old people. Therefore they want more babies to suck money from the babies' wallets & give to the old people.

 

My suggestion: Make the old people work until they're 90 (or become physically disabled...whichever comes first). Who says that we are "entitled" to sit on our fat butts & do nothing at age 65 & live as Wards of the State???? I call that lazy. Let the old people support themselves & only take welfare/dole as a last resort.

 

troy

 

 

[TetsuoShima]

 

My suggestion: Make the old people work until they're 90 (or become physically disabled...whichever comes first). Who says that we are "entitled" to sit on our fat butts & do nothing at age 65 & live as Wards of the State???? I call that lazy. Let the old people support themselves & only take welfare/dole as a last resort.

 

troy

 

 

hehe, I wonder whether you'll still be saying that when you're 70... :)

 

I don't know about the rest of the world really, but in most of the EU people pay a certain percentage of 'tax' on their wages, this percentage is then used to pay the 'old people' a certain amount of money each month, depending on how much they contributed before they started receiving.

 

Now this system has been set up completely wrong of course: when it was first introduced, the people who were on the receiving end, never paid theis 'tax', since it didn't exists yet at the time they were working, but they did recieve money each month. As a result, the current working class is paying for their elders, and it is not the elders that once paid for themselves, since they too paid for their elders. Thsi presents the communities in the EU with the problem that when they don't have a large enough working class, they can't support thier elders, but these elders want to be paid, since they too helped support their elders....

 

Ah, politicians are all retarderd...

[theaveng]

Now this system has been set up completely wrong of course: when it was first introduced' date=' the people who were on the receiving end, never paid theis 'tax',[/quote']

In the U.S., nobody received their Retirement Handout until ~20 years later.... only people who paid the tax were able to collect it. (Typical American view- if you didn't pay in, you have no right to take out.)

 

But you missed the REAL flaw with that setup. It's a Ponzi pyramid & top-heavy with ~1 retiree for each worker. Every worker has to support, not just himself, but also another person!!! It's doomed to crumble under its own weight. (And that's why Japan's government is scared & demanding more babies.)

 

 

IMHO it makes more sense to set-up a system where people *support themselves* with mandatory savings account (i.e. you must put ~20% of your earnings into a retirement account) such that each workers has ~$1 million saved at age 70, and therefore don't need gov't help.

 

 

By the way, "retirement" never existed prior to 1900. People didn't retire... they continued working until the died. I see no reason why 2000-era society should be any different. My dad's 75-years-old & still working 20 hours a week. It keeps him active, let's him socialize with other people, and makes him feel useful instead of "just waiting for death".

 

 

[TetsuoShima]

Now this system has been set up completely wrong of course: when it was first introduced' date=' the people who were on the receiving end, never paid theis 'tax',[/quote']

In the U.S., nobody received their Retirement Handout until ~20 years later.... only people who paid the tax were able to collect it. (Typical American view- if you didn't pay in, you have no right to take out.)

 

But you missed the REAL flaw with that setup. It's a Ponzi pyramid & top-heavy with ~1 retiree for each worker. Every worker has to support, not just himself, but also another person!!! It's doomed to crumble under its own weight. (And that's why Japan's government is scared & demanding more babies.)

 

That's a much better system, for that part, of course, in the US, don't know about the specifics of the system there, but at least the basic setup is better.

 

What you call, the real flaw, is an obvious cause of those wrong starting conditions.

 

 

By the way' date=' "retirement" never existed prior to 1900. People didn't retire... they continued working until the died. I see no reason why 2000-era society should be any different. [b']My dad's 75-years-old & still working 20 hours a week. It keeps him active, let's him socialize with other people, and makes him feel useful instead of "just waiting for death".[/b]

 

 

When it was first introduced, the average lifespan was only about 70, so 5 years rest before you die wasn't too excessive. But now the avererage lifespan is 75+ and they're trying to lower the age where you can stop, my dad was allowed to stop working when he was 55. He now recieves a pension.

 

Corporations want young people to work for them, not old people, so they try to retire the older ones when the government allows it. These early retirements have one disadvantage. You're not allowed to work at all for profit untill you become 65, after that normal rules apply and you're allowed to work again without losing your pension.

 

Once you hit this age (65), you're officially retired and you can stop working alltogether, or you can continue to work if you like and if you can find a job or are skillfull enough to create your own job. If you get early retirement, you're not allowed to do any work before you hit 65.

[wahaha]

You're also forgetting that SSI gives benefit increases every year because of cost of living, but the wages people earn that pay into the system does NOT. So more money is going out than is coming in. That's why it's doomed to crash, unless we start raping bill gates wallet.

 

Japan wants more babies? Try adoping some Chinese. That'll confuse em heh.

 

 

[Foil]

Who cares that the Japan's population is shrinking (or Europe's for that matter)? There are already too many humans on this planet' date=' thereby disrupting the natural ecology. A shrinking population is a GOOD thing for Japan, not a negative.[/quote']

There are people who would vehemenently appose that viewpoint. They would say that the world doesn't have a population problem, rather a lifestyle problem: To grow one cattle requires the pasture land that would feed many more people on alternate crops than one cattle could. Public transportation is not used by enough people. Land clearing practices in Africa are inappropriate ...

 

Everything you just said, supports the "we'd be better off with less humans" argument IMHO. Less humans = more open land = less competition for resources = less debate over how to use them. Ya know, nobody living in 1700 said, "We lack space". That's because there were fewer people & plenty to go around.

 

I hate to get all debatey about this but the truth is that no one today says we lack space either unless it is politically motivated like Hitler's attack on Poland (Librestraum I think it was called...living space?).

 

Space isn't at issue...resources are. Its not the majority of the population that these resources are being used for...it's the first world countries. If people in the 1700s had the technological capacity to effect the earth at the scale we do today, they would have. The number of people driving cars today is only a small fraction of the worlds population. If we choose to use our technology to improve emmisions, we have that capacity as well. You have to admit that internal combustion engines are more efficient than coal burning engines of the past. London was a smog pit before improvements in technolgy and they had a much smaller population than today; there is still room for improvement. Controling third world country population (or first world for that matter) is not the answer. You are removing an essential part of their survival which we also relied on less than 200 years ago. Improving their capacity to create and use sustainable techs is. The reason 1st world countries are no longer growing in population is directly related to our lifestyle (career before babies these days) and a move from agro economies to economies based around technology. This is just a side effect but having more babies would not cause a degradation in our lives or the earths if we learned to treat it properly. It may take longer for the earth to go downhill with less people, but it is still going to happen.

 

I guess my point is after all that babbling is that Large / Small population, the end result is the same. Bad decisions: Earth going to hell in a handbasket

Good decisions: people and earth flourish (regardless of population).

The earth is much bigger than us still. It could support us well if we let it.

[meateater]

Well' date=' unless you like the destruction of the world economy, I would not suggest shrinking the population of both europe and Japan... No kid's means no young people means no work is done and a lot of old people.... Say goodbye to your playstations...[/quote']

*GASP* Well, while I agree with you there, a controlled reduction might be good. But after they ship the Playstation 3s to the US...

[MrEvil]

 

To grow one cattle requires the pasture land that would feed many more people on alternate crops than one cattle could.

 

 

 

I don't know if you came up with that conclusion yourself, or if you're reading some PETA piece of toilet paper. But you don't know how wrong you are. Technically its true, but fundamentally wrong.

 

My dad and I run a farm here in Texas, we don't own cattle but we often lease out pasture to people that do. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a soul in America going hungry because we're grazing cattle on arable land (don't get me wrong, there are people in America going hungry, but not because of livestock). In fact, it's quite the opposite. For the past two years the market price of wheat has been so low that my dad and I haven't bothered harvesting it. The low price is mainly due to the OVER-abundance of commodities such as wheat, corn, sorghum, soybeans, you name it. Instead of paying a harvesting bill that would be higher than the check we'd get from the wheat we've been leasing it out to cattle before it matures (still green) because we get ALOT more money with a fraction of the expenses (just have to keep the water tank full). Mind you also that a good portion of grazing land that cattle are on isn't suitable for anything else in the first place. Most livestock pasture is livestock pasture for good reason. The only reason we're so inefficiently using arable land is because what's being grown on that land isn't in high enough demand to make it good for anything else.

[Mav]

Well' date=' unless you like the destruction of the world economy, I would not suggest shrinking the population of both europe and Japan... No kid's means no young people means no work is done and a lot of old people.... Say goodbye to your playstations...[/quote']

*GASP* Well, while I agree with you there, a controlled reduction might be good. But after they ship the Playstation 3s to the US...

 

In all honesty there are too many people for too few jobs. I myself was trained in various forms of technical support for PC's, and alot of the software tech support is outsourced over seas. Same goes for Europe and other countries, so it's not just an American thing. Of course that's just one field of work, but when you add in all the other forms of day to day work, with the excess people of every nation, it's not hard to see how say, America has it's 6% unemployment rate. If you reduce population, you reduce those taking up jobs. Of course at the same time you are also slightly reducing demand for some jobs to be done in the first place. But then again you gotta spend money to make money, so losing a little to employ more sounds feasible.

[theaveng]

Well' date=' unless you like the destruction of the world economy, I would not suggest shrinking the population of both europe and Japan... No kid's means no young people means no work is done and a lot of old people.... Say goodbye to your playstations...[/quote'] *GASP* Well, while I agree with you there, a controlled reduction might be good.

I don't agree. After the Black Plague, workers became scarce. That was a GOOD thing, because it allowed those remaining workers to demand higher wages & weakened the rich elite's power.

 

 

IMHO anything that hurts the rich/powerful is a good thing. A shrinking population/scarcity of workers = higher demand for laborers = higher wages for the bottom/middle rungs of society.

 

A shrinking population would benefit US, the laborers, and is a good thing.