Japan -- Geriatric Society

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's no meaningful difference between a tax incentive or penalty scheme, and if it's economically sound I don't see why not to do it along with immigration.

Note, here I'm not arguing that it is economically sound (that involves the specific numbers involved and a far more detailed analysis than I'm competent to do), just that whether we should do it should be independent of allowing more immigration.

The first is not true; the number of people who do not pay tax - and even do not file taxes - is very significant and relevant to this discussion.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
What is the point of most of humanity living in squalor and disease and famine?

And people who are trying to become industrialized hurt the planet too.

JM

Your response to squalor, disease and famine is more people What is this, Bizarro logic?

[Jon Miller]

Where do we have squalor, disease, and famine? In the areas where people aren't very productive (due to lack of education and opportunities). If we had more people who were productive, they could provide for those who weren't.

Our current limitations aren't due to natural resources, but are rather due to population and infrastructure not being optimally utilized.

JM

[Garth Vader]

I am one of the people that don't believe we have unlimited resources. I think there is a chance that technology will continue to save the day, but I am not betting on it.

[Jon Miller]

Who was saying I beleive that we have unlimited resources? What I am saying is that life is miserable for a lot of people because we have don't have enough producers... (And infrastructure)

And if we are ever going to go beyond the resources on this planet, we will have to have more producers.

JM

[snoopy369]

Our only hope is to improve technology, and then to utilize technology to allow us to gain more resources. The main point of technology is to improve the usage of current resources, and to allow us to gain more resources...

Increasing the labor input would be a step backwards, not forwards. We're well past the point that (more labor) -> (more production) was a sustainable equation.

[Jon Miller]

technology is a product just like everything else

and having more scientists requires having more manufacturers as a base

I am not just including industrial workers as more producers, I am including everyone (Even service sector people) who make our society work

JM

[snoopy369]

I understand that fully

I'm asking, how does (+population) lead to (+net production), however you define production within realistic definitons thereof?

[Jon Miller]

I am not saying increased population elsewhere. I am saying increased population in countries which can train them (and in families where the parents are responsible) like in the US/Japan/Europe.

In those countries, increased population would directly correlate with inreased production since our limitations are not currently natural resources.

Additionally, this is ignoring the basic point. If the population is declining in these countries (growing old) than we are seeing a decrease of production... it isn't even staying constant. This is a very bad thing.

JM

[Heraclitus]

I'm really suprised JM has to explain something as basic as this.

[Aeson]

Simply breeding more isn't going to change distribution or efficiency.

We have the resources, and even production capacity, to provide for everyone on earth. (And to help other populations become more productive.) We (as a whole) chose not to do so for various reasons.

[Jon Miller]

So you disagree with the fact that if more people were born in Japan (and educated in their system) that the ratio of educated to noneducated would increase?

JM

[snoopy369]

How would the ratio of educated:noneducated INCREASE if more people were born?

Unless you're saying the worldwide ratio, which is meaningless. You could adjust that ratio for the better by nuking the Congo, but no sane person would suggest that.

It does not follow that (decreasing population in the US) -> (decreasing production). In fact it is provably not true; our GDP over time is not decreasing, and is in fact outpacing population growth. Technology makes human labor less valuable (or, more accurately, makes additional human labor less valuable; it actually makes current labor more valuable.) If we were at a point where we still needed to make more things than we're capable of, then sure, more human labor ; but we're not. We are making less than we used to, compared to our consumption; and manufacturing jobs are going away. Service industry and such cannot be considered here, because if you suggest that we should have more babies so to serve more people, you realize that either you create a huge servant class (bad) or you are creating more people to be served as well, which is not necessary. It's not bad, per se, but it's not good either; it just is.

[Ben Kenobi]

How would the ratio of educated:noneducated INCREASE if more people were born?

As you said, technology has become more important to people's lives. As human labour becomes more and more mechanised, then education become more important for innovation.

You need people to innovate. How can you build a chemistry lab if you don't have the infrastructure to establish one? If there are too few people, then you will be spending too much time doing things like growing food, so that you cannot spend your time in the lab. This is why as population increases this ratio should also increase, as it becomes more affordable to educate large swathes of the population.

It does not follow that (decreasing population in the US) -> (decreasing production).

Yes, it does. There are many commodities which are very inelastic in demand, and as population falls, we will start seeing less of a demand. Places like Japan is seeing drops in demand of food, in pretty much every single consumer good as their population shrinks. You don't think that will have a ripple effect on everyone else?

In fact it is provably not true; our GDP over time is not decreasing, and is in fact outpacing population growth.

For now, but eventually what will happen is that the population declines will start to hinder the innovation in technology. Technology can mitigate the effects of a smaller population to a certain extent, but over generations, you will begin to see the pace of technological innovations decline.

Technology makes human labor less valuable (or, more accurately, makes additional human labor less valuable; it actually makes current labor more valuable.) If we were at a point where we still needed to make more things than we're capable of, then sure, more human labor ; but we're not. We are making less than we used to, compared to our consumption; and manufacturing jobs are going away.

Yes, but this is not due to decreased consumption or sales, but rather through the competition prices. As you have said, as the birthrates have dropped, the price of labour in the developed world has increased, and as technology improves, the price of labour in the developing world has declined. Therefore the jobs have relocated to where things can be produced more cheaply. That in turn leads the economy to specialise in the sectors which do not require large amounts of labour, which is where we see most of our innovation.

At least in the US, they have not reached the point where the production of consumer goods declines. Japan has already reached this point, and likely Russia has as well, although their situation is a bit different (death rates being much higher then in Japan).

Service industry and such cannot be considered here, because if you suggest that we should have more babies so to serve more people, you realize that either you create a huge servant class (bad) or you are creating more people to be served as well, which is not necessary. It's not bad, per se, but it's not good either; it just is.

The problem is that innovation is tied to population growth. You need to have the people who are willing to specialise, so that the other ones can do the rest of the work. Without adequate population, then you will no longer be able to afford the investment in research, you will need everyone there simply to maintain what has already been built. In many cases, what is happening is that we are seeing a further constriction in the population, in that they are concentrating together, and leaving areas with low population and high infrastructure demands. We see this in parts of eastern Germany today. The infrastructure can no longer be affordably maintained, because the population is insufficient for the upkeep.

[snoopy369]

Ben: You didn't answer the question. Jon suggested that "increase population -> increase educated/noneducated ratio". That has nothing to do with what you posted...

Beyond that I didn't see anything that actually made sense up there ...

Maybe you were replying to a different post and quoted mine by mistake