Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a modern misconception. While true some women in the past worked, they were the exception and not the rule. Historically women participation in the actual labor force (not activities on the farm) was on the lower end. The few who worked were typically young and single. Even then they worked the service industry jobs of their day for the most part. The rates increased as the U.S. shifted to a service-oriented economy which meant more jobs that were knowledge based, didn't require manual labor, less dangerous, and could be performed under a controlled environment. Much more favorable conditions.
Companionship is a primary human driver. We live in a society that is increasingly becoming hyper individualistic to the point family creation is put on the backburner by some in favor goals that don't bring fulfilling happiness. I think society values need to be reevaluated (no I’m not saying women shouldn’t work); however, this isn't the topic of discussion though.
I suppose the idea that the population will be older and that older people are not productive is relative to what you consider "older".............
I don't buy it any more than I buy the idea that the world is currently overpopulated.
The problem is, there are not enough workers in an aging society. Japan found that out early and compensated by moving their most labor intensive industries (automotive) to the country where most of their products are sold (America), using local labor (American), and sending profits back home (Japan).
It was a wonderfully inventive solution and has worked beautifully. But it cannot continue indefinitely.
In most areas, lower-end workers are in short supply. As the population pyramid indicates, the world wide labor force will continue to shrink. After all, it takes 20 years to make a 20-year-old worker, and already the population of 0-4 is smaller that either the 5-9 or the 10-14 category.
Some day, most of those 0-4's will be 50. They are expected to have far fewer children than their predecessors, and those children will have fewer still.
I don't think any serious student of demographics believes the world is overpopulated. But they do believe the world population will shrink. A lot.
What does a world with a shrinking population look like?...... Detroit. The Mississippi Delta. And it looks like every dying town you have ever seen.
On the subject of human population growth and possible extermination, I find stories like the following fascinating. I found it on Twitter, under Historic Vids:
Quote:
The indigenous inhabitants of North Sentinel Island, located in the Indian Ocean and roughly the size of Manhattan, have resided there for an estimated 55,000 years. Presently, the island is home to around 80 to 150 individuals. Regrettably, in November 2018, John Allen Chau, an American man, lost his life when members of the Sentinelese tribe killed him. Additionally, in 2006, two Indian fishermen were killed after their boat, which they had anchored near North Sentinel to rest after engaging in illegal fishing activities in the surrounding waters, broke loose and drifted ashore. It is known that poachers often fish unlawfully in the vicinity of the island, exploiting turtles and engaging in diving activities to procure lobsters and sea cucumbers. The Sentinelese tribe has consistently expressed their desire to avoid any form of contact, which is an understandable choice. Their neighboring tribes were eradicated as a consequence of British colonization, and they lack the immunity necessary to combat common diseases such as the flu or measles, which could prove devastating to their population.
The problem is, there are not enough workers in an aging society. Japan found that out early and compensated by moving their most labor intensive industries (automotive) to the country where most of their products are sold (America), using local labor (American), and sending profits back home (Japan).
It was a wonderfully inventive solution and has worked beautifully. But it cannot continue indefinitely.
In most areas, lower-end workers are in short supply. As the population pyramid indicates, the world wide labor force will continue to shrink. After all, it takes 20 years to make a 20-year-old worker, and already the population of 0-4 is smaller that either the 5-9 or the 10-14 category.
Some day, most of those 0-4's will be 50. They are expected to have far fewer children than their predecessors, and those children will have fewer still.
I don't think any serious student of demographics believes the world is overpopulated. But they do believe the world population will shrink. A lot.
What does a world with a shrinking population look like?...... Detroit. The Mississippi Delta. And it looks like every dying town you have ever seen.
I'm not following you regarding Japan moving its labor-intensive industries to combat an aging population problem. Japan took such measures to appease other countries, since the Japanese automotive industry was dominating local manufactures. It was also a great way to garner favor with the locals and get tariff relief. They were also able to take advantage of lower manufacturing cost for certain locations. All economic factors and nothing to do with demographics.
I'm not following you regarding Japan moving its labor-intensive industries to combat an aging population problem. Japan took such measures to appease other countries, since the Japanese automotive industry was dominating local manufactures. It was also a great way to garner favor with the locals and get tariff relief. They were also able to take advantage of lower manufacturing cost for certain locations. All economic factors and nothing to do with demographics.
THIS CHART will help you understand.
Japanese working age population peaked in 1994, and when it did it was no surprise to the Japanese government. They had known it was going to happen and made plans accordingly.
As you can see, there are about as many working age Japanese today as there were in 1973. The number will continue to dwindle.
The early June issue of National Review has a good article on China's population decline and impending crash. They rather did themselves in with the "one child" policy.
I'm more of a Russia hand than a China hand, but even I know the Chinese culture values a son over a daughter, and that selective abortion for sex selection was feasible from the beginnings of this policy in 1976. So now you have a large number of only-child young men who have no ladies available to them, since they simply don't exist. Some are apparently seeking brides in Russia.
I would like to ask the architects of this one-child policy what exactly they thought they were doing, but probably most of them are long gone.
The early June issue of National Review has a good article on China's population decline and impending crash. They rather did themselves in with the "one child" policy.
I'm more of a Russia hand than a China hand, but even I know the Chinese culture values a son over a daughter, and that selective abortion for sex selection was feasible from the beginnings of this policy in 1976. So now you have a large number of only-child young men who have no ladies available to them, since they simply don't exist. Some are apparently seeking brides in Russia.
I would like to ask the architects of this one-child policy what exactly they thought they were doing, but probably most of them are long gone.
The one child policy had a minor initial effect, accelerating a process that had already started. It's not as if China could have maintained replacement birthrates for decades longer without the one child policy. Women were going to stop having so many children regardless.
For comparison, Taiwan has a lower birthrate than China.
India also has to deal with the bad effects of sex selective abortion and infanticide. There the restriction on more than one child is mostly economic, although there were brutal anti-natalist policies for a few years during the Emergency. However as with China the preference for boys is leading to a sad and potentially destabilizing outcome in the absence of two or more children.
The global population will begin to shrink very soon, perhaps as soon as 10 years. And once it begins to decline, it will never stop declining. That's a fact, according to some demographers. They make a pretty compelling case for the ever-shrinking human population in the book Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline. Their case, in simple terms, revolves around the emancipation of women and urbanization. It's more complicated than that, though, so interested parties should read the book or some of the many articles written about the subject.
Many countries are already on the decline and many more will join. Some governments will collapse - I mean cease to exist! There simply will not be enough people living in Bulgaria (to pick one) to support a government. Italy has noted that it is a dying country already.
So what will the world be like in 100 years? IN 2200, it is projected that the world will have about the same population as we do today, but the population will be much older. And old people (I am one) are not productive. We become a burden on our countries....
The one child policy had a minor initial effect, accelerating a process that had already started. It's not as if China could have maintained replacement birthrates for decades longer without the one child policy. Women were going to stop having so many children regardless.
For comparison, Taiwan has a lower birthrate than China.
India also has to deal with the bad effects of sex selective abortion and infanticide. There the restriction on more than one child is mostly economic, although there were brutal anti-natalist policies for a few years during the Emergency. However as with China the preference for boys is leading to a sad and potentially destabilizing outcome in the absence of two or more children.
I think you're right. The initial effect was minor and Chinese authorities thought they could just turn the faucet on, so to speak, when they needed to.
But the thing that really tossed a monkey wrench into their plans was the emancipation of women. Once women began to experience life with their own income and without a passel of children they stop having children - sometimes completely!
Governments want their women to become tax paying wage earners but when they do, those same women see life in a whole different light.
It was always going to be this way, I think. Human domination of the planet was always going to subside. Now, it appears nothing can stop the decline. Population will decline for many, many years.
Not a modern misconception. While true some women in the past worked, they were the exception and not the rule. Historically women participation in the actual labor force (not activities on the farm) was on the lower end. The few who worked were typically young and single. Even then they worked the service industry jobs of their day for the most part. The rates increased as the U.S. shifted to a service-oriented economy which meant more jobs that were knowledge based, didn't require manual labor, less dangerous, and could be performed under a controlled environment. Much more favorable conditions.
Companionship is a primary human driver. We live in a society that is increasingly becoming hyper individualistic to the point family creation is put on the backburner by some in favor goals that don't bring fulfilling happiness. I think society values need to be reevaluated (no I’m not saying women shouldn’t work); however, this isn't the topic of discussion though.
First you use songs to support your contention, then an essay that has a broken link and a legal page while dismissing experiences of actual mothers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Mitch
The early June issue of National Review has a good article on China's population decline and impending crash. They rather did themselves in with the "one child" policy.
I'm more of a Russia hand than a China hand, but even I know the Chinese culture values a son over a daughter, and that selective abortion for sex selection was feasible from the beginnings of this policy in 1976. So now you have a large number of only-child young men who have no ladies available to them, since they simply don't exist. Some are apparently seeking brides in Russia.
I would like to ask the architects of this one-child policy what exactly they thought they were doing, but probably most of them are long gone.
They probably did not anticipate the surge of infanticide of female babies.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-21-2023 at 10:21 AM..
Reason: Merged 2:1
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
