Yeah I think the degrowthers and others underestimate some of the ugly political decisions & societal preference that will ensue in such a world.

Paying some taxes to social security / medicare / etc works out OK when those go to cover 0.5 to 1 dependent per worker. When that 1 workers income needs to support 1.5 .. 2+ things will get ugly.

Your argument seems to hinge on:

“at some point, the working population will be far far lower than what is necessary to support the rest.”

That’s a completely reasonable take in, at a minimum, pre-industrial times.

There is a long dream that “increases in productivity will allow us to live lives of leisure.” This is obviously not how things have turned out, but it isn’t clear to me that we cannot choose this.

Anyway, what percentage of us actually need to work? Where is the point that we cannot cross? I am skeptical that Japan will come anywhere close.

>Where is the point that we cannot cross? I am skeptical that Japan will come anywhere close.

Japan's national pension scheme is "pay as you go", meaning that benefits for retirees today are paid out of the contributions going into the scheme today.

Japan has already reached the point of having less than two workers per retiree. By 2050, that number is projected to be more like 1.5: the writing is on the wall.

Those are interesting numbers but they only are half of the equation. Is this a crisis depends on: how productive are Japan’s workers?

Something like 80+% of America worked in agriculture in 1800 but now it’s around 10%. The information revolution has similarly made so many things incredibly more efficient. So how far does that ratio need to go before it’s actually untenable? And how much of whatever breaks do we actually need?

>Something like 80+% of America worked in agriculture in 1800 but now it’s around 10%.

You're not getting it. It doesn't matter who works where. Even then, an average worker could only provide the average standard for him and two dependants. That ratio hasn't changed. Only the standard of living has.

If your "solution" is to cut back the standard of living for everyone then I'm sorry but that is absolutely a societal collapse.

People need to work to live in society. As long as that is true then this is an actual problem with at best very painful solutions.

I think you’re right that I’m proposing that the standard of living can be scaled back.

You see this as a societal collapse, and that’s a fine take. I’m not sure it’s a collapse. I think it’s a choice.

We’ve made that choice, and hey, I like my house and my car and my pool. There are benefits. But I also work my ass off. Is it really necessary?

Anyway, there are many countries where folks live far less extravagantly than Japan…

Any "choice" that is made suddenly and outside your control is not a choice.

>Anyway, there are many countries where folks live far less extravagantly than Japan…

Lol yes and they're all striving to get out of that for obvious reasons.

Society has a collective choice to make, I mean. Obviously none of us individually have any real power here.

I just think there are possible alternatives to “everyone continues to work full time regardless of how productive we become.”

But that's still looking at things from a very narrow perspective. You're ignoring that there is an entire world out there of people who are willing to make use of modern global communication.

I've heard in the past that Japan has been notoriously hard to emigrate to, but I could be wrong. Either way, there is a solution.

All of the developed world is below replacement. The same issues are coming for everyone albeit with some countries later than others.

And that is with active, prudent immigration since around the same time the problem began.

That you think immigration is a solution now just says it all.

Do you realize the scores of millions of bodies Japan will need in very short time to reach a stable population when the collapse hits ? Oh yeah let's just get 40 million immigrants in. Very realistic.

Japan could be the most immigration happy country by a mile tomorrow and a collapse will still happen. That is set in stone.

Their population decreased by 800k this year, why do you think they need 40m people?

Yes I do think there's a solution, and no I don't think it's worth getting alarmed over these headlines. But I also don't feel qualified to be discussing it on any advanced level. I'm just going with my gut and personal observations here.

There are big gaps between

1. the start of the problem,

2. when the first signs start showing and

3. when the collapse hits.

Japan is at 2. 3 won't hit for a few decades more, likely around 2060 or so.

What makes this problem unintuitive unlike most problems is that once the beginning signs hit, it's too late to avoid 3 for at least some time. You can shorten the length of the collapse but it is happening.

Now let's think and simply. We're in the year 2055.

If the problem in 2055 is that there aren't enough workers then that means the necessary children consistently weren't born starting some 80 to about some 30 years ago.

Importing immigrants or suddenly giving birth back in 2023 won't change that fact. The real problem had already happened even then.You can't change the past.

Japan didn't need those children in 2023+ for the problem in 2055. They didn't need those immigrants.

If you import the immigrants or have the children in 2023, it's to shorten the duration of the collapse not to avoid it. Japan could say they brought in a million immigrants tomorrow and literally nothing changes for 2055 prospects.

But by the time they do need those workers in 2055, they will need so much more of them (because of how exponential the population decline will be. See the table)

Sure but I've seen this problem solved, on a smaller scale but still. Sweden also had declining birth rates, maybe they still do, and now almost every nursing home is staffed by immigrants.

I'd say at least 98% of nursing staff is from outside Sweden, mostly 1st generation immigrants.

So there is absolutely a solution in immigration.

>Sure but I've seen this problem solved, on a smaller scale but still.

No you haven't.

1. Sweden's hasn't had declining rates for either as long or as low as Japan. Japan have a bigger share of aged people already and the real problems have yet to hit.

Sweden have solved nothing lol. They're basically Year 40 on the table. The pyramid is only going to get so much worse. Immigrants taking care of the old now is the least of the myriad of problems that will hit.