Comments on: The demographic effect Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:23:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: fifa 15 coins ps Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:20:12 +0000 I would like to point out my passion for your kind-heartedness supporting men who really want guidance on this one matter. Your very own commitment to getting the message around had become extraordinarily beneficial and have in most cases helped women like me to get to their ambitions. Your own invaluable instruction signifies much to me and substantially more to my fellow workers. Many thanks; from all of us.

By: Vishwadeva Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:55:21 +0000 Is the decline in population growth related to fertility of the Japanese people. I read that low Hormones levels would affect fertility levels ref erone.html

So all could be explained by low Testosterone levels in Men leading to a severe fluctuation in aging population.

Would appreciate your feedback.

By: tmc Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:47:11 +0000 Mr. Hadas. The Opinion piece is excellent and though provoking. I don’t agree with your conclusions. Our current economic model is based on perpetual growth. The author that is blatantly advertising on this site via comments has pointed out many times that population in not very well considered in our economic models. I agree with him on that. I think Pete also suffers from the forest and tree syndrome with population control being his specific tree.
In this piece, I thought you were about to come to the conclusion that basing everything on “growth” is a very risky model. Works great on paper but not when human livelihoods are attached to it. In other words, the consequences become unbearable for real live people. Why can we not design an economic system that prepares for the future? One that does not require all people to work “full-time”. One that keeps the playing field even both during periods of growth and the average “idle” time. As long as we depend on growth the vast majority will continue to suffer for a long, long time.
I hope you will consider upgrading your web site to allow commenting or other means of discussion. This site is not a safe forum for commenting any longer. Or could you indicate another forum in next piece (without irritating Reuters of course)

By: brotherkenny4 Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:51:08 +0000 Come on you slaves, birth some more fodder for the meat grinder.

By: PseudoTurtle Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:53:56 +0000 What are we to do with you Mr. Hadas?

You keep babbling incoherently about things about which you know absolutely nothing.

Japan is the exception that proves the rule — only a tightly organized homogeneous society like Japan could possibly survive as well as it has under the circumstances.

THAT is the lesson to be learned from Japan.

You state in conclusion, “The Japanese experiment with small families has lasted long enough to suggest that a low birth rate neither enriches nor impoverishes but does encourage financial fragility and political calcification. The negative effects should be enough to discourage even enthusiasts for fertility control and negative population growth. While individuals may like the freedom and the environment may be less stressed, demographic decline could prove impoverishing for society as a whole.”

Your conclusion is deeply flawed for at least two serious reasons:

(1) Aside from the obvious fact that the earth is already straining its resources with its present population, you and other wealthy morons seem to think that there are no limits to growth (which is the fallacy capitalism is based upon).

(2) Countries with rapidly growing populations are HIGHLY unstable, which “could prove impoverishing for society as a whole” as we begin to seriously run out of resources and resource wars begin.

We need to understand that the basis of our global problems are due to excess population, and begin to do something about it before we end up as just another extinct species that refused or was unable to change.

By: DrWhoWho Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:13:09 +0000 There is really nothing new here. So, the Japanese have a problem. So do the Germans. We’ve known that for decades. But in the USA we’ve got plenty of children. Probably more than we need. The real trick is to give them a helping hand, not saddle them with mountains of debt or let them rot in poverty.

By: Innocentious Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:47:48 +0000 Wow… this is one of the more, I am not even certain what to call it, interesting articles I have read. You speak of growth being at about 1.1% a year… All most all of the growth is due to deficiet spending.

You are so confusing the shift in demographics with continued health to the prosperity of the country. In point of fact the country is actually on the verge of taking some fairly extraordianry measures to correct what is seen as the 2,00 lb gorilla in the room, the debt.

I am simply shaking my head as I read this. The are dying a slow death, which cannot be made apparent yet and you write this article? Wow… I am trying to see if there is any kind of clue as to your credentials to not have been questioning WHY the economy had managed to continue it’s slow and steady growth but instead of coming to some of the most obvious conclusions, that Government interferenece is creating a false growth rate you instead draw a whole differnet set of conclusions.

Anyway… wow…

By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:43:57 +0000 You’ve done your homework well!

Yes, by definition, without population growth there are ever fewer children from ever fewer young adults, who you term “…the dynamic core of the economy…”. They still “…bring ambition, flexibility and…and amenities.”

It may be that “new housing” will be not a significant desire. Perhaps “comfortable housing”, downsized or upgraded from that existing, will be preferred. That would be good for the Earth, with the ever-growing “footprint” of civilization covering arable land slowing, coming to a halt, and perhaps even reversing.

With ever greater automation and utilization of the power of the computer OF COURSE “…modern economies can work remarkably well with relatively few…people…”. But the young in any modern work force are always the last hired and first fired because their limited experience following academic preparation still requires “on the job training” to do well what more experienced workers already know how to do efficiently.

“The populations of many countries are declining in a time of peace and prosperity. That…must indicate something, but what?” Well,, for one thing, in peace countries don’t need cannon fodder. In prosperity, given the availability of birth control, more and more people think long enough to reach the conclusion that maybe their life will be better if they don’t “invest” twenty years and a quarter million dollars in each child.

When free peoples with choices refuse to stay with the “old ways”, those whose living is made from “reading the tea leaves” of the past to deduce the future are suddenly blind. But isn’t it well known that birth rates always decline with increasing prosperity? So isn’t it time to figure out an economic structure that produces ever increasing prosperity and reducing the adverse effects of humanity on our Earth?

A society that is more automated and efficient need not become less productive and innovative as it ages and shrinks. It becomes MORE than just a “workforce”. America is already experiencing “…financial fragility and political calcification” and the cause isn’t our falling birth rate. There is no reason whatsoever that a smaller, shrinking human population become increasingly “impoverished” with fewer mouths to fill and more time to think and innovate.

But we need both optimists and pessimists. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist invents the parachute! It’s all good.