Japan Faces Population Implosion
by Steve Watters on 05/06/2008 at 3:55 PM
Last week, I blogged about the influence the Hispanic birth rate will have on America over the next 50 years. In that same time frame, the Japanese government now projects they will lose a third of their population. In an article titled, "Japan Steadily Becoming a Land of Few Children," the Washington Post writes:
Japan, now the world's second-largest economy, will lose 70 percent of its workforce by 2050 and economic growth will slow to zero, according to a report this year by the nonprofit Japan Center for Economic Research.
Demographers discuss Japan's dramatic population reversal in a new documentary called Demographic Winter. Because Japan never had the baby boom America had, they are showing more quickly a pattern demographers are seeing around the world -- not enough children to support aging populations.
The growth of world population at this present moment, the commentary explains is not from new births -- rates are dropping almost everywhere -- it's from a health explosion that is allowing people to live longer and longer.
All the efforts around the world to control population (documented in books such as Fatal Misconception) have been rather effective, but have now made it likely that many of the readers of this blog will be asked to pay a larger share of the taxes required to care for an expanding aging population dependent on a shrinking workforce.
My concern is that this expectation might lead to resentment among young workers toward the people they are supporting and could lead to a coarsening attitude toward the elderly and even greater acceptance for euthanasia. That would be a tragic scenario, especially knowing it could have been averted if the population debates of the past three decades could have been less hysterical and more honest about what objective demographers actually knew about population trends.
1. Louise said the following at 3:59 PM on May 6:
I was under the impression that Asian cultures prized and highly respected their older members!
Are there any commentors of Asian ancestry who can shed some light on this?
2. BDB said the following at 4:50 PM on May 6:
This is part of the reason that the U.S. is unable to take social-security reform seriously: Japan and Europe will see their public retirement systems crash about 10 years before the U.S. due to the U.S. baby boom.
One solution is allowing more immigration. The French riots were partly due to immigrants. In my view they were specifically due to the inability of Europe to create a path to assimilation for immigrants, leading to ghettos and unemployment. There's plenty of people available to move into first-world countries to solve the population declines. But if they are not assimilated into the culture, dramatic changes will happen.
Frankly, being recently in Mexico, I can see why immigrants like L.A. I was pretty darn comfortable in Baja California, and not just because half the signs were in English. They've got Starbucks, McDonalds, Costco, Home Depot...heck, it felt like home for the most part.
Except for the metric stuff, of course.
3. Mike Theemling said the following at 5:04 PM on May 6:
Japan indeed is facing a mounting problem with not enough children to replace the current adult population. And Japan has one of the highest, if not the highest, life expectancy among industrialized nations (mainly because of their diet).
That is, in part, why they do a lot of research into robotics and automation. The more robots that can do the work of a human, the less humans that are needed (at least in the work environment).
It is true that in many Asian cultures (including Japan) age is a huge social factor. Generally, the oldest person in the room, regardless of their occupation or title, will garner the most respect.
Regarding support for these older workers or possible resentment, I do believe (but am not certain) that it is the cultural norm that when the parents get old, they live with one of the children. Thus the idea of "retirement/nursing homes" is not as prevalent as it is here although that has been changing in recent years since more women are entering the workforce rather than staying at home.
Japan's population problem is caused by two main factors: Lack of immigration and lack of societal expectation for larger families. Japan is almost purely made up of Japanese (~99%). And from what I've gathered, the Japanese are stingy with immigrantation laws (rather, "policies"). In regards to why the Japanese don't produce more children, I have no clear answer. But part of the reason might be that a large percentage of Japan live in the city (around 80%. Tokyo alone composes about 25% of the entire population of the country) and that is often not compatible with having a large family. Another simpler reason is that like most industrialized countries, birth rates are lower to maintain a higher standard of living. Richer populations tend to have less children than poorer ones (because children are VERY expensive).
As for solutions, I suspect that the government will give incentives for couples to have children (because I don't see the immigration policies radically changing anytime soon).
Hey, it's Tokyo Tower (in the photo). Was just up there a couple weeks ago (no kidding!).
4. John said the following at 5:28 PM on May 6:
Asians do typically respect the elders. However, in a global culture that increasingly places more value on the marketplace than the home, I wouldn't be surprised if enterprising young adults in those countries do start to care less about their elders and more about themselves.
5. Shauna said the following at 5:54 PM on May 6:
I'm not Asian, but I do try to keep up with the Japanese news, and there's stories all the time about people killing parents and grandparents. I think the strong (i.e. overbearing) emphasis on honoring older people has resulted in a lot of resentment in younger people, as Steve mentions. Here's a recent story that's typical:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/
crime/view/man-held-over-attempting-
to-kill-82-year-old-mother-with-
hydrogen-sulfide-gas
6. Stefanie said the following at 6:46 PM on May 6:
I don't think we should worry too much about the population shrinking, just like we shouldn't worry too much about overpopulation (Matt6:34)
I tend to worry a lot about the environment, and I have to remember that God is in control (while I do my part to conserve energy, recycle and all that) Living in a fallen world means that things will never be perfect, and that in fact things are going to get very bad before the end. God commands us not to worry.
On a side note, one argument that I don't often hear in Christian conversation is the idea that God is in control of life and death, so that letting someone die of a disease is not sin - it's not euthanasia. If anything ever happened to me, where I ended up attached to machines to keep me alive, I would rather let God decide to let me live or not. I don't want to play God by artificially extending my life. Modern medicine can be like the Tower of Babel - man's way of trying to be God. (I'm not trying to be inflammatory by these remarks, what do other people think?)
7. Patrick said the following at 7:02 PM on May 6:
Hi Louise,
First of all, I'm Asian but not Japanese. But I've unfortunately never so much as set foot anywhere in the continent of Asia. Also, I definitely consider myself more "American" than "Asian," and most "Asian" Asians would probably consider me the same (if we can make the distinction). So I don't know if I can offer much help!
But here's what I will say, which is probably pretty obvious anyway: I, and most of my relatives and friends who grew up in Asian families or the like, do highly respect our older relatives. At the same time, however, there's the ginormous influence of American or at least Western culture which has affected much of our outlook on things like families and elders and so on.
And, of course, Western influence (e.g. culture, values) is felt in lands as far away as Japan and China and Korea. In many parts of Asia, it's a huge plus if you can speak English, for instance.
Anyway, maybe more later, gotta run right now...
8. Katie M. said the following at 7:41 PM on May 6:
Thanks for this post, Steve. I live in Tokyo, and in my short eight months here I have already begun to notice a bit of indifference toward the massive elderly population. The attitude is most obvious to me on the train. At each stop a handful of stooped, silver-haired senior citizens make their way into the train car, looking for seats. My husband, who is from here, says that 20 years ago able-bodied adults and children would not hesitate to offer their seats to the elderly. Sadly this is no longer true. I ride the train every day, and in dismay I have watched fellow young professionals race their elders for the open seats. Once seated, most people close their eyes and either nod off or pretend to. This isn't always the case, to be fair. I have seen some young people offer their seats to the aged, but in my experience, this tends to be the exception. I have wondered exactly what you posited, Steve. The soaring geriatric population here is perhaps coming to be seen as a burden. This is all conjecture, and I could be interpreting what I see incorrectly. However, it does give me pause to consider whether younger hearts are hardening toward the old.
Coupled with the breakdown of traditional family structures here, where aging parents in the past moved in with their children but now do not, the elderly in some cases are resorting to petty crime. Once arrested, the desperate seniors are often considered a disgrace to the family, who then all the more staunchly refuse to care for them. The offending relative then often resorts to more crime, landing in jail. The results are revealed in the prison population: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/world/asia/05japan-briefs.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=japan+prison&st=nyt&oref=slogin.
Please pray for Japan.
9. fs said the following at 9:35 PM on May 6:
I could imagine that the same asian generation that swallowed the modern myth about the hip, childless, lifestyle could also have swallowed the same modern values about the previous generation.
But my asian guess would be that the kids would continue to dutifully fork over part of their earnings to their parents (And to BOTH sets of parents after they are married) whether or not they truly respected them. After all, duty is a strong motivator.
10. Huixin said the following at 10:40 PM on May 6:
Asian cultures highly respect and prize older community members, certainly! And Japan is no exception. Japan is built in a heirarchical fashion and is a more vertical society (while as ours is, at least in theory, horizontal/egalitarian). I could not see so much a resentment for older workers. The Japanese ethos ingrains respect for the elderly, for one's employer, and for the workplace.
I'm sure that things are a bit different among the young people today, but culture plays a huge role in peoples' lives and is too strong to radically change within a few generataions. While Japan had modernized/westernized and integrated some of these values into their culture, that's exaclty what they've done--integration, not complete change.
Many people are choosing not to have babies because it hinders the women from having careers. In Japanese society, it was common (up until recently) for women to 'retire' once they had children, and in fact, was quite difficult for them to get jobs once they were mothers! With the modernization that is happening, women are wishing to focus on career. A few generations ago, women would have been cut off from support groups found in the workplace once they had children, a very difficult thing for Japanese who are very group-oriented. One's job provides one's group, a structure, friends, etc... To be without that would have devastating effects.
It will be very interesting to see where this will go in the future.
(Just to give background, I am a mere undergraduate in university, but am focusing on asian studies)
11. Josh said the following at 12:37 AM on May 7:
Not only do we prize and respect them, we find them highly collectible.
12. Aaron said the following at 1:06 AM on May 7:
I'm missing where your response of surprise is coming from- nothing in this article indicates a trend in Asian culture toward euthanasia in any direct sense. The significant ratio change is not due to a devaluing of elders, but rather to the dramatic reduction in births.
Japan serves as an advance warning of where current trends are going, around most of the globe (as far as population ratios anyway).
As I read it, the author of the article (Steve) is merely expressing his concern about how this trend could affect attitudes of those still in the workforce, specifically in the US (he does mention readers of this blog, and most of us aren't from Japan).
In reference to the blog itself: Some interesting observations and concerns are raised. Sadly, I think those concerns are very valid, in the US if nowhere else. The elderly are already often considered little more than a burden. I also find it interesting, again in a very sad way, how the devaluation of young life around the globe could so easily lead to a devaluation of older life- and that less than a century later.
13. Riley said the following at 3:44 AM on May 7:
Shouldn't every child look to the wellbeing of his or her own parents?
That's should be only two people.
Then taxes can support the ones who don't have any children.
Hmmm gets tricky if there are expensive medical procedures, which is all part of growing old. Sometimes medical intervention only serves to prolong life but not reinvigorate it's quality.
14. Jess @ Making Home said the following at 4:03 AM on May 7:
Louise (#1) brought up what my initial thoughts were. I don't think there's any real risk (in the next generation or so at least) of elderly Japanese being anything other than respected and cared for, even if it's extremely expensive and difficult to do so. Asian cultures aren't near as youth-focused as America is.
15. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 6:34 AM on May 7:
This is yet more confirmation of the great wisdom of Humanae Vitae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae) and the constant, unbroken teaching of the Christian religion that the use of the sexual act can not be separated from its potential to generate life.
When mankind takes it into their hands to pull the levers of life and distort nature these and other grave evils abound throughout the world.
16. obewan said the following at 6:54 AM on May 7:
They may find a work around. Don't forget they are the world leader in robotics. They even have robot traffic cops in the streets. They do have a labor shortage, but many people work in robotics and IT and the factories are highly automated.
17. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:54 AM on May 7:
Louise, I'm not Asian, but from what I understand, the elderly are always cared for by the family.
That's honestly the way many people lived for so many years. Offspring had a double-fold purpose - to continue the family heritage and to care for the parents when the parents were no longer able to care for themselves.
I know that's what my dad's plan was...as archaic as that sounds, he loves us to death, but he makes no qualms about giving us all he has now as long as we understand that we will be caring for him later.
Under that kind of a system, of course there's respect for the elderly - as the elderly are the ones that spent the last 40 years of their lives raising, caring for, providing for, and helping with the generation or two after them.
Now, though, the people who have no children to care for them and who never spent much time caring for the generations after them are going to be cared for by a generation that has no reason to respect them their contributions. What contribution have they made to the next generation? Other than strip us of our hard earned money that not only is being used to care for ourselves, but to the care of the next generations and to help our own parents.
18. Catherine said the following at 7:34 AM on May 7:
I am glad you followed up you last article with this one to show what you were trying to say- and I agree with the point. What I don't agree with is that any woman out there decided to have fewer children because of the "hysterical" debates over population explosion. I know that my mother chose to have fewer children (although 3 is still over average) because she was working full time. Notice that the demographic shift takes place when women entered the workplace. I would also venture that most women with over 3 children probably do not work full time jobs to help bring money into the family.
Shifting to larger families requires
1. more money. there was a great article in the new york times a few weeks ago about how having larger families is now a status symbol in the city because it is so expensive. esp. if you want to send your children to christian private schools, private colleges, etc.
2. a renewal of a culture that values women staying in the home despite the lower income. it would be very hard for me to decide to stay at home after spending countless years of my life in college and graduate school- i love the security and fulfillment that my education has given me.plus (as my mother says)i will never stay in a marriage that might be dangerously abusive, for example, because i am unable to support myself and my children alone. and i just happen to love my chosen profession and make a lot of money that buys the things our culture tells us to value- a larger home, vacations, a new car etc. . but there does need to be a shift towards women understanding how staying in the home for at least a few years is a valuable profession in itself.
19. niki said the following at 7:37 AM on May 7:
I think the possibly-hidden source of this problem is the skewed "American Dream" concept. This will explain.
(Unfortunately, I can't identify the author of this small tale, but I'm sure the majority have heard it before):
"The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, "only a little while."
The American then asked, "Why don't you stay out longer and catch more fish?"
The Mexican replied, "I have enough fish to support my family's immediate needs."
The American then asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, and stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life."
The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA, and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise."
The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"
To which the American replied, "fifteen to twenty years."
"But what then?"
The American laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right, you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions."
"Millions . . . then what?"
The American said, "Then you would retire, move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.""
-----
Perhaps the "shrinking workforce" wouldn't be a problem if our extended-lifespan beneficiaries (beloved grandparents now; our parents later; and eventually our generation) took opportunities for sustainable productivity instead of taking their long overdue vacations after decades of burnout.
Maybe then we would not have immediate family members strewn about the country for years on end (job relocation? moving to Florida for retirement?) as a common situation, and generations would be able to take care of each other as is natural in human society. My grandmother spends almost all of her social security check on her expensive rent because staying in the same (increasingly pricey) town as her children and grandchildren is more important to her than any yacht, casino, or resort.
20. annalonnevik said the following at 10:52 AM on May 7:
[slight tangent] I like the shades added by the use of the word "hysterical"--considering its origins--in the last paragraph of the OP there... [/slight tangent]
21. Al said the following at 1:56 PM on May 7:
While I'm asian, and I can affirm that there's definitely a strong culture of respect, obligation, and duty to one's elders in asian cultures including Japan's, Japan has always had its own quirks that seem very foreign and occasionally bizarre even to other asians. While I would wager Japan still holds the elderly in high regard, its culture is also very pragmatic, and it is often ready to adopt new practices it finds expedient so long as it can interpret it to fit Japanese thinking. I suppose it's possible for Japan to integrate euthanasia into some sort of Shinto/Buddhist influenced thinking regarding detachment to life and loved ones, but like others have mentioned, they are much more likely to develop technology to assist in care for the elderly. Much of their development in robotics and power assisted exoskeletons seem purposed for nursing the elderly, much higher than you would expect in most other cultures.
22. Alex C. said the following at 2:09 PM on May 7:
" And from what I've gathered, the Japanese are stingy with immigrantation laws (rather, "policies"). "
I've heard the same thing. A few years ago I heard a speaker at the Denver Anime Convention give a presentation on moving to Japan. He told the audience that it takes a long time to actually get citizenship there, that you can't have duel citizenship, that there are still things in their culture (like bath houses) that are off limits to non-native born Japanese citizens, and that the job oppurtunities for non-native borns are a lot less. He told us the best job we could get would probably be teaching english.
23. Louise said the following at 2:30 PM on May 7:
Re comment 17, how do people sans children "strip us of our hard earned money?"
Over the years I've heard several different accusations against childfree people but this is a new one to me.
Would you be so good as to explain, please?
24. Suzanne said the following at 11:53 PM on May 7:
Riley (#13) said that supporting one's parents would only be two people. It's not unreasonable to expect one wage-earner to support two people. Maybe not easy, but generally feasible.
But with people living much longer, as in the case of Japan, you might find yourself supporting your elderly parents (say, 70 years old) as well as your elderly grandparents (say 95). With soaring lifespans, that's very possible. You could now be supporting two parents and four grandparents, or if married, two people supporting 12 others.
Declining birthrates combined with longer lives makes it far more difficult. And that could create real concern.
25. Steve Watters said the following at 11:56 AM on May 8:
Dr. Mohler has a nice commentary on this same topic today at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1145.
26. kaj said the following at 12:13 PM on May 8:
Another factor in the caring-for-elderly parents discussions: Some of us have will have stepparents, as well as "birth" parents, to consider as they get older.
27. Louise said the following at 12:18 PM on May 8:
Re 24, do people really view 70 as "elderly"?
It must be just a matter of perspective.
When my grandmother was in a nursing home (she died at age 100), there were so many caregiving children well into their 60s that I don't think of 70 as old.
My mother and her boyfriend are both in their seventies and require no help other than the occasional favor, and believe me, they do enough favors for their kids and grandkids!
28. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:40 PM on May 8:
Louise (concerning my comment in 17),
Perhaps I have this wrong, but my understanding of social security is that the money that is taken out of every paycheck is going to the elderly for their care. Their social-security check is my wages.
From what I understand, by the time I am their age, there will likely be no more social security, primarily because the rate at which we are replacing the retiring generation with new workers is not at the rate it should be.
So yes, my hard earned money is going to pay for the care of the elderly that I have absolutely no connection to, no concern for, and would rather use that to care for my own parents, my own grandparents who actually worked with their own hands to provide for me and raise me. While on top of that, I'm going to have my own children to care for.
Luckily, my parents did it right. They raised 5 intelligent children. Their care is not going to rest on the shoulders of only 1 or 2. With all of us having the capability of making large amounts of money (most with ambition to do so, not counting myself), my parents will be well cared for in their old age...without being too much of a financial burden on top of our own families.
29. Louise said the following at 6:17 PM on May 8:
Re comment 28,
Thanks for your explanation.
Now...Christina in green, it seems strange to me that a woman who describes herself as "Christian" would object to part of her paycheck going to help to care for the elderly!
Maybe the people who are getting the social security had children but the children pre-deceased them.
My own father pre-deceased BOTH of his parents.
It's been known to happen, ma'am.
When I first read Mr. Watters' post I thought the concept of people resenting the elderly was a little far-fetched.
After reading comment 27...Mr. Watters, perhaps you weren't so far off the mark!
:)
30. Louise said the following at 8:10 PM on May 8:
Comment 29 should end "After reading comment 28, ...Mr. Watters, perhaps you weren't so far off the mark!"
:)!
And Christina, you don't want social security to assist your own parents, and yet by your own admission you are also not willing to financially support them, rather you prefer to leave that responsibility to your "ambitious" siblings.
How nice of you!
31. Suzanne said the following at 12:20 AM on May 9:
Louise- about 70 being "elderly"... I think it really depends on the person, and I should have been more clear. Some people at 70 truly are elderly and require full time care. Others are hale and hearty. I have grandparents on both ends of the spectrum. But it is true that bodies slow down with time, so a 70-year old will likely require more than a 20-year old.
Also, so many people have insufficient retirement funds, and yet are not going to want to keep working well into retirement age. (And here I am thinking 70s.)
The scenario I proposed is highly unlikely, but I think it raises a good point.
32. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:25 AM on May 9:
Louise,
I'm a thousand times more willing to help financially support my own parents...
My point about my not being the ambitious one was a point that I'm proabably the only one in my family that will not have my own income, but will more than likely be living off my husband's (as I intend on being a SAHM)...so there will be more sacrifices on my part to help with my family. But luckily, I don't have to worry about that much, because there are 5 of us to split the costs. Not just one or two.
And my string of posts was not necessarily the way I would actually act. In a church, the church is supposed to help support the elderly as well. You don't see that happening much... from preparation of foods, to helping with household care.
I'm just saying I can understand why this problem that was outlined in the OP could lead to bitterness. Especially since I've felt bitterness at the fact my money could be going to the elderly that have looked down on me because of my youth. That it could be going to the thousands of elderly living in The Villages, FL who don't need my money, act like children when their popcorn hasn't just been made fresh, and who spend their money on frivolous living, helping contribute to the rise of STDs. Now, I know that environment, for the most part, is an exception, but my money is going to them, as well.
33. Louise said the following at 8:36 AM on May 9:
IMO, the last paragraph of comment 32 exhibits a very harsh judgement on elderly people and not one I would personally expect to hear from someone who considers herself "Chrisitan."
With three grandparents who lived to be over the age of ninety, I have spent a lot of time in nursing homes, which I what I assume was meant by "The Villages, FL"...categorizing the elderly as spoiled brats who spread STDs and complain about unfresh popcorn is quite possibly the most senseless and demeaning comment I have ever encounted on this blog.
I don't think older people look down on you because of your "youth"...most likely they look down on your for your poor attitude.
34. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:38 AM on May 9:
Actually, Louise, the villages is a retirement development...
Not a nursing home. Its actually incredibly expensive to live there and I worked there for 3-4 years after high school.
Many of them were spoiled brats. Which is why I say that they are an exception.
The Villages, FL actually has one of the highest STD statistics in Florida (if not the US). I can't remember which.
Nursing homes, widows, childless women through no fault of their own - I don't mind helping support them.
But those above are not exempt from social security even though their retirment plans are through the roof.
35. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:03 PM on May 9:
Ok.
I seem to be butchering my argument because my contention with the previous generation is not being well defined.
I grew up in a generation of young people where parents were largely absent. They spent more time working and making money than they did building relationships with their children. The vast majority had absent mothers, absent fathers, and both.
Many of my generation are the results of divorce.
And still, there are those in the previous generation that, for their own reasons, chose to not have children.
They are the generation that brought about 3rd wave feminism, that pushed for abortion rights, and are followers of a certain candidate - simply because she is a woman in power.
What I've seen of many of that generation hasn't left much to recommend them from my experiences of working closely with them and serving them in a minimum-wage job for 3-4 years. There were those that I absolutely loved to death...and there were many more who acted like spoiled children.
However, I was raised by a present mother, a father who made countless sacrifices for his children, and grandmothers and grandfathers that taught us, helped our parents, and spent numerous hours cleaning up the leaves in the backyard so us kids could constantly jump in them and spread them all over the yard again.
If I'm not willing for my money to go to the previous people so I can better return the gifts that my family has given to me, then I am all for it. If I can use my money to help the little old lady in my church who gives free harp lessons to willing girls in the congregation whose husband just died, then I'd rather have it available for her than for the previously mentioned people.
I want to have some control over where that money goes and to whom. With the government involved, my money can go to the woman with no children because she had countless abortions because she preferred having money available so she could indulge in her own lifestyle. I don't want it going to the couples living in retirement developments that are worth millions of dollars that go golfing everyday.
I don't think that this is a wrong way of thinking. I don't think that the choices I would make with that money would be wrong. And I don't think I'm being disrespectful to the elderly.
There's a reason why the elderly deserve respect. Biblically, its because they have lived longer lives and have more wisdom. "Honor your parents, and you will live long upon the earth". But if an elderly person chooses to use their life experiences as an excuse to get what they want and then proceed to throw a temper tantrum in the lobby of a theatre, then I don't think they are desrving of much respect.
36. Louise said the following at 12:18 PM on May 9:
Okay, I get it now.
You just don't like the U.S. social security system.
You want control over "your hard earned" money, which if you had your way you wouldn't even have, since on another thread you expressed your wish to become a stay at home wife immediately after college graduation.
You have the option of leaving the US, you know.
No one is forcing you to stay a US resident.
And BTW, if you honestly feel you haven't been "disrespectfully to the elderly" on this blog then I suggest after you calm down a little you go back and read your comment 32 with a fresh eye.
Who knows, you may learn something about yourself you didn't know before.
37. k. said the following at 3:05 PM on May 9:
Green Christina -- Wow, that job was NOT a good fit for you.
I doubt very much that they were looking down on you solely for your youth. Sounds like you might have given them some other reasons, honestly.
38. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:08 PM on May 9:
K,
Wow. Yeah, this subject is a bit touchy for me... list of things I have a major problem with : Feminism, abortion, and selfish life-styles.
But trust me, I've never given anyone that is my elder any reason to think I'm disrespectful.
That job was actually an excellent fit for me, as I'm an incredibly patient person and thrive in customer service.
I do, however, have a really difficult time with thinking kindly about selfish people. Maybe its because I recognize it in myself and people in general tend to be more touchy about things they know they are guilty of. I don't know.
I loved the people I worked with...and I miss them dearly. But the vast majority of people I served and dealt with were not people I want having my money.
Hence why I would prefer being able to choose how I use it.
Which I think was mentioned in this post...
but have now made it likely that many of the readers of this blog will be asked to pay a larger share of the taxes required to care for an expanding aging population dependent on a shrinking workforce.
My concern is that this expectation might lead to resentment among young workers toward the people they are supporting and could lead to a coarsening attitude toward the elderly and even greater acceptance for euthanasia.
Can you see why?
One of my biggest problems with government is that it has worked incredibly hard to remove all consequences of people's choices and actions. Maybe that wasn't the purpose of setting up half the things they set up, but rather to remove the consequences of bad things that were not the fault of the person involved (like elderly whose children pre-deceased them, or couples that were barren...). However, they succeeded mightily in creating a world of little consequence.
When an entire generation makes the choice to not have children because its "bad for the environment" or because they don't want the responsibility, I don't think young people are going to be too thrilled to be the ones forced to support them.
Because I don't usually think about this and I don't usually consider where my taxes are going, I don't live my life like this. The elderly that I know that I'm in contact with are largely people I respect and care for.
However, i can see how the choices of people and policies of the government are going to affect the mindset of a generation. It already has...and people call my generation "lazy" because we value friends and family over working over 40 hours a week for a company.
Generations will reap what you sow. So be careful what you sow.
39. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:39 AM on May 10:
I agree with Christina: our first obligations ought to be to our own families. The high rates of taxation--and deficit spending by our government on matters well outside the scope of their Constitutional authority--are hampering our ability to care for our families.
The population control agenda--that Christians have tacitly accepted by embracing secular "family planning"--is also hampering our social insurance programs.
Like it or not, irrespective of where you stand on social security and Medicare--I see them as nothing but Ponzi schemes through which our government bilks us out of more of our money--the demographics are working against us here.
Something is going to have to give: we don't have the taxpayer base to sustain those programs as they exist today. To prop them up would require taxation levels that would be Draconian at best, and that's not accounting for other government spending on other agencies due to perceived "mandates".
The one thing on which I disagree with Christina: no matter how good your retirement program is, if you are a retiree you ought to be entitled to the assets you paid into the system, with interest. That is because those ought to be your assets, not the government's to redistribute for their elitist social engineering causes.
Trouble is, government cannot give you those assets, because those assets have already been spent. FACT: there is no "social security trust fund because the only "funds" in the "trust fund" are IOUs.
40. Louise said the following at 11:26 AM on May 10:
Comment 38, so you that job at the STD-ridden retirement community was a "good fit" for you are an "incredibly patient person."
Well, since I have never met you, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
And I am in my early forties!
Hopefully in a few years I won't be throwing temper tantrums about my movie popcorn, although that probably won't happen, since due to the cost I rarely purchase it when I attend movies.
But...the fact of the matter is to both comment 38 and 39, if you work in the US you will have social security taxes withheld from your paycheck.
People don't have to like it.
People also don't have to work in the US.
Quit your job and go on welfare. Find someone else to pay your living expenses.
Or leave the US and go elsewhere.
41. Esther said the following at 12:12 PM on May 10:
I'm going to have to weigh in with Christina here. Louise, you told her in no uncertain terms that she "could leave the US". However, my understanding of the foundation of this country was "no taxation without representation"- essentially saying, 'don't take my money without giving me say over how it is used'. Granted, we do have voting rights, etc, but I think Christina's point is the heart of American values and love for freedom. She's willing to care for and support the elderly, but she wants it done responsibly and equitably, and doesn't feel that our current system is doing that. We could then go on to have a discussion about the efficacy of the American system of government, but telling her to accept what she perceives as the current misuse of her contribution to society, or get out, is not reasoned debate.
Also, being a SAHM is not forfeiting her contributions to society. Moms at home provide many societal benefits- they volunteer in schoolrooms, allowing for activities and interaction that would otherwise necessitate hiring more teachers (with tax dollars), they care for their children after school, reducing the tax burden of providing larger after-school programs or other gov't funded child-care. And to bring this back to the discussion of our aged population, SAHM are better able to care for elderly relatives. My mom stays at home and as the one of the few to do so in either her family or my dad's, she has taken on the responsibility of the day to day care of my grandparents. This has reduced the burden put on gov't programs for the aging, like Meals-on-Wheels. She also has the free time to visit other elderly people in the community, and record their stories and memories for posterity, which is a treasure for society, and a comfort for those individuals who are so happy for visitors. While my mom hasn't worked and 'contributed' to social security for over 25 years, she has worked for the benefit of society in so many other ways.
42. Louise said the following at 11:35 AM on May 12:
Quote from comment 38:
"I do, however, have a really difficult time with thinking kindly about selfish people."
But in comment 28 the same person states she objects to social security withholdings from her pay check because there will be nothing left for her!
Sounds a little selfish to me!
But don't worry, I won't hold this against her entire generation!
:)
IMO she should heed the advice she gave to k.: "Be careful what you sow."
And I never stated that stay at home parents don't contribute to society. I just pointed out if this particular commentor had had her own way she wouldn't even have any wage from which to withhold social security taxes.
I don't like every aspect of the US tax system either BTW.
But I manage to live with it, and I choose to vote for candidates who support my preferences.
So folks, if you don't like something...use your vote!
43. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:56 PM on May 12:
But in comment 28 the same person states she objects to social security withholdings from her pay check because there will be nothing left for her!
In comment 28, I said I wanted to use that money to help my own family - my children, my parents, my grandparents.
44. Louise said the following at 1:37 PM on May 12:
Quote from comment 28:
"Perhaps I have this wrong, but my understanding of social security is that the money that is taken out of every paycheck is going to the elderly for their care. Their social-security check is my wages.
From what I understand, by the time I am their age, there will likely be no more social security..."
By the time you are old enough to collect social security your grandparents and very likely your own parents will be deceased.
45. Louise said the following at 7:55 PM on May 12:
One more thing, Green,
Aren't your own grandparents currently receiving social security benefits?
46. Loris said the following at 7:33 AM on May 13:
I don't think I have anything to complain about, but then I already got my Social Security. My dad is disabled, so my parents received a monthly SS check for my upkeep until I turned eighteen. They didn't need the money to feed me, so we banked it until that December day my senior year of high school we realized we needed to spend it quickly before we filled out the FAFSA. So I'm driving my Social Security, and that's all I really expect to get. If there is any money left for me when I'm old, that's going to be an added bonus, but for now, I'm counting on my 401k.
47. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:53 AM on May 13:
Louise,
Do you really think that people who have no idea who my grandmother is or have no relationship with her should be responsible for her care?
Or do you think that families and churches should care for their elderly?
My wages are being forced from me when I could be using them to save and prepare for a family of my own and the care of my own elderly parents and to be a help to my own children for my own care.
Social security won't be around when I'm old and gray, so instead of my children having some help from me in social security (which I had to pay all my life to help other old people), they have the burden all on themselves. Now while I think that's the right way of going about it, I just had all my money taken from me that could've gone to better use in my own savings account. And the amount is no small deal.
Where my generation and the generation after me might struggle a lot with the shift from social security to none, I think that the generations after that could be healthier and have a better relationship with their elderly family members than we do now.
HERE is the point, Louise:
Government is forcing people to care for elderly that people have no relationship with. They are taking money from them that could be used to care for their own families to give to other elderly. As the elderly population gets older, the people supporting them gets smaller and a smaller workforce is left feeding and clothing a ton of people that helped contribute to the shrinking workforce. More money is taken from us to help those people, rather than helping our own families and our own elders.
That is the point.
48. Louise aka The Pole said the following at 8:34 AM on May 13:
Greenie, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not care for the social security system of the US.
Well, we have elected representives in the US....unlike the colonial "taxation without representation" situation mentioned in comment 41.
I assume you are a US citizen and thus eligible to vote...use your vote to try to elect representatives who will attempt the changes you would like.
A lot of people don't care for the social security system, but the tone of your comments implies you feel that you are being "singled-out" to have your wage reduced.
Well, all US workers are subject to social security withholdings.
Now..Green One..would you care to answer my question re whether or not your grandparents (or other of your family members) are collecting social security benefits?
If you don't want to answer the question, that is perfectly fine.
49. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:44 PM on May 13:
Louise,
Yes, my grandmother gets social security. Does that make my argument any less valid? I don't think so. Its a moot point.
Voting only gets you so far. Yes, I support the side that is more in favor of removing social security. However, it is a complex issue - more complex than just getting rid of the system.
America isn't the only country that relies on taxes to support the elderly. I think that in the grand scheme of things, America is still the preferred place to live. Even if it wasn't, I'd rather be close to my family than overseas.
50. Louise said the following at 2:18 PM on May 13:
From comment 49, "Voting only gets you so far."
Does anyone on the blog have any helpful suggestions for Christina in her quest to run the world the way she sees fit?
Besides prayer, of course.
51. Don Ishikawa said the following at 1:30 AM on Jun 13:
I'm half Japanese and can easily tell you why Japan has the problem it now has: Most Japanese don't lose their virginity until well into their thirties when they get married. They have adopted some SERIOUSLY misguided concepts of prudishness attempting to emulate the 19th century version of british propriety. Also their insane pursuit of personal wealth and status leaves no room for the recreational sex that leads to stable population growth. The main source of it all is overbearing parenting well into adulthood, the few that do have kids need to let them run a muck, something that will never happen despite how important it is for the very survival of the Japanese.