S0V13T Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Well' date=' unless you like the destruction of the world economy, I would not suggest shrinking the population of both europe and Japan... No kid's means no young people means no work is done and a lot of old people.... Say goodbye to your playstations...[/quote'] *GASP* Well, while I agree with you there, a controlled reduction might be good. I don't agree. After the Black Plague, workers became scarce. That was a GOOD thing, because it allowed those remaining workers to demand higher wages & weakened the rich elite's power. IMHO anything that hurts the rich/powerful is a good thing. A shrinking population/scarcity of workers = higher demand for laborers = higher wages for the bottom/middle rungs of society. A shrinking population would benefit US, the laborers, and is a good thing. That's absolutely true. The Employing class see the working class as dime a dosen drones these days. Same idea as the Red Army had. For every conscript that gets killed in the field, there are a hundred more men to take his place (okay, I stole that line from the first Soviet mission in Red Alert 2, but it still applies). I don't know if it's true in anyone elses part of the world / chosen working field, but for me, I have personally witnessed and experienced mass layoffs, and fireings that the Employer set in to motion to keep people from getting the promotions and higher wages that they've earned, so that the employer can hire in new people, and pay them a couple of buck less an hour, and increace their profit margin. It may sound cliche', but "The Man" really IS keeping us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Ya know, the Japanese government & business operate as a near-unified entity. Could it be that BUSINESS is the motivating force behind the demand for more babies/more workers/ cheaper labor? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbosdell Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Now this system has been set up completely wrong of course: when it was first introduced' date=' the people who were on the receiving end, never paid theis 'tax',[/quote'] In the U.S., nobody received their Retirement Handout until ~20 years later.... only people who paid the tax were able to collect it. (Typical American view- if you didn't pay in, you have no right to take out.) But you missed the REAL flaw with that setup. It's a Ponzi pyramid & top-heavy with ~1 retiree for each worker. Every worker has to support, not just himself, but also another person!!! It's doomed to crumble under its own weight. (And that's why Japan's government is scared & demanding more babies.) IMHO it makes more sense to set-up a system where people *support themselves* with mandatory savings account (i.e. you must put ~20% of your earnings into a retirement account) such that each workers has ~$1 million saved at age 70, and therefore don't need gov't help. By the way, "retirement" never existed prior to 1900. People didn't retire... they continued working until the died. I see no reason why 2000-era society should be any different. My dad's 75-years-old & still working 20 hours a week. It keeps him active, let's him socialize with other people, and makes him feel useful instead of "just waiting for death". errr $1,000,000? i just figured it up and for someone earning $40,000 a year (above National Average) they would make $1,600,000 in 40 years aka their basic working life. So 20% is only $320,000 and you really cant force people to put money away. That just can't happen and should never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foil Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 To grow one cattle requires the pasture land that would feed many more people on alternate crops than one cattle could. I don't know if you came up with that conclusion yourself, or if you're reading some PETA piece of toilet paper. But you don't know how wrong you are. Technically its true, but fundamentally wrong. My dad and I run a farm here in Texas, we don't own cattle but we often lease out pasture to people that do. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a soul in America going hungry because we're grazing cattle on arable land (don't get me wrong, there are people in America going hungry, but not because of livestock). In fact, it's quite the opposite. For the past two years the market price of wheat has been so low that my dad and I haven't bothered harvesting it. The low price is mainly due to the OVER-abundance of commodities such as wheat, corn, sorghum, soybeans, you name it. Instead of paying a harvesting bill that would be higher than the check we'd get from the wheat we've been leasing it out to cattle before it matures (still green) because we get ALOT more money with a fraction of the expenses (just have to keep the water tank full). Mind you also that a good portion of grazing land that cattle are on isn't suitable for anything else in the first place. Most livestock pasture is livestock pasture for good reason. The only reason we're so inefficiently using arable land is because what's being grown on that land isn't in high enough demand to make it good for anything else. You probably know more about that issue than me except for a point that wasn't made. The overabundance is local, not international. In the states, your argument probably holds true. In third world countries it doesn't. People are destroying arable land for resources, cattle, coffee or other means which are sold for an individual imediate profite but no long term stability. We are of course looking at the issue from two different sides and will see that which supports our own lifestyle (actually I love steak, so truly I'm a hippocrite: but I can see the alternative viewpoint and would gladly give up what are luxuries for world hunger to end. But I guess we are all idealists....just not at the expense of our lifestyles). As far as what formed my viewpoit, it definitely wasn't a lobby group :-) . I've been exposed to both sides of the issue for many years both through my education and the industry I work in. I've read many viewpoints and hope I am critical enough to see which are politically motivated and propoganda (both industries side and the environmental side: no one is pure). I am not a fan of todays green peace but am glad that they once fullfilled a role. I've seen sierra club colour satelite photos to "appear" like north america was a great big clear cut. I hope that I have also been able to see through the facts of the amount of feed and land it takes to support a cattle from birth to slaughter. But please, feel free to educate me further if you have more facts on the issue. But also feel free to look at the issue from another viewpoint and tell me why those professional opinions are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Japan's government is telling its workers to take holiday & go home & have babies. Why? Because the population is shrinking. Source: BBC World News. Unbelievable. Who cares that the Japan's population is shrinking (or Europe's for that matter)? There are already too many humans on this planet, thereby disrupting the natural ecology. A shrinking population is a GOOD thing for Japan, not a negative. BTW, when I have a child, it will be just ONE. I don't care how much my wife begs/pleads. One is enough. Two=Stress/heart disease. I'm sure a lot of salarymen will go home and 'do it' for the good of the nation. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meateater Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Japan's government is telling its workers to take holiday & go home & have babies. In my opinion, there are serious underlying problems when a gov't has to tell its citizens to take a break to make love to their spouses. I've got some friends there and they tell me that some Japanese workers work themselves to death... literally! I know there are things that's worthy of that kind of devotion (family, for one), but work really shouldn't be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yes, and the underlying problem is Japanese women don't like Japanese men. More of them are choosing to stay single and childless to advance their careers because they don't care much for the men in their country. They'd rather be savaged by a REAL hamster than a human one. Look at the failed marriage of the (I predict) EX princess. This is quite old really, I just forgot about it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4296877.stm ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3694230.stm Destina Japan says many of the women believe Japanese men do not understand their need to have a career' date=' but feel Western men are more open-minded.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yes' date=' and the underlying problem is Japanese women don't like Japanese men.[/quote'] Where on earth did you get that "fact"? I don't think Japanese women have any dislike for their men? Anyone ever read the Asimov story "Robots of Dawn" about a planet that only had ~100 humans...... and they all lived in isolation. They viewed sex as "distasteful" and only had babies through artificial means. Wow. Our society seems to be headed in that direction. Sad. I was watching "Gods and Generals" and I noticed how even the grown men were laughing & playing & crying with their young girls and boys. FAMILY. Our modern culture seems to be losing that which should be most dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Have you ever lived in Asia? I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 IMHO it makes more sense to set-up a system where people *support themselves* with mandatory savings account (i.e. you must put ~20% of your earnings into a retirement account) such that each workers has ~$1 million saved at age 70' date=' and therefore don't need gov't help.[/quote'] errr $1,000,000? i just figured it up and for someone earning $40,000 a year (above National Average) they would make $1,600,000 in 40 years aka their basic working life. So 20% is only $320,000 Most people work age 16 to age 70. That's about 50 years or ~$2 million. 20% would be 400,000. Take into account compound interest & that's $800,000 (according to my quick calculation) Yeah, 800,000 is slightly shy of my initial estimate, but that's what it was... just an estimate. You're still better off with $800,000 in the bank, which gives you $3000 a month for almost 30 years. Versus the small ~$600 a month pittance the U.S. gov't hands out. Oh and I know you're going to say, "What happens after 30 years & the money's gone?" Answer: You'll be 100 and few people live that long.... and those that do can use the Gov't Safety Net aka Welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meateater Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yes' date=' and the underlying problem is Japanese women don't like Japanese men.[/quote'] Well, I guess it's only understandable that when a patriarchial culture that's been oppressing women for as long as Japan has will eventually have to deal with the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiggy Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Well if the men of your country are reputed to have the smallest genitals in the world would you want a Japanese bloke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meateater Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Well if the men of your country are reputed to have the smallest genitals in the world would you want a Japanese bloke? I would actually answer that question fully if not for the rules that are in place on the site. Let's just say that most Asians are slight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 Well if the men of your country are reputed to have the smallest genitals in the world would you want a Japanese bloke? It's not the size. It's how you use it. Quality over quantity (and why I prefer B-size, not D-size in my women). Besides, Japanese women are also proportionally smaller, so they don't want or need men who are big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mateya Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It's not the size. It's how you use it. Quality over quantity (and why I prefer B-size, not D-size in my women). hahaha, let me tell you a little secret, women tell that myth (its not the size that matters baby) to men who have small genitals ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 It's not the size. It's how you use it. Quality over quantity (and why I prefer B-size' date=' not D-size in my women).[/quote'] hahaha, let me tell you a little secret, women tell that myth (its not the size that matters baby) to men who have small genitals ;) Yay for them. Okay well, the nerves are located at the entrance of a woman. So, anything past 2 inches is not needed as long as the entrance is stimulated. AND you conveniently ignored my point about Japanese women *also* being smaller & not needing a large man. In fact, a large man might be *too* large & cause pain, and that's no fun for the woman. Bottom Line: "Japanese women reject men cause they're too small" is hogwash. It has many flaws and 's not a sound theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mateya Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Yay for them. Okay well, the nerves are located at the entrance of a woman. So, anything past 2 inches is not needed as long as the entrance is stimulated. Sir troy AOD, ever heard of "G" spot?! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralLee Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Wasn't (the) "G" spot, the name of Data's cat? or was that more like: G, spot... come back here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atgxtg Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 IMHO anything that hurts the rich/powerful is a good thing. A shrinking population/scarcity of workers = higher demand for laborers = higher wages for the bottom/middle rungs of society. A shrinking population would benefit US, the laborers, and is a good thing. A shrinking population also means a shrinking marketplace and thus less demand. Less demand = lower demand for larborers. In other words, it would probably all cancel out. For example, if the world's population were cut in half, demand for Playstations and steak dinners would also be cut in half, as long as the reduction effected every region/cuture/social niche/etc. fairly equally. If the poluation redction hit one area, such as Playstation Gamers or Steak Eaters unequally, things start to change. THis might be why the Japanese are worried about a declining popultion in a world where the opposite is the norm. Yeah, the world is quite capable of growing enough food to feed everyone. Yeah, it is more efficient for people jut to eat plants than to support livestock. However, no one is starving because of livestock. People are starving becuase of other people. Or, to be more accurate-people are stariving becuase other people can't make "enough" profit by feeding them. Don't blame the cows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveng Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 Cows fart methane that destroy the ozone layer. It all comes down to the cows. Kill them all. (falls over laughing) As for the shrinking population, the only way I know to judge the future, is by looking at the past (to quote Ben Franklin). And the past shows that when Europe's population was trimated* in the 1300s, the lack of labor supply forced the landed rich to give a huge >increase< in wages for the common man. It makes sense that the same would be true for Japan (or Europe). * Latin for "every 3rd human killed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now