Japan’s demographic crisis is deepening faster than expected, with the number of births this year on track to fall below even the government’s most pessimistic projections.
Archived version: https://archive.is/20251228215131/https://slguardian.org/japans-birth-rate-set-to-break-even-the-bleakest-forecasts/
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
So, two easy solutions:
Immigrant labor
Cut the toxic work culture, go to a 20-30 hour work week, and give people time to take care of their parents.
Why can’t they do that? Ask your economy priests why they can’t do that. Get back to me.
Not all economists are capitalists or assholes. Many economists do propose such things. It’s the government that doesn’t implement them. Economists are real scientists, and shunning their work in such a blanket way is uncomfortably reminiscent of the kind of anti-science “I do my own research” thinking we see on the right. Economists disagree with each other on all sorts of things, because it’s an evolving field, but that doesn’t mean it deserves to be analogized to something like religion.
Absolutely, almost as much as L Ron hubbard was!
What makes someone a scientist to you? And why don’t economists fit that? It’s such an interesting take, especially since (given we’re on Lemmy lol) I assume you’re coming from either a communist or socialist standpoint, both of which are economic theories with many economists backing them. So it’s not like all economists are playing on the team against you - although maybe you have a much more interesting take on all this than I’m imagining.
Turns our my definition if ‘scientists’ is pretty long and I’m lazy, but the short version is: person who tries to find the truth of material reality while mitigating/without bias as to final result of their inquiry
And I didn’t say they weren’t. Economists are almost as much scientists as L Ron Hubbard!
Well, I suppose if I take you literally then, sure. But of course your implication in that comparison is that economists are not a variety of scientist that should be listened to/taken seriously/respected etc. Especially since you used “priest” as an epithet, which would imply that you either think economics is pointless to think scientifically about, or that it is possible to think scientifically about economics but economists are doing it incorrectly, i.e in a priest-like way. Or some third thing I haven’t considered. This is what I’m curious to hear more about your reasoning for. But I understand I’m just an internet stranger and it may be a lot to write out.
I said what I said, read it how you like.