That statement doesn't necessarily assume people are just socking their money away in a savings account while working. The goal of saving for retirement is that you need your money to outlast you. If your can expect much lower income during retirement, you'll need to have a bigger pot at the beginning of your retirement (i.e. you'll need to save more while working).
Why? Faith in the financial services industry has been utterly shattered.
The only exception is for tax purposes, eg: Roth IRA/TFSA, 401k/RRSP, etc.
Until equities and other securities no longer provide the return needed for long term wealth accumulation.
Japan needs to bite the bullet and accept immigration as part of its economic strategy.
"Poor Fiscal policy" is likely a better explanation.
If they need to "bite the bullet"; how about balancing the budget?
As suggested by previous commentators, social policies could possibly play a larger role in the long term Japanese recovery than fiscal stimulus. Opening the country to immigration may help rejuvenate the workforce, but would require significant upheavals of xenophobic Japanese culture. The government could use economic measures to encourage childbirth, but at a population density of 869 people per square mile, one must wonder how many more citizens the island can accommodate.
The rational assumption that Japan should "bite the bullet ... [and] balance the budget" is not what the country will do, as the circumstances of its plight encourage irrationality.
Because with immigration, you didn't solve the underlying cause of why people don't have kids. You just muddled the observable status for a while.
Exactly. And the cause is the mutually reinforced effect of capitalist consumerism and feminism.
One of the causes why people postpone having children is financial insecurity. In their mid-twenties they cannot afford to have a home, they are unable to secure the costs of first few years of raising child, when they don't know if they will have a job in three months and they have zero savings. Add student loans to the mix, popular desires to travel the world, to "live" and it's obvious why the developed countries have problems with natality.
One of the reason of population boom in Czechoslovakia in 1970's was the policy of support of young families. Newly wed pairs were were provided security, they got their own homes, they had job security[1], they got financial support for raising children. It wasn't a luxury, you couldn't lead a lavish life, but you knew that if you have a child, everything will be OK.
[1] we are abstracting from the fact, that in socialist countries it was unlawful to be jobless. You were provided a job, but it didn't have to be a one you would like.
Otherwise, thank you for the explanation and I do apologize for my ignorance.
(Also, I'm still confused about the feminism thing)
Immigration isn't going to solve anything, immigration from where ? Japan isn't the US, they aren't talking English nor their society is build in a way it can accept huge immigration waves.
Japan needs to work on techs that will solve its problems, not resort to a massive immigration wave that will only kick the can down the road.
Edit: A lot of people saying "immigration won't work" but not offering alternative solutions.
I hope the insularity ends up being worth it for them, but history is not on their side.
No, this is literally the post-WW2 boom dying off. Occupied Japan underwent a period of extreme population growth in the few decades after WW2 ended. They currently have 125mm people living in a land area the size of California which is 75% uninhabitable (mountains).
Japanese is not an easy language to learn, but its not impossible to learn. If people are allowed in then they will learn Japanese
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/global/23immigran...
It would still be tricky because as a society Japan is famously homogeneous, so the idea of diversity would have to be phased in slowly.. but it could be a starting point. In the end it's about adaptation to ensure a future for the country.
I think that most Japanese would believe that a future Japan that wasn't majority Japanese was no future at all.
From the nationalist perspective, you're essentially saying "to save Japanese society we must destroy Japanese society." To these people Japan is more than just an island, it is Japanese.
But you've hit the nail on the head - and it is something many foreigners have little to no concept of. Being proud of one's cultural heritage and history. Even if that means recognizing the bad stains on the tapestry.
I've recognized the ones who have the worst problem with nationalism are those who are completely full of guilt of their own culture/history.
Making people miserable is rarely a good strategy unless you're building ISIS.
Meanwhile there's a weird undercurrent of racism, if we just take Japan 2016 and person for person swap out for obviously superior foreigners (imperialism?) then magically everything is supposed to be better. However, in reality, that would obviously not be the case. If an Asian guy is sitting in a broken car, and the driver is removed and replaced with a foreigner, the car is still going to be just as broken. Likewise if the Japanese abandon their land and culture, that doesn't mean anyone else will necessarily do a better job of running the place. Or if there is a better way to run the place, they could save everyone a lot of bother, and implement it themselves.
That reeks more of Japanese xenophobia than of some "Western imperialist racist conspiracy" to destabilize Japan.
That's no problem of the Japanese, but of the immigrants. They're the newcomers, they're the ones who should be putting all the effort to assimilate into the host culture.
And it isn't happening, not even with descendants of Japanese. Imagine what would happen with a radically different culture (no need to imagine, just look at Europe).
This rigidity and inflexibility is going to be the biggest problem facing Japan when they inevitability reach the population cliff. What you are asking for is unreasonable. There is no way immigrants can ever completely assimilate to that degree. The cultural gap and linguistic distance is simply to big. It doesn't help that Japan has historically been isolationist and based on anecdotal evidence, still seems to be pretty xenophobic. At best, you could hope for a compromise, where the immigrants do their best to integrate, and hosts make compromises and try to be more accomodating. You could try taking immigrants from nearby regions where the gap is conceivably smaller, but politics and history will get in the way.
Ultimately there seems to be no good solutions on the horizon. You will just have to pick the least worst from a selction of poor ones:-
1. Ignore the problem and see what happens. 2. Begin a reasonable program of immigration that suits Japan (there are number of ways to go about this), and deal with the problems that will come with it. 3. Try and hope for some technological breakthrough.
That's an alt-right white nationalist shibboleth.
The culturally (and racially) homogeneous state is a myth. Even the Japan you might perceive as homogeneous is the result of many waves of migration stretching to pre-history (Jomon, Ainu, Yayoi, Chinese...)
Places that have relatively open borders (EU, US) aren't experiencing anything like "cultural mass suicide" - unless you buy the nationalist rhetoric coming out of right wing and neo-nazi camps.
All cultures are evolving, including Japan. Sometimes it is gradual, and sometimes it is faster (your example of WWII). Healthy societies accept that change is natural, and try to make sure that it happens in a constructive way.
What strategy?
Getting replaced?
If you swing the value of holding just currency to where it grows relative to goods without doing anything, then people won't do anything. This spirals. Since nothing is being done, there's no work. You might have a black/grey market economy spring up but don't tell anybody about it.
Specific to Japan, I am not sure. Depends on whether the demographic slack is permanent or temporary.
Is that somehow impossible? Would it make the market illiquid? Are there laws concerning the required volatility caps for the securities backing savings accounts that would have to be relaxed?