Demography
Quality time
Why shrinking populations may be no bad
thing
<Main topic>
Is a fertility rate at replacement level
the right target?
<Points of the article>
l
Education makes dependency ratio* much lower than
previously thought.
*The number of children and pensioners
compared with people of working age
l
Not everyone of working age contribute equally to
supporting pensioners.
l
Better-educated are more productive and healthier,
retire later and live longer.
l
The highest welfare would follow long-term fertility
rates of 1.5-1.8
l
Educating more people to a higher level will be
expensive but will contribute more to the economy, so the investment will pay
off.
l
Moreover, fewer people will help limit future
climate change. (!?)
l
(Conclusion) The worries about falling populations
are better addressed by education than baby bonuses or tax breaks.
<Comments>
(1) In previous discussion, we covered
questions such as “Does demographic change matter?” “Should Japan accept
immigrants on a big scale?” These focus on the quantity of people; it means the
population of working age is shrinking so we have to take some actions (raise
birth rate / accept immigrants). But this article mentions the quality of
people, which is that education is one possible solution of demographic issue. Does
this indication make sense?
(2) I chose this article because of the subtitle.
But, after reading I think this article is logically poor, isn’t fully
organized and needs more supports to make its opinion more persuasive. What is
your impression of the article? If you are the author, how to revise it?
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿