Hyperloop is a joke. Japan's maglev is a reality. Japan is building a maglev line from Tokyo to Nagoya. The first 42km section is running right now. 500km/hour. 600km/hour in tests. Train sets have been delivered. Stations are under construction. Tunnels are being bored. Opening 2027.
Also as an aside. Japan is this weird example of a country with a good education system, hard workers, excellent infrastructure, and yet a totally stagnant economy. I mean I understand a lot of the reasons, but it's still weird.
Its a bit improper to call Japan stagnant. Effectively all global populations use GDP as a measure of success, but GDP is a pyramid scheme - growth relies on the population getting bigger, often to such a degree that stagnant per-capitas can still look like a "growing" economy just from new bodies taking up space in them.
That isn't the real kind of growth that makes peoples lives better. Look at per-capita instead. Since the 08 recession Japan has had consistent 1-2% per-capita growth, despite their population shrinking. They have problems, but none of the end of the world nonsense economists have been throwing around since the 80s in response to Japan not continuing the global fiction that we can just keep adding more people to fake growth numbers like that is guaranteed to lead to real quality of life improvements, especially in the information age when it is much more important to have the resources to educate and maximize the potential of the people you do have rather than try to spread resources out over more people who can possibly outright lose access to the higher degrees of technical knowledge needed to truly advance society at this point.
Yes, the problem with ageing population is that a lot of your GDP growth which would otherwise go into disposable incomes etc instead goes to care for a lot of old people.
TBH virtually all developed economies have slowed down over the past 10+ years, I often wonder if this is the real reason, more than just the financial criss. The only spurts of growth seem to be either sudden windfalls from resource extraction booms or big credit runups that tend to leave a big hangover.
How is it different to have revenue going to services retirees need instead of going to new sports cars of big tvs?
An aging population is only a problem if you are broke and have no capital to use to finance your lifestyle. Japan is nothing like that - they are a rich country with divested interests in many industries that all output world class goods and services. Built by the people now entering retirement.
Worry about Japan when their per-capita starts slipping dramatically.
There's more to it than just available capital though.
A still-shrinking working-age population will have to look after a still-expanding retired population.
IIRC (no reference), Japanese pensioners on aggregate have lots of savings. However, they will surely be competing with one another for services rendered by the shrinking labor pool, so one would expect the costs of those services to rise, negating the effect of having lots of savings.
I live in Japan now and, unsurprisingly, the retirement home business appears to be booming, especially in and around Tokyo. But even if there are lots of retirement homes, they will have to be staffed. By robots perhaps?
Hopefully they'll relax immigration requirements? Maybe from Southeast Asia and the Phillipines? They're very used to working in the hospitality industry, a lot of cruise staff are Filipinos for example.
Yeah, I agree. Robots for sure. If the cost of developing an AI that can do this is less than the cost of hiring scarce labor... in 2050? Sounds almost obvious now that you say it.
In some ways this might show the steady state of a developed economy. Other developed nations are growing in large part through immigration - if the whole world was developed and there was nowhere for immigrants to come from, it's not implausible that we would see something like this start to happen everywhere.
I hadn't thought about this much, but this is an excellent point. I imagine the only thing that would change this in the future is if we made child bearing and rearing a lot less burdensome than what it is right now.... but that seems like a pipe dream, even as I write it down. I imagine economics are only one part of the difficulty with having children; the emotional consequences are probably much more significant.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. The anti-immigration stance is a well known problem in Japan, relaxing it in a sane way would definitely solve some of their social services problems.
The downvotes are coming from people who think the West is racist and xenophobic and anything contrary to that narrative means downvotes. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the world exhibits some form of racism and in many countries, such as Japan, its institutionalize. The U.S. And U.K. get a bad rap on this issue for some reason, but take a few million migrants from all over the world and plop them into Tokyo or Beijing and let me know how it goes.
Compared to the US military spending for example? For a country that's geographically so remote and already so powerful that no other country even thinks of ever attacking?
That power stems from military spending, though. Not only that, America spends so much on its military to compensate for the fact that most of its allies spend significantly less on theirs; without the so-called pax Americana the world would look very different.
>Not only that, America spends so much on its military to compensate for the fact that most of its allies spend significantly less on theirs; without the so-called pax Americana the world would look very different.
That's a myth that Americans seem to believe firmly.
Like they're like parent figures to the world or something, exceptionalism at its worst, and the 21st century analogue to the "White Man's Burden".
As if any country would attack the EU for example, or even e.g. Germany alone.
In fact, most of the mess the planet is in (the middle east for example) is because of US intervention and fucking things up. In the past 2 decades, new training grounds for terrorists created in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, all thanks to breaking up stable regimes there.
>I strongly suspect that Europe would be spending more money on defense particularly against Russia and maybe China if America weren't backing them.
And I strongly suspect that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from both Russia and China.
>And really, you can't think of countries with more moral responsibility for the planet's current state? Not China, not the Soviet Union, none?
China absolutely none at all. USSR a little, but that ended in 1991 (so close to 3 decades now), and most of it was a piss match with the US in the first place.
> And I strongly suspect that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from both Russia and China.
This is most certainly not True, as the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Troubles in Ukraine have so clearly demonstrated. Even if Russian might not want to annex more territory, without the backing of NATO, Russia could bully Western European countries more easily.
>This is most certainly not True, as the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Troubles in Ukraine have so clearly demonstrated.
You mean the Russian annexation of a part of Ukraine (a country in their border), namely the part with a majority of ethnic Russian citizens, who had a referendum in favor of it, and that only happened when the democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by a sketchy coalition including bona fide Nazi sympathizers? I'm sure this proves that France, and Romania, Germany, Portugal, Malta, Albania, Greece, Italy, and all have a lot to fear from Russia...
It's especially funny considering US as some protector of Europe from Russia, considering that unlike the above very tame example, the US has occupied 2 countries in the past 2 decades, bombed in Eastern Europe, helped form a protectorate there, and helped destabilize a few more (e.g. Syria, Libya), taking Europeans in the NATO to along for the ride and boosting terrorism support in those areas (including against Europe).
>Even if Russian might not want to annex more territory, without the backing of NATO, Russia could bully Western European countries more easily.
Ever past the Cold War it has been the opposite: the NATO (a Cold War formation if there ever was one) instead of dismantling, got into expanding ever more into Eastern Europe and Russia's neighbors, and forever bully Russia into submission with sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.
Japàn economy is stagnant because of negative population growth. US births just went below replacement level immigrants are not being allowed in others are leaving I think US is heading in the same direction.
That's a little misleading. Yes, in absolute numbers, the US absorbs more immigrants; but that's kind of a pointless statement - obviously the absolute number of immigrants is highly correlated with the countries size (probably both in habitable area and in terms of current population). Amongst countries with similar development levels, the US immigration isn't particularly unusual.
It's fair to say that immigration has had a special impact on the US over its history, and of course the policy of treating all children born in the US as citizens is unusual (though it shouldn't be!). But in relative terms, the number of immigrants isn't particularly large.
The U.N. stats you quote count only legal immigrants. When you add credible estimates of those in the USA illegally, you're looking at as many as another million per year.
Visa overstays alone can exceed a half-million per year (over 527K in 2015 alone[0] for the most recent numbers available), and that number omits those known to have left later.
The US is not alone in having a lot of illegal immigrants. It's hard to say to what extent the US is exceptional in their number (again, taking into account the size of the US).
However, even if this is an exception, the number of illegal immigrants is still too small to catch up to countries such as australia (under the unrealistic assumption that australia has 0 illegal immigration).
The absolute number is all that matters. A person immigrating to a country with a low population has a disproportionate affect on that population compared to a country with a large population.
Also you're implying that immigration is good and desirable. That's certainly up for debate.
I didn't intend to imply that immigration is good or desirable; it just is. It's a fact of life. I merely wanted to point out that the ratio of immigrants to natives in the US isn't particularly unusual.
(I'd say it's obvious immigration has huge potential but also considerable risks to the host country). In the long run, I suspect immigration is almost always a positive.
My guess that immigration is positive in the long run (I mean over timespans greater than a human life) isn't something to take seriously, I certainly don't ;-).
But the argument goes as follows:
- Long term immigration tends to happen where the it's supportable. People don't usually go somewhere they're likely to starve. (So there's generally going to be some feedback loop that prevents really crazy immigration excesses - at least usually, I'd guess).
- Countries/regions/whatever with greater population tend to in the long run have more influence and greater development that those with less.
- Diversity is a strength to a society (but not necessarily it's citizens!) for various reasons, but e.g. creativity and resilience in the face of a changing world are likely higher simply because you've got a better shot of finding the right person(s) at the right time for the right task. This is a bit speculative; but there are parallels in evolutionary biology and business, so it appears plausible to me.
- Choosing to migrate is a non-trivial affair. Migrants tend to therefore be more enterprising. At the very least, the ability to successfully migrate, stay, and raise the next generation is a kind of test of capacity. This is the converse of a brain-drain if you will. Having said that, just because somebody is "smart" doesn't mean they'll achieve much in their new life; after all, needing to adapt just isn't that easy, and the deck is stacked against them. But over generations at least you'd hope for sufficient integration to overcome that.
To be explicit: This is mere speculation; and even as far as that it only suggests general patterns. Not all migration might be positive; and it might take a long time for the benefits to materialize, and even if society is better off doesn't mean that those that lived through the integration process are better off; and even then it doesn't mean the old population is better off either (though you'd hope so). And of course it's all a little hypothetical since you won't be able to stop migration no matter what, so the interesting question is whether the way you manage it (or not) matters, and what those choices might be.
You brought up the interesting question of whether immigration is good (at least, I hadn't considered it quite like that before), so this is just my best guess.
Thanks for your polite, well-thought reply. I used to be more pro-immigration/open borders but have since swung the other way. I'm glad that you (as I was) are open to new ideas. The mantra right now is immigration == good. Whenever something is taken to be true, such as that, I question the prevailing wisdom and ask, what if this weren't true? Or better yet, who is this good for? How does this help me in particular, or people in a similar situation? Etc....
Their economy is based on copying things that worked in the U.S. In the 1980s people were worried based on Japan's rate of growth that it was going to overtake the U.S. Instead they just ran out of things to copy, and the growth completely flattened. At some point you can only grow by doing new things, and for whatever reason Japan has historically been very bad at that.
That's the thing buses and trains are more expensive than driving because of sunk costs of owning a car and at the same time they are not usually as efficient to use, i.e. add another 1/2 to your trip time. Time is something in very short supply. So you can build all the bus routes and trains you want, that does not mean anyone actually wants to use them. Then there is whole boredom of riding transportation rather than actually driving. All these people harp about public transportation, etc, but really given the choice does anyone actually prefer public transportation over cars if the roads can accommodate them. I don't think so.
Time spent on public transport is useful, particularly time spent on trains. You've got wifi, a table and a power socket, so you can get real work done. You can have a proper meal and a glass of wine, you can watch a movie, read a book or have a nap. Most buses in my country now have wifi and power sockets.
A lot of rail commuters find that their commute is an unusually productive time. You've got all the resources you need to work but relatively few distractions, especially in the quiet carriage. It's a little slice of time that's entirely your own. It's like working in a cafe, except you're travelling at 125mph.
Here in the UK, the railways are too successful for their own good - passenger volume has doubled in 20 years, so the infrastructure is creaking under the sheer weight of passengers. We're building a new cross-country high-speed route, two major commuter routes across London, upgrading vast swathes of the network and it's still not nearly enough to keep up with demand.
I used to commute Brighton to London, the trains are nice and I could get a seat. However anyone getting on at any intermediate stations usually had to stand.
We definitely need more high speed lines to free up space on the other lines.
For those of us that have to deal with urban centres, a car is often extremely inconvenient. Add a half hour to your trip time just to park it. You have to go back and get it when it's time to leave instead of just hopping on the nearest train station, etc. That and cost of ownership. I'd rather spend the couple of bucks/quid/x00jpy to have someone take care of that for me and get off when I need to. Plus I'm less bored on the train because I can engage my mind with reading/work/games instead of yelling at all the drivers that are clearly not as good as me.
Yes? I’d absolutely rather spend time on a train than a car. It’s faster, takes me right into the centre of the town I’m going to, I don’t have to worry about finding a parking space and I can get some work done on the way (or just read a book). Why would you want to drive?
What? Trains are worse than buses, in that they taken you further from where you want to go in a slower manner that you still have to uber to your actual destination from.
Go travel round Europe for a month using nothing but public transport and come tell us the same thing. That's basically the entire point of the article, the trains in the US absolutely suck compared to any other developed country. Most are quicker than driving and do take you into the hear of the city, I can travel from London city centre to Manchester city centre (163 miles as the crow flies) in 90 mins, if I drove it'd take 3-4 hours traffic depending. A good rail network makes your arguments invalid I'm afraid.
Edit: For a more US kind of distance look at London to Paris, 2h15m (883 miles as the crow flies) from city centre to city centre.
Your numbers are way off. Fastest Manchester-London train is 2h (the 0700 Manchester stoping 0707 Stockport and 0900 Euston). I don't think there's one quite that fast on the way back. It's about 180 miles. London is a late city but I wouldn't call Euston "the centre", it's not even in the congestion charge zone. Plan on a good 30 minutes to get to your destination in London and 15 in Manchester.
Paris is not 800 miles, or even 800km.
You're right that a car is unlikely to be the better choice for Manchester-london when ignoring costs (£124 each way on the quiet trains)
Here in Japan trains have been an integral part of the transportation system for so long that a lot of the destinations you want have been built up around the train stations. The train companies make a significant portion of their income from real estate (malls) built in or around train stations since there's so much foot traffic.
Where do you live where trains are slower than buses?
To a certain extent you’re right in that it’s all just a question of where you live. But for me recently all the trains I have been taking are in Japan or UK, and if I need to get to somewhere that’s more than a short walk from the central train station there’s been a light rail or underground system for me to transfer onto.
Only the nation's capital - good 'ol Washington, D.C. Metro area where busses on 66 regularly pass the metro on dedicated rail including on 128 where the new 'silver line' was recently completed and extensions ongoing
Not to mention that bus fares in the area, in most situations, are cheaper than the metro for same distance covered
A typical third rail metro moves at around 25-30mph if you factor in station stops. Top speed varies, e.g. for Washington Metro the cars can accelerate up to 75mph but could plausibly be much slower depending on the track characteristics, how well sections of it are maintained, and how well the trains are scheduled. Hence it's unsurprising that Metro trains will get passed on a freeway unless there's a traffic jam.
Where Metro wins is on capacity. When the trains are full, one track of Metro carries an amount of people that would fill up 10 lanes of freeway. Of course, one major problem is that building mass transit is sold to the public as a way to 'reduce congestion' i.e. "other people will ride the subway so that my freeway will be clear". Due to induced demand from other people shifting their travel to the highway, this is not really truthful advertising.
It's more accurate to say that the mass transit provides an alternative for people who are fed up with traffic jams and want a more predictable way of getting downtown. Buses fail to provide that alternative, because unless the transit agency manages to get a dedicated bus lane along the whole route (it's probably not), they are going to be stuck in the same traffic that an ordinary car is stuck in.
The metro might occasionally get passed by buses for brief stretches, but it's definitely faster overall. I have tried several methods of commuting and metro is easily the fastest, even though I have a reverse commute which makes other methods faster than they would be in the direction that most people are going.
Cars are better than trains if you assume you're just sitting there on the train doing nothing. But I can be working on personal projects, browsing, etc on a train. The only thing I can do while driving is listen to music.
> All these people harp about public transportation, etc, but really given the choice does anyone actually prefer public transportation over cars if the roads can accommodate them. I don't think so.
so all these people either secretly prefer driving cars, or just have no other choice?
you know, you're talking about me among others[1], and the arrogance of your "I don't think so" is just... annoying.
[1] i haven't commented on this thread before, but i do commute to work by train, ~80km each way. i've been doing that for over a decade, and my employers have let me count the time spent on the train toward my on-clock time because i can and do work on the train. driving a car would mean wasting my time, and it would cost me more. not to mention that public transport is way safer than individual automotive transport.
"Wolf ... visited a publisher in Tokyo with a portfolio of the images. “He just flicked through them in about 30 seconds, and he said ‘so what?’,”... “I said ‘what do you mean “so what?” – it’s a nightmare, don’t you see that?’ He said: ‘what do you mean it’s a nightmare, I’ve been doing this for 40 years of my life every day – it’s normal.’”
Packed trains like that are common during rush hours. I've been on Chicago "el" cars packed so full you couldn't even get an arm out to hold on to anything.
The biggest difference between packed trains in Japan and the U.S. is when "just one more person" tries to get on the train. In Japan, everybody will sigh and groan and shuffle around to make a bit more room. In America, the riders near the door will stiff-arm the guy back onto the platform.
