Admittedly, the 123,000 decrease in population is and could be an anomaly. Less important than the other numbers provided and some which are not, but which can be on population websites.
The Japanese hover at 1.3 as the average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime. In order to have a stable population, you need the number to be 2.0. That fact alone will, within a generation show a marked decrease in population! In any other country, 1.3 would also spell certain doom for the culture. For the Japanese, given the near zero number of immigrants who are non-Japanese, their culture will remain in tact, albeit much smaller.
The Japanese have a wonderful social system - your medical and health care needs are covered, pensions, and generally a birth to death care system. This system can work when you have several people under you working to support your system. For example: 1 person to pay taxes toward your social security, while 1 person pays taxes toward the medical system you use, and 1 person pays taxes to cover other miscellaneous costs. 3 working for 1 retired = a great system.
What the article tells us is in 20 years or so, the number retired or old will be 40% and the number working or younger, will be at 60%. Not quite 1 to 1, but close. And that should terrify every Japanese citizen aged 10 and up. Terrify as in Godzilla rampaging through the city with reckless abandon.
Japan population shrinks by record in 2010
Sat Jan 1, 2011
AP
TOKYO – Japan's population fell by a record amount last year as the number of deaths climbed to an all-time high in the quickly aging country, the government said Saturday.
Japan faces a looming demographic squeeze. Baby boomers are moving toward retirement, with fewer workers and taxpayers to replace them. The Japanese boast among the highest life expectancies in the world but have extremely low birth rates.
Japan logged 1.19 million deaths in 2010 — the biggest number since 1947 when the health ministry's annual records began. The number of births was nearly flat at 1.07 million.
As a result, Japan contracted by 123,000 people, which was the most ever and represents the fourth consecutive year of population decline. The top causes of death were cancer, heart disease and stroke, the ministry said.
Japanese aged 65 and older make up about a quarter of Japan's current population. The government projects that by 2050, that figure will climb to 40 percent.
Like in other advanced countries, young people are waiting to get married and choosing to have fewer children because of careers and lifestyle issues.
Saturday's report showed 706,000 marriages registered last year — the fewest since 1954 and a sign that birth rates are unlikely to jump dramatically anytime soon.
Japan's total population stood at 125.77 million as of October, according to the ministry.
Japan
Showing posts with label age. Show all posts
Showing posts with label age. Show all posts
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Women and Breast Cancer
Women aged 20-24 in the U.S. had the lowest incidence rate of breast cancer from 2002-2006, at 1.4 cases per 100,000 women. The 75-79 age group had the highest incidence rate, 441.9 cases per 100,000 women.
Provided by The World Almanac 2010
I do have a question on the above stat as it relates to women 20-24.
Why?
What is it about that group, or what condition/s exist that they have the lowest rate?
Buehler, Buehler, Buehler ...
Regular testing! Both personal and by their doctor!! The personal examination will catch anything they can feel while their doctor's exam will catch what they can't see.
Yea.
Women today have the lowest rates for breast cancer (when you factor in how low it is for the young and then insert the increased incidence for older females, you still come out with a lower figure than existed for women in general in the 1970s and 1980s.
Yea.
Except Mr. Obama's healthplan just cut out your yearly visit to the gynecologist. The medical system reevaluated the frequency of women seeing their doctors and decided that it is recommended women see their gynecologist every couple years (you see how you can do a negative by doing a positive).
It had been recommended you go yearly. So women went yearly and the rate for breast cancer dropped.
Now because the rate is so low, the medical system has decided it is no longer necessary for women to go with such frequency, and they are now recommending a 100% increase in the time, before it is recommended young women see their gynecologist for an exam.
And before you go geezing, the medical system (the gynecologists on the committee recommending the change) do not practice medicine, and or have retired from the practice - yet they were installed on the committee.
Yes, I know, just because X, does not make Y. They did what they did doesn't mean it has any connection to Obama - except it does. His health plan was being debated at that time and part of it includes the absolute necessity to minimize costs (because he knows unlike the Useful Idiots who defend his system as not having a death panel) - you must keep the costs down and part of the costs in a socialized system will be - all of you going to the doctor too often.
They read the political tea leaf in their cup and got out in front of the bus. Unfortunately, they threw women under the bus as they ensured their survival under the Obama death march.
Prognosis: An increase in the next 5 years of cancer in young women, but it may not be reflected in actual statistics for 7-10 years. Why? Initial cases will always be attributed to: environment, living conditions, and lifestyle, and the big one - genetics.
Many women will have to die needlessly, before this by-product of Obamacare is modified. The modification will be made for young women, but older women will still be given the heave ho. Self exams will be regularly encouraged, perhaps frequent personal service announcements on television urging women to do self-exams. Many of the older females will be on Medicare - they are already broke, and underr Obama - less frequent doctor visits!
Hello Mortuary - I know you've been waiting!
obamacare
Provided by The World Almanac 2010
I do have a question on the above stat as it relates to women 20-24.
Why?
What is it about that group, or what condition/s exist that they have the lowest rate?
Buehler, Buehler, Buehler ...
Regular testing! Both personal and by their doctor!! The personal examination will catch anything they can feel while their doctor's exam will catch what they can't see.
Yea.
Women today have the lowest rates for breast cancer (when you factor in how low it is for the young and then insert the increased incidence for older females, you still come out with a lower figure than existed for women in general in the 1970s and 1980s.
Yea.
Except Mr. Obama's healthplan just cut out your yearly visit to the gynecologist. The medical system reevaluated the frequency of women seeing their doctors and decided that it is recommended women see their gynecologist every couple years (you see how you can do a negative by doing a positive).
It had been recommended you go yearly. So women went yearly and the rate for breast cancer dropped.
Now because the rate is so low, the medical system has decided it is no longer necessary for women to go with such frequency, and they are now recommending a 100% increase in the time, before it is recommended young women see their gynecologist for an exam.
And before you go geezing, the medical system (the gynecologists on the committee recommending the change) do not practice medicine, and or have retired from the practice - yet they were installed on the committee.
Yes, I know, just because X, does not make Y. They did what they did doesn't mean it has any connection to Obama - except it does. His health plan was being debated at that time and part of it includes the absolute necessity to minimize costs (because he knows unlike the Useful Idiots who defend his system as not having a death panel) - you must keep the costs down and part of the costs in a socialized system will be - all of you going to the doctor too often.
They read the political tea leaf in their cup and got out in front of the bus. Unfortunately, they threw women under the bus as they ensured their survival under the Obama death march.
Prognosis: An increase in the next 5 years of cancer in young women, but it may not be reflected in actual statistics for 7-10 years. Why? Initial cases will always be attributed to: environment, living conditions, and lifestyle, and the big one - genetics.
Many women will have to die needlessly, before this by-product of Obamacare is modified. The modification will be made for young women, but older women will still be given the heave ho. Self exams will be regularly encouraged, perhaps frequent personal service announcements on television urging women to do self-exams. Many of the older females will be on Medicare - they are already broke, and underr Obama - less frequent doctor visits!
Hello Mortuary - I know you've been waiting!
obamacare
Thursday, October 1, 2009
100 years Old: Should We Feel Guilty
Should these babies all feel guilty?
Half of babies born in rich world will live to 100
Thu Oct 1, 2009 7:52pm EDT
7:52pm EDT
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of babies born in rich nations today will live to be 100 years old if current life expectancy trends continue, according to Danish researchers.
Increasing numbers of very old people could pose major challenges for health and social systems, but the research showed that may be mitigated by people not only living longer, but also staying healthier in their latter years.
"Very long lives are not the distant privilege of remote future generations -- very long lives are the probable destiny of most people alive now in developed countries," Kaare Christensen of the Danish Aging Research Center wrote on Friday in a study in the Lancet medical journal.
The study used Germany as a case study and showed that by 2050, its population will be substantially older and smaller than now -- a situation it said was now typical of rich nations.
This means smaller workforces in rich nations will have to shoulder an ever-greater burden of ballooning pension and healthcare requirements of the old.
Many governments in developed nations are already making moves toward raising the typical age of retirement to try to cope with aging populations.
The researchers said this was an important strategy, and added that if part-time work was considered for more of the workforce, that could have yet more benefits.
"If people in their 60s and early 70s worked much more than they do nowadays, then most people could work fewer hours per week," they wrote. "Preliminary evidence suggests that shortened working weeks over extended working lives might further contribute to increases in life expectancy and health."
LIVING BETTER?
Christensen and colleagues said huge increases in life expectancy -- of more than 30 years -- had been seen in most developed countries over the 20th century.
And death rates in nations with the longest life-expectancy, such as Japan, Sweden and Spain, suggest that, even if health conditions do not improve, three-quarters of babies will live to celebrate their 75th birthdays.
"But should life expectancy continue to improve at the same rate, most babies born in rich nations since 2000 can expect to live to 100 years," they wrote.
The researchers, who pooled and analysed data from several international studies, said they wanted to explore "a common view" that a big rise in the proportion of older people would come as a result of helping an increasing number of frail and ill people survive longer -- with huge personal and societal costs.
But they found that even though many people who live to age 85 have chronic diseases such as diabetes and arthritis, they have only become frail and disabled at a later stage, essentially postponing frail old age instead of extending it.
"This apparent contradiction is at least partly accounted for by early diagnosis, improved treatment, and amelioration of prevalent diseases so that they are less disabling," they wrote.
"People younger than 85 years are living longer and, on the whole, are able to manage their daily activities for longer."
But for people older than 85, the situation is less clear, the researchers said. Data are sparse, and there is widespread concern that exceptional longevity -- with ever larger numbers living to 100 and more -- could be grim for the people themselves and the societies they live in.
****************************
Does that mean that 50 will be the new 20?
age
Half of babies born in rich world will live to 100
Thu Oct 1, 2009 7:52pm EDT
7:52pm EDT
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - More than half of babies born in rich nations today will live to be 100 years old if current life expectancy trends continue, according to Danish researchers.
Increasing numbers of very old people could pose major challenges for health and social systems, but the research showed that may be mitigated by people not only living longer, but also staying healthier in their latter years.
"Very long lives are not the distant privilege of remote future generations -- very long lives are the probable destiny of most people alive now in developed countries," Kaare Christensen of the Danish Aging Research Center wrote on Friday in a study in the Lancet medical journal.
The study used Germany as a case study and showed that by 2050, its population will be substantially older and smaller than now -- a situation it said was now typical of rich nations.
This means smaller workforces in rich nations will have to shoulder an ever-greater burden of ballooning pension and healthcare requirements of the old.
Many governments in developed nations are already making moves toward raising the typical age of retirement to try to cope with aging populations.
The researchers said this was an important strategy, and added that if part-time work was considered for more of the workforce, that could have yet more benefits.
"If people in their 60s and early 70s worked much more than they do nowadays, then most people could work fewer hours per week," they wrote. "Preliminary evidence suggests that shortened working weeks over extended working lives might further contribute to increases in life expectancy and health."
LIVING BETTER?
Christensen and colleagues said huge increases in life expectancy -- of more than 30 years -- had been seen in most developed countries over the 20th century.
And death rates in nations with the longest life-expectancy, such as Japan, Sweden and Spain, suggest that, even if health conditions do not improve, three-quarters of babies will live to celebrate their 75th birthdays.
"But should life expectancy continue to improve at the same rate, most babies born in rich nations since 2000 can expect to live to 100 years," they wrote.
The researchers, who pooled and analysed data from several international studies, said they wanted to explore "a common view" that a big rise in the proportion of older people would come as a result of helping an increasing number of frail and ill people survive longer -- with huge personal and societal costs.
But they found that even though many people who live to age 85 have chronic diseases such as diabetes and arthritis, they have only become frail and disabled at a later stage, essentially postponing frail old age instead of extending it.
"This apparent contradiction is at least partly accounted for by early diagnosis, improved treatment, and amelioration of prevalent diseases so that they are less disabling," they wrote.
"People younger than 85 years are living longer and, on the whole, are able to manage their daily activities for longer."
But for people older than 85, the situation is less clear, the researchers said. Data are sparse, and there is widespread concern that exceptional longevity -- with ever larger numbers living to 100 and more -- could be grim for the people themselves and the societies they live in.
****************************
Does that mean that 50 will be the new 20?
age
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments