|
|
|
|
|
|
by CanSpice
4183 days ago
|
|
|
The rebuttal seems pretty convincing if you only look at the graph between 2002 and 2008. You could lop everything off after 1985 and have the same rebuttal. The rebuttal would be convincing if he went into detail as to why the government forecasts are wrong, but he doesn't. He just says "hey they're wrong" without delving into any of the history of the forecasts, how the forecasts are made (which would be interesting, because then he could really say why he thinks they're wrong), what his forecasts might be... But instead, he just says "hey they're wrong" without anything else. If anything he's guilty of cherry-picking, which is something we rage against when climate change denialists do it. Why is this guy convincing while they're not? |
|
|
The original article's premise was reflected by its title;
"Japan’s birth rate problem is way worse than anyone imagined"
But it's not worse than anyone imagined, at all. It's actually better than people 'imagined' (i.e. forecast) in 2002, 2008, and 2012. Japan's fertility rate might be a big issue still, but it's been beating the forecasts for 10 years now.
As for expounding on why the forecasts are wrong, or more substantive articles about fertility and gender issues in Japan, you'll have to read some of his previous posts. I'd suggest:
"Time for gaijin to take a second look at Abe's Womenomics" [1] Where he discusses how the landscape is changing for women to enter the Japanese workforce and how that might affect birth rates further.
"The Japanese tragedy, causes and consequences"[2] Where he discusses why forecasts for GDP and growth rates have been notoriously bad in Japan.
I didn't post his original article to serve as a complete and thorough treatment of the birth rate issue in Japan, but only to counter the original WaPo article that was pretty misleading.
[1] - http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-for-gaijin-t...
[2] - http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-japanese-trag...