@Ilya_L
I suppose that income inequality in Japan is not as severe as in the U.S., but we are worrying about the increase of the number of part-time employees whose positions are unstable.
「所得格差を把握するための代表的な指標であるジニ係数により、所得格差の動向を見てみると、まず、世帯規模調整前の総所得では、1995年から2004年までは上昇しているが、2005年は若干低下している。」 http://bit.ly/cdwptZ
I’ve lived in Japan for the last 6 years, and I think even in that time I’ve been able to see rising inequality. Or maybe it’s just that I’ve become more aware of it and didn’t notice it when I first got here. Japan has some of the same problems that countries like France and Spain have where there is not a lot of labour flexibility, and you’re ending up with two classes of people, those who have permanent jobs and those who don’t.
But Japan also has a lot of factors that are unique to it, and I think it’s somewhat difficult to compare Japan to other countries.
The word “flexibility” is used in different meanings in different contexts. If the word means “the tensile strength of a tree,” I am not cautions. If it is used by the management, it is likely to result in “unstableness” of the employees’ position.
「近代の市場の極限モデルにおいては、家族も結婚もない社会が仮定されている。個々人は、自分の経済的存在を保障するために、自立していなくてはならず、市場の要求に応じられるよう自由でなくてはならない。市場の論理を究極まで徹底させるなら、市場における主体は、孤立した、パートナーシップにも結婚にも家族にも『妨げられない』個人である。」ーーウルリヒ・ベック著（東廉・伊藤美登里訳）『危険社会：新しい近代への道』ウニベルシタス叢書609、２３４ページ。
“Thought through to its ultimate consequence, the market model of modernity implies a society without families and children. Everyone must be independent, free for the demands of the market in order to guarantee his/her economic existence.”(p.116)
Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, SAGE Publications, 1992.
Ulrich Beck is Professor of Sociology at the University of Munich. He is not Glenn Beck, of course.
Yutaka, I see no relationship between the market economy and the fertility rate of a society. The socialist economies also had low fertility. Rather it seems to be that a modern secular society is what seems to bring fertility down. Read my son Eric’s book on this subject.
“Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?”
@steve
It is not the relationship between the market economy and the fertility rate. What Ulrich Beck is talking about is the internal contradiction between the market economy and the nuclear family system in industrialized societies.
The trend of the fertility rate in Japan.
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/suikei09/images/zu02.gif http://bit.ly/912wMz
Yutaka, I cannot see why there is an inherent contradiction between the market economy and the nuclear family system.
In order to answer Steve’s question about the “contradiction,” I will quote the following descriptions from Ulrich Beck’s book. Ulrich Beck is a German sociologist, and the original title of the book is “Risikogesellshaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne.”
“This contradiction between the requirement of a relationship and those of the labor market could only remain hidden so long as it was taken for granted that marriage meant renunciation of a career for women, responsibility for the children and ‘comobility’ according to the professional destiny of the husband.”(p.116) Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, SAGE Publications, 1992.
“Comobility” might mean residential mobility as a family group. （「単身赴任」などではなく。）
“単身赴任は日本以外ではあまり見られない。そのためか、英語には一語で「単身赴任」を表す語が存在しない。”(Wikipedia) これは本当なのでしょうか？
I found a sample sentence in a dictionary. “単身赴任” might translate as “taking up jobs in another city, leaving their families behind.”
“There are many who take up posts [jobs] in another city, leaving their families behind in Tokyo.”
The word “flexibility” has different meanings in different contexts. If the word means “the tensile strength of a tree,” I am not cautious of accepting the idea. If it is used by management, it is likely to result in “instability” of the employees’ position.
The opinions of American people about the bank bailouts, health-care reform, and the economic stimulus.
“Eighty-one percent of Tea Party backers oppose the bank bailouts, 90 percent oppose health-care reform, and 85 percent think the economic stimulus was bad for the country. Among the entire sample of voters, two thirds look unfavorably on the bailouts, but support and opposition for the stimulus and health-care reform are roughly equal and within the margin of error.” NEWSWEEK Poll: Obama Approval Rating Jumps, Democrats Close ‘Enthusiasm Gap’ Poll: Obama Approval Jumps, Dems More Fired Up
What the Tea Party backers hate the most is health-care reform or universal health care.
I have not met any Tea Partiers who hate anything, nor who don’t like the idea of health care reform. Everyone knew that after all the government meddling we have had in health care for decades now, driving up the cost, that reforms were needed. What is not liked is the one-sided approach to reform taken by a very partisan president.
@KnowItSome
I have a question. Are you against introducing universal health care in the US?
“Americans love Medicare; let’s give it to everyone. Paying for the expansion would mean higher taxes, but even Americans who currently have insurance would more than make up for that because they wouldn’t have to pay such high premiums.”
“The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman, p.136.
Correction:
“The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman, p.237.
“Thought through to its ultimate consequence, the market model of modernity implies a society without families and children. Everyone must be independent, free for the demands of the market in order to guarantee his/her economic existence.”(p.116)
Ulrich Beck, Risk Society:
“This contradiction between the requirement of a relationship and those of the labor market could only remain hidden so long as it was taken for granted that marriage meant renunciation of a career for women, responsibility for the children and ‘comobility’ according to the professional destiny of the husband.”(p.116) Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, SAGE Publications, 1992.
This statements strike me as utter nonsense, a unjustified attempt to postulate an absurd extreme consequence of a market economy. Women and children in Pakistan who weave carpets are working for the market economy. Socialist countries had higher female labour participation than market economies, often with the arbitrary assignment of husband and wife to different cities. The key is choice. In a free market economy there is choice, albeit limited by necessity and circumstance.
It is the education of women, and the subsequent desire (legitimate in my view) of the woman to also exercize choice in her life, professional as well as reproductive, that has caused the drop in fertility. It is an issue that modern society needs to address via policies that favour motherhood and make it easier and more attractive so that more women will choose to have children.
I do not see barring women from education and the job market as a solution, which is really what Beck is implying although he would not admit it.
