100年後 日本人口剩三成【聯合報╱2012.01.31 02:05 am日本政府30日預測，全國人口2110年時將只剩下現在的三分之一，財務負擔日益加重。
隸屬於日本厚生勞動省的國立社會保障和人口問題研究所報告指出，2060年日本人口將從目前的1億2770萬人減少三成到8674萬人。15至64歲的勞動主力人口年將減半為4418萬人，14歲以下人口不到800萬，65歲以上人口多達3464萬人，占人口比率39.9%，進入「超高齡」社會。2110年更減為4290萬人。
雖然去年311日本大地震讓平均壽命縮短，但該研究所預估平均壽命延長的趨勢不變，2060年男性平均壽命為84.19歲，女性平均壽命為90.93歲。此外，2060年女性生育率將從現在的1.39減為1.35，該研究所根據人口普查數據，每5年公布一次人口預測。
專家指出，未來數十年日本每年都減少100萬人。慶應義塾大學經濟系教授津谷典子說：「日本當前的退休金制度、勞工政策與社會保障體系都無法反映人口銳減與老化的趨勢，政府應迅速拿出對策。」
日本政府深知人口高齡化將加重財政負擔，首相野田佳彥正努力推動稅制改革，讓目前5%的營業稅分兩階段增稅，到2015年加倍徵收，以挹注社會保障開支。
全文網址: 100年後 日本人口剩三成 | 國際焦點 | 全球觀察 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/WORLD/WOR3/6868926.shtml#ixzz1l34z1Vvu
Power By udn.com
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
經濟理論中擴張論與緊縮論之驗證
歐洲瀕臨衰退 緊縮政策害的【經濟日報╱
2012.01.31 02:05 am英國智庫國家經濟社會研究院（NIESR）日前公布一組令人吃驚的圖表，以當前與往昔的衰退做比較。如以衰退開始後的實質GDP變化而言，英國這一次的表現不及大蕭條時期。進入大蕭條之後的第四年，英國的GDP回復至蕭條前的高峰。此次大衰退開始之後的第四年，英國仍未恢復元氣。
英國並非特例，義大利的表現同樣不及1930年代。西班牙顯然逐漸陷入二度衰退的局面，歐洲前五大經濟體當中的三大已經同屬不及以往俱樂部的一員。是的，其間存在一些警訊與糾葛，然而當今的局面代表一種驚人的政策失敗。
尤其在過去兩年來，這是主宰歐洲與美國精英決策思維的撙節理論的失敗。
一方面，1930年代的英國失業問題比目前嚴重，因為在大蕭條出現之前，英國即已因為重拾金本位制而致經濟陷入衰退。另一方面，英國蕭條的程度比美國溫和許多。
即使如此，超越1930年代的紀錄不應該是艱鉅的挑戰。過去80年來，我們不是已經學到許多關於經濟管理的訣竅與經驗？確實如此。然而在英國與其他地區，決策精英決定拋開此一以昂貴代價換來的經驗，選擇依賴意識型態方便的一廂情願想法。
英國尤其是部分人士所認為「擴張性節約」（expansionary austerity）的良例。其概念是，為對抗衰退，政府不應擴大開支，而應縮減開支，以促成經濟的更快速成長。英國首相卡麥隆聲稱：「所謂解決赤字與促進成長是替代選項的說法大謬不然。你不能為了追求第二個目標而暫時擱置第一個目標。」
在失業率已經居高不下、官方政策直接導致就業繼續流失的局面下，經濟如何得以觸底反彈？堅持「擴張性節約」理論的歐洲央行前總裁特里謝曾經說：「要有信心！我相信，在當前的局勢下，有助於激發信心的政策一定能夠促進而不是妨礙經濟復甦，因為信心是當今的關鍵因素。」
這種信心喊話從來就不可行。國際貨幣基金與其他機構的研究人員很快就拆穿所謂撙節開支有助於創造就業之說的假證據，大西洋兩岸的重量級人物卻相繼讚揚鼓吹緊縮政策的先知，卡麥隆尤甚，因為擴張緊縮之說符合他們的意識形態。
2010年10月，謹守傳統觀念的知名政治專欄作家布洛德對卡麥隆的勇氣多所稱揚，尤其是他「力排經濟學家所提猛藥不但可能不利於英國經濟復甦，甚且導致英國再陷衰退的警示」。他接著呼籲歐巴馬總統「效法卡麥隆」，「立刻揚棄福利國家政策」。
奇怪的是，來自經濟學家的這些警示均證明精準無誤。值得我們慶幸的是，歐巴馬並未效法卡麥隆。
然而這並不意味美國的政策絕無問題。的確，聯邦政府曾經避免施展全面的緊縮政策，然而必須維持預算平衡的各州與地方政府因為聯邦補助用罄而被迫大砍開支與人力。這對美國的整體經濟形成另一種阻力。若非這些減支，美國可能已經踏上自主成長之途。
歐陸緊縮政策產生的結果與英國相同，許多跡象並顯示，歐陸今年可能再度陷入衰退。我們可能因為歐陸之故而誤入歧途。
此一不幸局面令人憤慨的一點是，它完全可以避免。半世紀前，任何經濟學家可能都會告訴你，衰退下採取緊縮政策勢必產生更嚴重的後果。然而決策者與許多學者基於政治因素而選擇忘記他們曾經學到的歷史教訓。無數的勞動階級正因為他們自願選擇失憶而集體付出代價。
（作者Paul Krugman是紐約時報專欄作家）
全文網址: 克魯曼專欄／歐洲瀕臨衰退 緊縮政策害的 | 搶救歐債危機 | 全球觀察 | 聯合新聞網 http://ping.fm/M9PG0
Power By udn.com
2012.01.31 02:05 am英國智庫國家經濟社會研究院（NIESR）日前公布一組令人吃驚的圖表，以當前與往昔的衰退做比較。如以衰退開始後的實質GDP變化而言，英國這一次的表現不及大蕭條時期。進入大蕭條之後的第四年，英國的GDP回復至蕭條前的高峰。此次大衰退開始之後的第四年，英國仍未恢復元氣。
英國並非特例，義大利的表現同樣不及1930年代。西班牙顯然逐漸陷入二度衰退的局面，歐洲前五大經濟體當中的三大已經同屬不及以往俱樂部的一員。是的，其間存在一些警訊與糾葛，然而當今的局面代表一種驚人的政策失敗。
尤其在過去兩年來，這是主宰歐洲與美國精英決策思維的撙節理論的失敗。
一方面，1930年代的英國失業問題比目前嚴重，因為在大蕭條出現之前，英國即已因為重拾金本位制而致經濟陷入衰退。另一方面，英國蕭條的程度比美國溫和許多。
即使如此，超越1930年代的紀錄不應該是艱鉅的挑戰。過去80年來，我們不是已經學到許多關於經濟管理的訣竅與經驗？確實如此。然而在英國與其他地區，決策精英決定拋開此一以昂貴代價換來的經驗，選擇依賴意識型態方便的一廂情願想法。
英國尤其是部分人士所認為「擴張性節約」（expansionary austerity）的良例。其概念是，為對抗衰退，政府不應擴大開支，而應縮減開支，以促成經濟的更快速成長。英國首相卡麥隆聲稱：「所謂解決赤字與促進成長是替代選項的說法大謬不然。你不能為了追求第二個目標而暫時擱置第一個目標。」
在失業率已經居高不下、官方政策直接導致就業繼續流失的局面下，經濟如何得以觸底反彈？堅持「擴張性節約」理論的歐洲央行前總裁特里謝曾經說：「要有信心！我相信，在當前的局勢下，有助於激發信心的政策一定能夠促進而不是妨礙經濟復甦，因為信心是當今的關鍵因素。」
這種信心喊話從來就不可行。國際貨幣基金與其他機構的研究人員很快就拆穿所謂撙節開支有助於創造就業之說的假證據，大西洋兩岸的重量級人物卻相繼讚揚鼓吹緊縮政策的先知，卡麥隆尤甚，因為擴張緊縮之說符合他們的意識形態。
2010年10月，謹守傳統觀念的知名政治專欄作家布洛德對卡麥隆的勇氣多所稱揚，尤其是他「力排經濟學家所提猛藥不但可能不利於英國經濟復甦，甚且導致英國再陷衰退的警示」。他接著呼籲歐巴馬總統「效法卡麥隆」，「立刻揚棄福利國家政策」。
奇怪的是，來自經濟學家的這些警示均證明精準無誤。值得我們慶幸的是，歐巴馬並未效法卡麥隆。
然而這並不意味美國的政策絕無問題。的確，聯邦政府曾經避免施展全面的緊縮政策，然而必須維持預算平衡的各州與地方政府因為聯邦補助用罄而被迫大砍開支與人力。這對美國的整體經濟形成另一種阻力。若非這些減支，美國可能已經踏上自主成長之途。
歐陸緊縮政策產生的結果與英國相同，許多跡象並顯示，歐陸今年可能再度陷入衰退。我們可能因為歐陸之故而誤入歧途。
此一不幸局面令人憤慨的一點是，它完全可以避免。半世紀前，任何經濟學家可能都會告訴你，衰退下採取緊縮政策勢必產生更嚴重的後果。然而決策者與許多學者基於政治因素而選擇忘記他們曾經學到的歷史教訓。無數的勞動階級正因為他們自願選擇失憶而集體付出代價。
（作者Paul Krugman是紐約時報專欄作家）
全文網址: 克魯曼專欄／歐洲瀕臨衰退 緊縮政策害的 | 搶救歐債危機 | 全球觀察 | 聯合新聞網 http://ping.fm/M9PG0
Power By udn.com
大學學歷5.79%失業率最高
2012-01-31 01:01 工商時報 行政院主計處昨（30）日指出，由於近年大學生快速增加，在大學人力供給持續增加下，使得100年具大學學歷者的失業率高達5.79％，居各學歷之冠，但具研究所學歷者的失業率僅2.97％，顯示多讀書、有專長仍較具就業競爭力。
主計處完成100年失業調查，這份調查結果顯示台灣在100年的失業率已由前兩年的5.85％、5.21％降至4.39％，其中各學歷的失業率也同步降低，但各學歷裡仍以大學學歷者的失業率5.79％最高。
主計處第四局副局長陳憫表示，大學學歷者失業率偏高，這是因為近年來受大學教育的比率愈來愈高，97~99年每年自大學畢業的人數依序是28萬9千人、29萬人、29萬2千人，在高學歷人力供給大幅成長下，一方面使得大學以上學歷者占就業人口比重在100年升至27.5％，但也使得這一學歷的失業率升至各學歷最高。
何以如此？陳憫分析，通常年輕人處於就業磨合期，失業率會比較高，而現在多數年輕人都唸完大學再去就業，因此對照到各學歷時便會呈現大學學歷者失業率較高，因此這恐怕不能直接解讀為高學歷反而難以就業。
陳憫表示，雖然大學學歷的失業率偏高，但具研究所學歷者的失業率卻只有2.97％，非僅遠低於平均失業率4.39％，也比專科、高中、高職及國中學歷者的失業率為低，這顯示多讀些書，具專長者在就業市場上依然具有競爭優勢。
Monday, January 30, 2012
豪宅再創天價
每坪破3百萬自由時報 – 2012年1月30日 下午2:39
總統選後，台灣房市進入新的紀元，台北頂級豪宅將進入「300萬元俱樂部」，瓏山林新推個案「瓏山林世貿博物館」預定在春節過後2週左右釋出市場，每坪以310萬-320萬元開出，直接搶下台北最貴豪宅的寶座。
「瓏山林世貿博物館」位在台北市信義計劃區的松勤街上，已經完工，正進入最後修飾階段，待整個修飾及清潔後，將推出市場銷售，每戶108坪以上，總案量80億元，價格單挑皇翔F4，以310萬元以上開出。
今年豪宅開價大PK
目前台北市號稱最貴豪宅是皇翔建設在信義計劃區推出的「皇翔F4」，號稱每坪300萬元，但一直採取潛銷方式，預定在今年正式推出市場銷售；兩大豪宅PK賽，將對台北市頂級豪宅銷售有指標性影響。
除前兩新成屋案外，同樣在信義計劃區內的亞太會館即將拆除，預定改建頂級豪宅，房價未來同樣上看每坪300萬元以上，可望躋身300萬元頂級豪宅俱樂部。
另外，潤泰創新在博愛特區緊鄰植物園邊的個案，預定採取先建後售，已經進入施工階段，潤泰也揚言，未來售價也直接上看300萬元以上。
台北市頂級豪宅價格，從2002年銷售的吉美建設「信義之星」每坪約70萬元開出，當時正是台灣房地產谷底區，隨著房市走出谷底，「信義之星」房價跟著水漲船高，即使已經中古屋，目前房價約在180萬元／坪高檔交易，台北信義計劃區內豪宅的房價也在180-220萬／坪左右。
除去信義計劃區，台北市頂級豪宅分佈在數條重要道路上，包括仁愛路、信義路、敦化南北路等，並有基隆河邊的大直水岸豪宅區，仁愛路上宏盛建設「帝寶」則在2011年法拍價都攀上200萬元／坪，拉高所有頂級豪宅房價，目前宏盛仁愛帝寶房價約是在250萬元／坪左右。
總統選後，台灣房市進入新的紀元，台北頂級豪宅將進入「300萬元俱樂部」，瓏山林新推個案「瓏山林世貿博物館」預定在春節過後2週左右釋出市場，每坪以310萬-320萬元開出，直接搶下台北最貴豪宅的寶座。
「瓏山林世貿博物館」位在台北市信義計劃區的松勤街上，已經完工，正進入最後修飾階段，待整個修飾及清潔後，將推出市場銷售，每戶108坪以上，總案量80億元，價格單挑皇翔F4，以310萬元以上開出。
今年豪宅開價大PK
目前台北市號稱最貴豪宅是皇翔建設在信義計劃區推出的「皇翔F4」，號稱每坪300萬元，但一直採取潛銷方式，預定在今年正式推出市場銷售；兩大豪宅PK賽，將對台北市頂級豪宅銷售有指標性影響。
除前兩新成屋案外，同樣在信義計劃區內的亞太會館即將拆除，預定改建頂級豪宅，房價未來同樣上看每坪300萬元以上，可望躋身300萬元頂級豪宅俱樂部。
另外，潤泰創新在博愛特區緊鄰植物園邊的個案，預定採取先建後售，已經進入施工階段，潤泰也揚言，未來售價也直接上看300萬元以上。
台北市頂級豪宅價格，從2002年銷售的吉美建設「信義之星」每坪約70萬元開出，當時正是台灣房地產谷底區，隨著房市走出谷底，「信義之星」房價跟著水漲船高，即使已經中古屋，目前房價約在180萬元／坪高檔交易，台北信義計劃區內豪宅的房價也在180-220萬／坪左右。
除去信義計劃區，台北市頂級豪宅分佈在數條重要道路上，包括仁愛路、信義路、敦化南北路等，並有基隆河邊的大直水岸豪宅區，仁愛路上宏盛建設「帝寶」則在2011年法拍價都攀上200萬元／坪，拉高所有頂級豪宅房價，目前宏盛仁愛帝寶房價約是在250萬元／坪左右。
貧窮者忙於生活.何來時間發聲.終成弱勢
At Davos, Why Is No One Talking About the Poor?
By ROYA WOLVERSON | @royaclare | January 28, 2012 A participant to the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting is seen in silhouette on January 27, 2012 in Davos.
I first learned about the World Economic Forum at Davos as a greenhorn in college. At the time, I was knee-deep in coursework on economic development, a field that extols the social and economic virtues of tending to the world’s poor. I was somewhere between Amartya’s Sen‘s 1999 Nobel Prize-winning book Development as Freedom, a cult sensation among wonky Ivy Leaguers and 20-something granolas bound for the Peace Corps, and Joseph Stiglitz‘s 2002 bestseller Globalization and Its Discontents, when I first dreamed of going to Davos to take part in the lofty mission of “solving the world’s problems.”
(LIST: The Heavy Hitters of Davos 2012)
Those were the years when globalization really earned its bad rap. And as a result, a counter movement, rooted in aspirations of global equity and social good, began to take hold. Anti-globalization protests so disrupted the WEF in 2001 that its organizers had to relocate the event to New York the following year. The anti-globalization movement even erected its own conference, the World Social Forum, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to serve as a populist counterweight to the elite Davos powwow. By 2002, Porto Alegre had drawn in 50,000 people, triple the number from the previous year. Even the Economist conceded that, in light of popular backlash, the march toward globalization could yet be reversed:
The economic history of the twentieth century is full of reminders that the move towards globalisation is not inevitable. War in 1914 brought an end to a period of economic openness and integration unparalleled even today. The 1930s were more painful than necessary precisely because of beggar-thy-neighbour policies adopted in the wake of the Depression. It is not impossible that governments today will turn their backs on open trade and capital flows. Many of those in Porto Alegre would welcome such a policy reversal.
In WEF-like circles, the biggest critics of globalization then were the defenders of the world’s poor, who cited a growing gap between the fortunes of Western economies and those of the developing world. As the Economist noted:
[Anti-globalizationists] point to the 2 billion or so people who live in countries where poverty has increased, where economic growth is stagnant, and where trade has shrunk as a proportion of GDP. A large chunk of the world, home to a third of its people and including much of Africa and the Muslim world, has been marginalized. Such deterioration in the living standards of so many, argue globalization’s critics, is evidence of the selective benefits it brings: the rich minority thrive at the expense of a much larger group of desperately poor people. It is this message [the World Social Forum] will seek to develop and strengthen.
As I scurried from panel to panel at Davos this year, I realized just how dramatically the perspectives on globalization has changed since those years. No doubt, the topic of globalization is as hot as ever at the WEF. But on the question of what to do about it, on how to make it inclusive and fair, the answers have changed.
(MORE: Should Americans Care About Apple’s iPhone Factory Conditions?)
What’s missing in the WEF discussions is the perspective of the poor. Unfair trade practices and poor working conditions in the developing world, issues that made it onto the WEF agenda a decade ago and keep rearing their ugly head, haven’t been raised at all. Instead, the conversation is acutely focused on the plight of the Western worker and his dwindling pension plan. Of course, that’s partly because WEF attendants overwhelmingly come from the rich world, which is slowly losing its privileged position in the global economy. It’s also because globalization has done a lot of good for the world’s poor. The migration of jobs from the developed to the developing world has pulled millions out of poverty.
But the ills of globalization have also bred suspicion and resentment among the disaffected. And that’s a big problem, because it undermines the social and political stability that open-market capitalism needs to thrive. One step in bridging that gap is to foster more inclusive conversations. Why not, for instance, recruit leaders from Porto Alegre (where attendance shrank to 15,000 this year) to spar with the 1% at the WEF? Or, as economist Daniel Gros noted, “there have been indirect communications between the ad hoc leadership of Occupy Davos and the leadership of the World Economic Forum. Now that would be an interesting panel: WEF head Klaus Schwab, J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, and a few protesters.” Gros was actually just making a snarky remark, but that would be a most interesting discussion indeed.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/28/at-davos-why-is-no-one-talking-about-the-poor/#ixzz1ku8tp0I2
By ROYA WOLVERSON | @royaclare | January 28, 2012 A participant to the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting is seen in silhouette on January 27, 2012 in Davos.
I first learned about the World Economic Forum at Davos as a greenhorn in college. At the time, I was knee-deep in coursework on economic development, a field that extols the social and economic virtues of tending to the world’s poor. I was somewhere between Amartya’s Sen‘s 1999 Nobel Prize-winning book Development as Freedom, a cult sensation among wonky Ivy Leaguers and 20-something granolas bound for the Peace Corps, and Joseph Stiglitz‘s 2002 bestseller Globalization and Its Discontents, when I first dreamed of going to Davos to take part in the lofty mission of “solving the world’s problems.”
(LIST: The Heavy Hitters of Davos 2012)
Those were the years when globalization really earned its bad rap. And as a result, a counter movement, rooted in aspirations of global equity and social good, began to take hold. Anti-globalization protests so disrupted the WEF in 2001 that its organizers had to relocate the event to New York the following year. The anti-globalization movement even erected its own conference, the World Social Forum, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to serve as a populist counterweight to the elite Davos powwow. By 2002, Porto Alegre had drawn in 50,000 people, triple the number from the previous year. Even the Economist conceded that, in light of popular backlash, the march toward globalization could yet be reversed:
The economic history of the twentieth century is full of reminders that the move towards globalisation is not inevitable. War in 1914 brought an end to a period of economic openness and integration unparalleled even today. The 1930s were more painful than necessary precisely because of beggar-thy-neighbour policies adopted in the wake of the Depression. It is not impossible that governments today will turn their backs on open trade and capital flows. Many of those in Porto Alegre would welcome such a policy reversal.
In WEF-like circles, the biggest critics of globalization then were the defenders of the world’s poor, who cited a growing gap between the fortunes of Western economies and those of the developing world. As the Economist noted:
[Anti-globalizationists] point to the 2 billion or so people who live in countries where poverty has increased, where economic growth is stagnant, and where trade has shrunk as a proportion of GDP. A large chunk of the world, home to a third of its people and including much of Africa and the Muslim world, has been marginalized. Such deterioration in the living standards of so many, argue globalization’s critics, is evidence of the selective benefits it brings: the rich minority thrive at the expense of a much larger group of desperately poor people. It is this message [the World Social Forum] will seek to develop and strengthen.
As I scurried from panel to panel at Davos this year, I realized just how dramatically the perspectives on globalization has changed since those years. No doubt, the topic of globalization is as hot as ever at the WEF. But on the question of what to do about it, on how to make it inclusive and fair, the answers have changed.
(MORE: Should Americans Care About Apple’s iPhone Factory Conditions?)
What’s missing in the WEF discussions is the perspective of the poor. Unfair trade practices and poor working conditions in the developing world, issues that made it onto the WEF agenda a decade ago and keep rearing their ugly head, haven’t been raised at all. Instead, the conversation is acutely focused on the plight of the Western worker and his dwindling pension plan. Of course, that’s partly because WEF attendants overwhelmingly come from the rich world, which is slowly losing its privileged position in the global economy. It’s also because globalization has done a lot of good for the world’s poor. The migration of jobs from the developed to the developing world has pulled millions out of poverty.
But the ills of globalization have also bred suspicion and resentment among the disaffected. And that’s a big problem, because it undermines the social and political stability that open-market capitalism needs to thrive. One step in bridging that gap is to foster more inclusive conversations. Why not, for instance, recruit leaders from Porto Alegre (where attendance shrank to 15,000 this year) to spar with the 1% at the WEF? Or, as economist Daniel Gros noted, “there have been indirect communications between the ad hoc leadership of Occupy Davos and the leadership of the World Economic Forum. Now that would be an interesting panel: WEF head Klaus Schwab, J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, and a few protesters.” Gros was actually just making a snarky remark, but that would be a most interesting discussion indeed.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/01/28/at-davos-why-is-no-one-talking-about-the-poor/#ixzz1ku8tp0I2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)