Japan's elderly turn to life of crime to ease cost of living

[Repat Van]

I know some may find this funny - but I think it's rather sad.

www.afr.com/news/world/japans-elderly-turn-to-life-of-crime-to-ease-cost-of-living-20160327-gns28l

Japan's prison system is being driven to budgetary crisis by demographics, a welfare shortfall and a new, pernicious breed of villain: the recidivist retiree. And the silver-haired crooks, say academics, are desperate to be behind bars.

Crime figures show that about 35 per cent of shoplifting offences are committed by people over 60. Within that age bracket, 40 per cent of repeat offenders have committed the same crime more than six times.

There is good reason, concludes a report, to suspect that the shoplifting crime wave in particular represents an attempt by those convicted to end up in prison -- an institution that offers free food, accommodation and healthcare.

The mathematics of recidivism are gloomily compelling for the would-be convict. Even with a frugal diet and dirt-cheap accommodation, a single Japanese retiree with minimal savings has living costs more than 25 per cent higher than the meagre basic state pension of ¥780,000 ($9,200) a year, according to a study on the economics of elderly crime by Michael Newman of Tokyo-based research house Custom Products Research.

Even the theft of a ¥200 sandwich can earn a two-year prison sentence, say academics, at an ¥8.4 million cost to the state.

The geriatric crime wave is accelerating, and analysts note that the Japanese prison system -- newly expanded and at about 70 per cent occupancy -- is being prepared for decades of increases. Between 1991 and 2013, the latest year for which the Ministry of Justice publishes figures, the number of elderly inmates in jail for repeating the same offence six times has climbed 460 per cent.

The surging rates of crime among the elderly disguise a darker trend than mere contempt for the law, say economists and criminologists. Retiree crime is rising more quickly than the general demographic ascent into old age that will put 40 per cent of the Japanese population over 65 by the year 2060.

Akio Doteuchi, a senior researcher on social development at the NLI Research Institute in Tokyo, expects the ratio of repeat offenders to continue rising.

"The social situation in Japan has forced the elderly into the need to commit crime," he says. "The ratio of people who receive public assistance is highest since the end of the war. About 40 per cent of the elderly live alone. It's a vicious circle. They leave prison, they don't have money or family so they turn immediately to crime."

The crime figures, he adds, expose the strained calculus of the government's welfare spending as the world's second-biggest economy ages. Prison, no matter how the spreadsheets are run, is a woefully inefficient way for the government to target welfare spending at those who most need it.

Attempts to find ways to release elderly prisoners early have encountered insurmountable legal problems, Mr Doteuchi says, and the prison system as a whole will eventually be overrun by elderly inmates.

It also points to a problem that will really spread across most modern countries as our birth rates continue to fall and our populations continue to age. Isn't it time to try find a completely different way of doing things which can deal with ageing/shrinking populations? Or is there nothing that can be done?

[Deleted]

Thin end of the wedge? I see this happening worldwide as national economies fail to adjust to changing circumstances, as the rich get rich and the poor, poorer. The future ain't bright in any manner whatsoever.

[Repat Van]

It's not just rich getting richer and poor getting poorer though. It's our current set-up for welfare states and how the weren't designed to deal with an ageing population. The idea was we'd always have a young large population base supporting a smaller older (and very young) group of citizens. As the balance starts to shift with people having fewer children and older people living longer is it time to reassess how we do things? Well we actually have to reassess but what is the alternative? It's a hard one.

[nobody]

I mentioned something similar a few weeks ago, In so much as criminals were being treated better than OAP's in the UK.

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2016 7:31:46 GMT Repat Van said:

It's not just rich getting richer and poor getting poorer though. It's our current set-up for welfare states and how the weren't designed to deal with an ageing population. The idea was we'd always have a young large population base supporting a smaller older (and very young) group of citizens. As the balance starts to shift with people having fewer children and older people living longer is it time to reassess how we do things? Well we actually have to reassess but what is the alternative? It's a hard one.

The alternative is to restructure and move towards a fairer society, but it ain't gonna happen. There's no way out. Even for the likes of me and mine who saw this coming and provided for it by buying a home with land and its own water supply and wood are soon going to attract the tax predators. There's already a law in the pipeline which makes our water theirs, laws coming in which will prevent the cutting of trees, talk of taxing garden produce as 'untaxed income', and rising council and land taxes. All I can see at the end of the day is anarchy; maybe not in our lifetime, but it's coming.

[nobody]

True enough ootlg, Friend had a wind turbine for his electricity, Council bumps his rates up, and said he needed planning permission, in spite of being half a mile off the road, in a wood.

Drop a paddle wheel in the river to do the same and the water board charge you for using their water.

Find a way to produce your own power, and somebody will want paying.

[flatandy]

Mar 30, 2016 7:31:46 GMT Repat Van said:

It's not just rich getting richer and poor getting poorer though. It's our current set-up for welfare states and how the weren't designed to deal with an ageing population. The idea was we'd always have a young large population base supporting a smaller older (and very young) group of citizens. As the balance starts to shift with people having fewer children and older people living longer is it time to reassess how we do things? Well we actually have to reassess but what is the alternative? It's a hard one.

Yes.

Basically, the baby boomers were promised a lie about their retirement, and they chose to just accept the lie because it was convenient for them. They were told that they could pay into a "state pension" and they'd be able to retire at 65 and not live in misery. But it was never a pension "fund" in a meaningful sense. When the state pension was set up, it paid out straight away, which means that it's always been dependent on the current working population.

Now, with fewer kids being born, fewer immigrants, the working population is actually smaller. Meanwhile, thanks to improvements in healthcare, people are getting older. There are way more old people now, and fewer young.

The promise to the baby boomers was a lie, and they are going to have to learn to accept that. And all the later generations are going to have to accept that it's just going to get worse.

It's not just a question of redistributing from the rich to the poor: it turns out that lots of the "rich" are in fact also the elderly, in part because they are the ones who own property and property values have gone through the roof, which is what's keeping younger people poor. But you can't throw the elderly out of their homes.

Probably the two key things to start changing things are:

- increase the retirement age, and increase the gig economy for semi-retired people over the retirement age. Keep people working part time, partially, well over 65 or 67
- find ways to take equity out of property assets to pay for the lifestyles that the elderly choose

[jimboky]

I understand that Japan has about the highest cost of living in the world, It might help them to move to somewhere the Cost of Living is lower, which is just about anywhere, assuming they can take their pension with them,

[clarity]

It is very sad and I can see this happening more frequently world wide. I don't know what the answer is, except I urge young people not to rely on a government pension and stash away as much as you can during your working life. It will probably mean for many that they will never be able to afford a house if they concentrate on saving for retirement. Which is also sad for those who want to buy their own home.

There is a way for older people to realise the equity in their own, often mortgage free, homes. It's called a reverse mortgage or something like that. Basically you sell your home to a company and they pay you a monthly income for the rest of your life. I suppose you would have to figure out how long you will live etc and I don't know all the legalities of it and if it's kosher etc. I haven't really looked into it and don't know anybody who has.

But of course, that doesn't help retirees who are living in rented accommodation.

My municipal taxes have tripled in the past 5 years and many retirees are struggling with that. In fact some have had to sell their homes and move away from family and friends and dentists and doctors etc and move to more rural areas where municipal taxes are lower or they will move into rental apartments in Seniors only buildings. They often live isolated lives as many of them won't pass the mandatory driving test at aged 80. They are entirely dependent on others, often family, to help with daily needs such as grocery shopping etc. I can see them committing petty crimes to get 'inside' just to have a conversation with someone and have their daily needs met.

I agree with OOTLG to a certain extent, it will be anarchy down the road. I hope I'm not around.

[eit]

"Euthanise when they get to 75. Economical. Painless and no more queue jumping and terrible clothing from Oxfam"

- George Osborne (coke ridden sh*t)

[jimboky]

many retirees in the States move out of high rent/cost of living areas into places like Florida, Kentucky,,,, they see a large increase in their standard of living

I have thought of reverse mortgage but I haven't looked at the details, it is still a way off, though closing

[voice]

Reverse mortgages are often a scam jim, be careful what you sign up to, a lot of been stung by that offer.

The problem is one of longevity, when we set these state pension schemes up in the 40's and 50's the average life expectancy was around 66 for men and 69 for women now its over 80, no one foresaw the dramatic increase in good health care by having the NHS would lead to this. Longevity costs money, increased care needs for longer, increased health expenditure for longer, yet we've also bought into the lie that a low tax economy means we can have all we want but not pay for it.

[lala]

Mar 30, 2016 14:59:08 GMT clarity said:

It is very sad and I can see this happening more frequently world wide. I don't know what the answer is, except I urge young people not to rely on a government pension and stash away as much as you can during your working life. It will probably mean for many that they will never be able to afford a house if they concentrate on saving for retirement. Which is also sad for those who want to buy their own home.

Buying a home is a form of 'stashing away.' They generally appreciate in value, more reliably and at a faster rate than most other investments. Particularly during a low interest rate period such as we are in. It's even more economically sensible to buy a house and get someone else to pay the mortgage for you as rent - you end up with an asset that can then be sold, having effectively got it for nothing.

That's one of the reasons why they are so unaffordable. Lots of people are buying them essentially as a pension plan.

[flatandy]

They're buying houses as a pension plan yet they aren't expecting to actually divest themselves of that asset once they get to pensionable age.

I don't trust reverse mortgages properly, but there could be a scheme where the state uses the value of the home to defray some of the pension costs, where you would end up with the homes back in the possession of the state (working on the assumption that nobody would lose possession of their homes while they were still alive) who could then either use them for social housing, or resell them on to the market to raise cash. It would increase the flow of housing stock, probably help keep house prices lower....

[Marshall]

The obvious solution for Japan would be to allow more immigration, but they don't like furriners so much there.

[jimboky]

I haven't yet really researched reverse mortgages, they almost sound too good to be true, I have many unanswered questions, but it is a ways off

home values are growing now partly because intrest rates are low, thinking of a house as an investment is risky, right now it's a sellers market, at least here

[Repat Van]

Mar 30, 2016 14:25:34 GMT flatandy said:

Mar 30, 2016 7:31:46 GMT Repat Van said:

It's not just rich getting richer and poor getting poorer though. It's our current set-up for welfare states and how the weren't designed to deal with an ageing population. The idea was we'd always have a young large population base supporting a smaller older (and very young) group of citizens. As the balance starts to shift with people having fewer children and older people living longer is it time to reassess how we do things? Well we actually have to reassess but what is the alternative? It's a hard one.

Yes.

Basically, the baby boomers were promised a lie about their retirement, and they chose to just accept the lie because it was convenient for them. They were told that they could pay into a "state pension" and they'd be able to retire at 65 and not live in misery. But it was never a pension "fund" in a meaningful sense. When the state pension was set up, it paid out straight away, which means that it's always been dependent on the current working population.

Now, with fewer kids being born, fewer immigrants, the working population is actually smaller. Meanwhile, thanks to improvements in healthcare, people are getting older. There are way more old people now, and fewer young.

The promise to the baby boomers was a lie, and they are going to have to learn to accept that. And all the later generations are going to have to accept that it's just going to get worse.

It's not just a question of redistributing from the rich to the poor: it turns out that lots of the "rich" are in fact also the elderly, in part because they are the ones who own property and property values have gone through the roof, which is what's keeping younger people poor. But you can't throw the elderly out of their homes.

Probably the two key things to start changing things are:

- increase the retirement age, and increase the gig economy for semi-retired people over the retirement age. Keep people working part time, partially, well over 65 or 67
- find ways to take equity out of property assets to pay for the lifestyles that the elderly choose

Fewer immigrants???!

Ok in Japan, that's true. But not everywhere else with this issue. I agree on retirement age and also how people find their retirements. The state pension just can't cut it alone. Property assets are a good idea assuming people have those. A lot of people, particularly those at the poorer end of society cannot afford to climb up on the property ladder. Not even the first rung.

[Repat Van]

Mar 30, 2016 14:57:02 GMT jimboky said:

I understand that Japan has about the highest cost of living in the world, It might help them to move to somewhere the Cost of Living is lower, which is just about anywhere, assuming they can take their pension with them,

I didn't think it did. But I am not sure that's a feasible option. Not for the elderly. Not many countries want old immigrants who have stopped working...

[Repat Van]

Mar 30, 2016 14:59:08 GMT clarity said:

It is very sad and I can see this happening more frequently world wide. I don't know what the answer is, except I urge young people not to rely on a government pension and stash away as much as you can during your working life. It will probably mean for many that they will never be able to afford a house if they concentrate on saving for retirement. Which is also sad for those who want to buy their own home.

There is a way for older people to realise the equity in their own, often mortgage free, homes. It's called a reverse mortgage or something like that. Basically you sell your home to a company and they pay you a monthly income for the rest of your life. I suppose you would have to figure out how long you will live etc and I don't know all the legalities of it and if it's kosher etc. I haven't really looked into it and don't know anybody who has.

But of course, that doesn't help retirees who are living in rented accommodation.

My municipal taxes have tripled in the past 5 years and many retirees are struggling with that. In fact some have had to sell their homes and move away from family and friends and dentists and doctors etc and move to more rural areas where municipal taxes are lower or they will move into rental apartments in Seniors only buildings. They often live isolated lives as many of them won't pass the mandatory driving test at aged 80. They are entirely dependent on others, often family, to help with daily needs such as grocery shopping etc. I can see them committing petty crimes to get 'inside' just to have a conversation with someone and have their daily needs met.

I agree with OOTLG to a certain extent, it will be anarchy down the road. I hope I'm not around.

My grandma thought of a reverse mortgage a few years, but my evil uncle talked her out of it. Now she's in a retirement village though and loves it. I am not sure how that worked but so think it was similar with her home being sold and the equity used to fund the retirement village.

Or something.

[Repat Van]

Mar 30, 2016 18:34:55 GMT Marshall said:

The obvious solution for Japan would be to allow more immigration, but they don't like furriners so much there.

It's not really a solution though, it's a Ponzi scheme. As those immigrants age, you need even more people to pay for them and on and on and on and on and on. (And the Japanese have probably decided there are social/cultural costs to large scale immigration that they personally don't wish to deal with.)

I think instead of just trying to constantly increase population size in this manner we probably need to examine implementing a scheme that doesn't require never ending population growth / can deal with an ageing population.