Japan births fall to lowest in 125 years(ft.com)
ft.com
Japan births fall to lowest in 125 years
https://www.ft.com/content/95d3282e-daef-4670-b704-c1215393e7f8
166 comments
https://archive.is/20250227064326/https://www.ft.com/content...
Population is such a weird thing to worry about. When it goes up, people worry about there not being enough resources. When it goes down, people worry about there not being enough people.
I'm sure there continue to be real problems to Japan caused by the upside down population, but I think the thing you likely have to consider is that there are a lot of good reasons to be mindful about having a kid. You want people to be intentional about being able to raise and take care of a human being and provide for them in a way that we expect from a civil society.
Or at least, that's what I want. But then again, I don't worry about the population one way or the other.
I'm sure there continue to be real problems to Japan caused by the upside down population, but I think the thing you likely have to consider is that there are a lot of good reasons to be mindful about having a kid. You want people to be intentional about being able to raise and take care of a human being and provide for them in a way that we expect from a civil society.
Or at least, that's what I want. But then again, I don't worry about the population one way or the other.
Question to HN, what can actually be done in Japan to increase the birth rate? I fell like every year or so a similar article to this one comes out, and nothing is being done about it.
Is this a failure of policy, an outcome of a unique culture, or simply another manifestation of the loneliness epidemic? What is the root issue here and what can be done to mitigate it?
Is this a failure of policy, an outcome of a unique culture, or simply another manifestation of the loneliness epidemic? What is the root issue here and what can be done to mitigate it?
It takes massive cultural change.
It angers people to hear it, but societies with high wages and particularly those where women can work have awful birth rates. Education correlates to lower birth rates. The ones with high birth rates are the ones where people barely scrape by, the ones where workers have no rights, the ones where people focus on getting by today and not plan for a poolside retirement 40 years down the road, the ones where menstruating women are considered filthy and isolated for a week from the men, the ones where having loads of kids makes important figures in your religion happy and there's nothing that matters in life beyond that. You need to change your country to have one (or many) of these conditions to induce high birth rates.
The birth rates in Japan are really no different from any other first world country. The west simply has a massive amount of immigrants to supplant the losses of the barely reproducing locals. Those immigrants might have 2 or 3 kids, and maybe their kids will have 2 kids. Then it reverts back to the mean of 1.2 kids basically everywhere.
There's lots of talk on reddit and other communities that if every country were like (XYZ country they consider paradise) and gave loads of vacation, paid high wages, gave everyone free college and housing, etc that the problem would disappear overnight. But you look at the birth rates of the locals in those countries, and it's always 1.2-1.4.
Mass immigration is a band aid. It makes governments and corporations hope, pray, and potentially strong-arm other countries into being underdeveloped and oppressive in a way that causes high birth rates, and makes the people who live there desperate to find better lives elsewhere. People aren't mass immigrating to first world countries because they decided on a whim that they want to work there, like rich westerners do when they decide they want to retire in SE Asia and be pampered the rest of their life. They move to first world countries because their home country is not a place that makes them happy to live in.
It angers people to hear it, but societies with high wages and particularly those where women can work have awful birth rates. Education correlates to lower birth rates. The ones with high birth rates are the ones where people barely scrape by, the ones where workers have no rights, the ones where people focus on getting by today and not plan for a poolside retirement 40 years down the road, the ones where menstruating women are considered filthy and isolated for a week from the men, the ones where having loads of kids makes important figures in your religion happy and there's nothing that matters in life beyond that. You need to change your country to have one (or many) of these conditions to induce high birth rates.
The birth rates in Japan are really no different from any other first world country. The west simply has a massive amount of immigrants to supplant the losses of the barely reproducing locals. Those immigrants might have 2 or 3 kids, and maybe their kids will have 2 kids. Then it reverts back to the mean of 1.2 kids basically everywhere.
There's lots of talk on reddit and other communities that if every country were like (XYZ country they consider paradise) and gave loads of vacation, paid high wages, gave everyone free college and housing, etc that the problem would disappear overnight. But you look at the birth rates of the locals in those countries, and it's always 1.2-1.4.
Mass immigration is a band aid. It makes governments and corporations hope, pray, and potentially strong-arm other countries into being underdeveloped and oppressive in a way that causes high birth rates, and makes the people who live there desperate to find better lives elsewhere. People aren't mass immigrating to first world countries because they decided on a whim that they want to work there, like rich westerners do when they decide they want to retire in SE Asia and be pampered the rest of their life. They move to first world countries because their home country is not a place that makes them happy to live in.
Japan has relatively low wages compared to Europe & the US, women work at a much lower rate, the birth rate is substantially lower even once you exclude immigration, gender roles are much stricter and opportunities for women outside of the house & child bearing are much more limited.
With all of your facts wrong, I'm fairly confident your conclusion is wrong also.
With all of your facts wrong, I'm fairly confident your conclusion is wrong also.
Birth rate of Finland and Japan are about equal. Birth rate of Japan and Spain are about equal.
What's the source of your "facts"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...
What's the source of your "facts"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...
Even the worst countries in Europe have a higher rate than Japan, and most are substantially higher. Those numbers are exponentials, so a even a seemingly small difference is quite large.
The list I linked shows several places with rates worse than Japan, including Italy. Then there are places like Spain with rates that are about equal. Then there are countries that are barely better, like Greece.
I'm not sure where you're getting "substantially higher" from.
I'm not sure where you're getting "substantially higher" from.
The article makes a strong case that it is not due to women working; as Japan has some of the lowest female labour market participation in the developed world.
East Asian cultures like Japan and South Korea are extremely chauvinistic when compared to Western societies. Gender roles are still strong and women are expected to be a "good wife" taking care of kids, house chores, etc.
It's no surprise that educated ones will reject that, as a sibling comment mentions, Japanese women labour participation is lower than in Western societies.
It's no surprise that educated ones will reject that, as a sibling comment mentions, Japanese women labour participation is lower than in Western societies.
One thing that's not unusual in Japan is for women here to want to be housewives. A lot of people just don't like office politics and commuting and there's nothing wrong with that. The idea that educated people MUST work at a company feels kind of antiquated, honestly. Normalize education for the sake of simply having educated people in society.
> the ones where menstruating women are considered filthy and isolated for a week from the men
I think you’re massively overstating that, and probably misinterpreting what the Quran actually says.
English translation, which probably misses some of the nuance of the original text:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation_in_Islam
And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a harm (painful situation); therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.
For anyone who’s lived with women who have a hard time of menstruation, that’s not entirely unreasonable advice, and it indicates women are given less strict rules to follow due to the difficulties they’ve to contend with as women, which also seems not entirely unreasonable.
There are other versus that deal with the treatment of women specifically, and those versus also have at least some not entirely unreasonable advice, especially given the context of a world with less advanced medicine, I mean historically, as did we all, and the idea that menstruating / pregnant women ought be given additional consideration.
I think you’re massively overstating that, and probably misinterpreting what the Quran actually says.
English translation, which probably misses some of the nuance of the original text:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation_in_Islam
And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a harm (painful situation); therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.
For anyone who’s lived with women who have a hard time of menstruation, that’s not entirely unreasonable advice, and it indicates women are given less strict rules to follow due to the difficulties they’ve to contend with as women, which also seems not entirely unreasonable.
There are other versus that deal with the treatment of women specifically, and those versus also have at least some not entirely unreasonable advice, especially given the context of a world with less advanced medicine, I mean historically, as did we all, and the idea that menstruating / pregnant women ought be given additional consideration.
You're assuming they were referring to Islam.
Women are isolated from men during menstruation, to various degrees from limited touching to full exile to menstruation huts, in other religions and cultures.
Women are isolated from men during menstruation, to various degrees from limited touching to full exile to menstruation huts, in other religions and cultures.
One quarter of the worlds population is Islamic, and it is typically what people complain about.
I was referring to Nepal where women were, until recently, exiled during menstruation. And birth rates there have also fallen with modernization. [1]
But it is interesting that you immediately jump to defend Islam in saying it's misinterpreting it, then say it is true and not unreasonable. Pretty bizarre.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/12/17/7878085...
But it is interesting that you immediately jump to defend Islam in saying it's misinterpreting it, then say it is true and not unreasonable. Pretty bizarre.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/12/17/7878085...
Why not just say what you're referring to.
Maybe we simply don't need high birth rates everywhere. Why should women shoulder the burden of having children and raising them when there are other options for themselves?
Can't help but make an argument: why should men shoulder the burden of going to war when there are other options for themselves? But I also think it wouldn't be that bad to just sit back and watch the world burn, not caring about birth rates. What is there to lose if life is meaningless?
The world doesn't burn if birthrates go down, it changes.
And fwiw, if men didn't shoulder the burden of going to war, maybe we'd stop having wars? That's a good thing.
And fwiw, if men didn't shoulder the burden of going to war, maybe we'd stop having wars? That's a good thing.
I'm not sure declining birth rate is a problem that needs solving. A lot of other problems go away if there are fewer humans around. Elements of our current society will be difficult to maintain with a lower population, but I'm not convinced that we need to keep society as it currently is.
That said, Alice Evans writes extensively on declining birth rates and she'd be my first port of call if I wanted to understand the reasons behind it: https://bsky.app/profile/draliceevans.bsky.social
That said, Alice Evans writes extensively on declining birth rates and she'd be my first port of call if I wanted to understand the reasons behind it: https://bsky.app/profile/draliceevans.bsky.social
A declining birth rate is a different problem to a declining population.
The population pyramid becomes inverted with huge numbers of economically inactive retirees dependant on ever fewer numbers of working age people to care for them. Politics becomes hyper conservative as the young liberal voter base shrinks ever smaller. Military strength falls because the number of potential soldiers declines.
The population pyramid becomes inverted with huge numbers of economically inactive retirees dependant on ever fewer numbers of working age people to care for them. Politics becomes hyper conservative as the young liberal voter base shrinks ever smaller. Military strength falls because the number of potential soldiers declines.
Yes. On the other hand the global population boom is a recent phenomenon on historical terms (it started in the 20th century) and is the main cause of our current environmental problems.
Thus, arguably a lower population is the best long term solution for a sustainable human presence on this planet while maintaining or expanding living standards, but indeed this comes with big challenges (which governments and obviously business interests do not want to face).
Thus, arguably a lower population is the best long term solution for a sustainable human presence on this planet while maintaining or expanding living standards, but indeed this comes with big challenges (which governments and obviously business interests do not want to face).
> is the main cause of our current environmental problems.
I don't fully agree with this. Would you rather live on a planet with a population of 5 billion that primarily used coal energy and meat food? or a planet of 10 billion that primarily consisted of renewable energy and vegetarianism?
My concern is more economic and social. With high population levels it seems too much wealth and power goes to the holders of land and natural resources. The Gulf state monarchs and London landlords being the 20th century manifestations of this.
I don't fully agree with this. Would you rather live on a planet with a population of 5 billion that primarily used coal energy and meat food? or a planet of 10 billion that primarily consisted of renewable energy and vegetarianism?
My concern is more economic and social. With high population levels it seems too much wealth and power goes to the holders of land and natural resources. The Gulf state monarchs and London landlords being the 20th century manifestations of this.
I'd rather live on a planet where people are free to eat what they want, free to travel as they wish and see the world, free to live in a house with a large garden, free to enjoy life and the planet.
Renewable energy, at least low-zero emission energy, will take over in any case but emissions are only one issue. Our negative impact on the environment goes far beyond that and it is driven by population.
Renewable energy, at least low-zero emission energy, will take over in any case but emissions are only one issue. Our negative impact on the environment goes far beyond that and it is driven by population.
> What is the root issue here and what can be done to mitigate it?
Nobody has a good answer for this.
It's not about wealth. Huge amounts of money have been spent on incentive programs in Poland, Hungary and South Korea without success. Between countries, wealthier nations tend to have lower fertility rates. Eastern European countries tend to have lower house prices than France but also have lower fertility rates.
It's not about religiosity. Qatar, Iran and the UAE all have negative fertility rates. As does Catholic Poland.
It's not about social or employment policies. The Nordics have very generous maternity leave and benefits but still have terrible fertility.
The only exception of a wealthy country having a long term positive fertility rate is Israel.
Nobody has a good answer for this.
It's not about wealth. Huge amounts of money have been spent on incentive programs in Poland, Hungary and South Korea without success. Between countries, wealthier nations tend to have lower fertility rates. Eastern European countries tend to have lower house prices than France but also have lower fertility rates.
It's not about religiosity. Qatar, Iran and the UAE all have negative fertility rates. As does Catholic Poland.
It's not about social or employment policies. The Nordics have very generous maternity leave and benefits but still have terrible fertility.
The only exception of a wealthy country having a long term positive fertility rate is Israel.
> The only exception of a wealthy country having a long term positive fertility rate is Israel.
Which is constantly at war(s). I wonder how long (20+ year) peace might affect Israel fertility rate.
Which is constantly at war(s). I wonder how long (20+ year) peace might affect Israel fertility rate.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been tried out very widely is making it a net economic benefit to have children. This used to sometimes be the case in the days when you could send your eight year old down the mine, etc. etc. But these days everyone in Western countries seems to take it as given that having children will lead to a reduction in disposable income and (especially if you are a woman) a possible career setback. The 'generous' countries you talk about just soften this blow in comparison to somewhere like the US.
If the country needs more kids to secure its long term future, then the government should invest in this and (in effect) pay people to have them. I suspect that this would be an unpopular policy, as for whatever reason, people hate the idea of someone receiving lots of money from the government just because they have kids. They especially hate this idea when the person receiving the money is the person who did the hard work of childbirth. But anyone who thinks that low birth rates are a crisis ought to be open to this kind of solution.
I also, frankly, would prefer it if my colleagues with kids took lots of subsidized time off work, had access to proper childcare, and then were fully present and focused when they actually were at work. (I am aware of the irony of complaining about people being unfocused while posting on HN during working hours :D)
If the country needs more kids to secure its long term future, then the government should invest in this and (in effect) pay people to have them. I suspect that this would be an unpopular policy, as for whatever reason, people hate the idea of someone receiving lots of money from the government just because they have kids. They especially hate this idea when the person receiving the money is the person who did the hard work of childbirth. But anyone who thinks that low birth rates are a crisis ought to be open to this kind of solution.
I also, frankly, would prefer it if my colleagues with kids took lots of subsidized time off work, had access to proper childcare, and then were fully present and focused when they actually were at work. (I am aware of the irony of complaining about people being unfocused while posting on HN during working hours :D)
Then we wouldn't be able to produce that much. The next question will be then, why should we produce more and more? All these ideas are based on constant growth, even the natality discussion is about getting a birth rate bigger than some other country. But can we grow forever? Or maybe we are approaching an inflexion point, and we should (sooner or later) adapt the thinking instead of the birth rates? Even the retirement benefits are not a god-given but a strategic planning and like just any planning it can be adapted. And also should, I think.
> the natality discussion is about getting a birth rate bigger than some other country
Having fertility rate of around 2.1 to produce a stable population level is ideal. Otherwise you eventually end up with exponential problems one way or another.
Having fertility rate of around 2.1 to produce a stable population level is ideal. Otherwise you eventually end up with exponential problems one way or another.
I agree. I don't necessarily think that low birth rates are a crisis. My point is that anyone who thinks that they are ought to be in favor of the government spending a lot of money to fix the crisis.
> One thing that doesn't seem to have been tried out very widely is making it a net economic benefit to have children
I think Hungary may have already reached this level. Families can get income tax reductions / exemptions, maternity leave, childcare support, preferential mortgagee rates and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary
I think Hungary may have already reached this level. Families can get income tax reductions / exemptions, maternity leave, childcare support, preferential mortgagee rates and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary
Exactly, there is a counter example for everyone's favourite theory.
The only credible approach to this is issue can be found in this corner of the discourse: https://www.natalism.org/
The only credible approach to this is issue can be found in this corner of the discourse: https://www.natalism.org/
Apparently invited speaker Babygravy9 is one of the “brightest minds in the world”. Who’d have thought?
https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1892928467152322571
https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1892928467152322571
I can't speak to Babygravy9 mind or character, but if "being pleasant" is in any way related to intellect, Isaac Newton must have been a simpleton - he was a famously unpleasant and vindictive person.
We know that Isaac Newton wasn't a simpleton because he wrote the Principia. I think you will search in vain for any output of similar intellectual quality by this particular individual.
I think you will search in vain for any output of similar intellectual quality by basically anyone alive.
Ok. I guess it doesn't damage the credibility of this conference that they've invited an anonymous racist troll as one of their speakers because no-one is as smart as Isaac Newton.
The era where activists were able to make this decision on behalf of everyone else is over, at least in the US - you'll have to decide for yourself.
Balaji Srinivasan, Bryan Caplan, Kevin Dolan and Cremieux are quite bright and a good reason to attend, I don't know most of the others.
Balaji Srinivasan, Bryan Caplan, Kevin Dolan and Cremieux are quite bright and a good reason to attend, I don't know most of the others.
I am not in the US. I have decided for myself on the basis that (i) the first word of the tweet I linked is a nasty ethnic slur and (ii) its contents are merely schadenfreude over someone's raw emotional outburst in response to a traumatic event. There cannot be a good reason to invite such a person to a conference except to send a clear signal about what kind of person is welcome there. I think you know all this, which is why you respond in such an oblique manner.
I'm pretty sure all kinds of people are welcome there.
I don't approve of the guy's tweet, but I also do not limit myself to groups of people that share the same views as me. Take the good, ignore the bad. There are some remarkable people there.
Credible on what grounds? It's just another facet of the ignorance around the subject, no one has a good answer to what's happening and this Natalism movement is not it either.
I'm sure this group of mostly far-right weirdos are definitely NOT going to approach the question of "Why don't women want to have more kids?" and end up with something that resembles the Handmaid's Tale. Absolutely not.
Why is it that the question is always "how can we increase birthrates?"
All modern countries are facing similar problems with falling birth rates. At some point the crows will come home to roost and we'll have to tackle the actual problem - that we have an unsustainable economic system that relies on constant growth. The human population can't grow infinitely, especially while we're still constrained to a single rock in space.
All modern countries are facing similar problems with falling birth rates. At some point the crows will come home to roost and we'll have to tackle the actual problem - that we have an unsustainable economic system that relies on constant growth. The human population can't grow infinitely, especially while we're still constrained to a single rock in space.
I think the concern is that, once your population goes into freefall, it will head towards extinction rather than stabilize at some reasonable level. Others in this discussion have pointed out that happy, lazy, and comfortable people in a Western-like culture (or Japan) will have 1.2-1.4 kids per family. I can understand the argument for some amount of degrowth, but if people just keep having 1.2-1.4 kids forever then the species is headed towards extinction.
Japan is already increasing its immigration quotas to meet the demand for labor, and this will only get worse.
Japan is already increasing its immigration quotas to meet the demand for labor, and this will only get worse.
Why should it head towards extinction? The conditions that are today hindering the birth rates might look very different when we are only half today's numbers. So I wouldn't extrapolate based on this single trend.
I don't think that's really the concern.
The concern is that most developed economies are essentially a ponzi scheme where the workers are taxed to support the children, those on benefits and the older members of society.
People will support that system to some degree, because they contribute to it while they're working, with the promise of a state pension or other benefits when they are older (I realise as writing this that this is quite a Euro-centric and socialist mindset).
The problem these countries are facing once the population declines is that the population as a whole is older on average. Sure, some old people will be dying, but if the rate of births falls below the death rate, then inevitably, the average age of the population increases. This means that more of the population as a percentage will be receiving benefits from the state, and the cost of that is borne by the decreasing percentage of the population that is working.
This is more than just pensions and socialist benefits though, even in an extreme hypothetical country with no tax and no benefits at all, and aging population still places an increased consumption demand on a smaller workforce that can produce goods to satisfy that demand. Such an economy will necessarily have to shift their trade balance more towards importing goods to maintain the same standard of living. A smaller workforce is also likely to have a lower GDP.
The falling birthrate also becomes important, because any policies to try to reverse the trend also have a massively delayed effect on the economy. A falling birthrate now means a huge problem in 20-60 years time when the effect will be felt in the working population. Likewise, any policies to incentivise couples to have children will take 20 years to benefit the economy. If the problem isn't addressed now, it will be too late.
The reason the baby boomer generation has been so successful is because the working population massively outnumbered the population needing to rely on benefits.
I'm assuming of course, that we think that a decreasing GDP or "standards of living" are a bad thing. Most people would say yes, but maybe the reality is that the baby boomer generation have just had it too good.
Population levels have been at crisis levels for a while now, with a global population now that's double that of 50 years ago or 4 times that of 100 years ago. Our capacity to keep producing food can't keep increasing at that rate, and huge numbers of people live in overcrowded conditions. Even more significant is that access to fresh water is at a near critical level in many places, and there have been predictions that future wars might well be triggered by fighting to secure access to drinking water.
The current predictions are that global population will peak at 10 billion (another 25% above now) in another 50 years and start dropping off. That means that all of the things above will get worse over the next 50 years - even more overcrowding, less food, less access to drinking water, as well as worsening GDP and ability to maintain the same standard of consumption as before. Perhaps only after we see a massive collapse in global population can we start existing more sustainably as a species again.
The concern is that most developed economies are essentially a ponzi scheme where the workers are taxed to support the children, those on benefits and the older members of society.
People will support that system to some degree, because they contribute to it while they're working, with the promise of a state pension or other benefits when they are older (I realise as writing this that this is quite a Euro-centric and socialist mindset).
The problem these countries are facing once the population declines is that the population as a whole is older on average. Sure, some old people will be dying, but if the rate of births falls below the death rate, then inevitably, the average age of the population increases. This means that more of the population as a percentage will be receiving benefits from the state, and the cost of that is borne by the decreasing percentage of the population that is working.
This is more than just pensions and socialist benefits though, even in an extreme hypothetical country with no tax and no benefits at all, and aging population still places an increased consumption demand on a smaller workforce that can produce goods to satisfy that demand. Such an economy will necessarily have to shift their trade balance more towards importing goods to maintain the same standard of living. A smaller workforce is also likely to have a lower GDP.
The falling birthrate also becomes important, because any policies to try to reverse the trend also have a massively delayed effect on the economy. A falling birthrate now means a huge problem in 20-60 years time when the effect will be felt in the working population. Likewise, any policies to incentivise couples to have children will take 20 years to benefit the economy. If the problem isn't addressed now, it will be too late.
The reason the baby boomer generation has been so successful is because the working population massively outnumbered the population needing to rely on benefits.
I'm assuming of course, that we think that a decreasing GDP or "standards of living" are a bad thing. Most people would say yes, but maybe the reality is that the baby boomer generation have just had it too good.
Population levels have been at crisis levels for a while now, with a global population now that's double that of 50 years ago or 4 times that of 100 years ago. Our capacity to keep producing food can't keep increasing at that rate, and huge numbers of people live in overcrowded conditions. Even more significant is that access to fresh water is at a near critical level in many places, and there have been predictions that future wars might well be triggered by fighting to secure access to drinking water.
The current predictions are that global population will peak at 10 billion (another 25% above now) in another 50 years and start dropping off. That means that all of the things above will get worse over the next 50 years - even more overcrowding, less food, less access to drinking water, as well as worsening GDP and ability to maintain the same standard of consumption as before. Perhaps only after we see a massive collapse in global population can we start existing more sustainably as a species again.
Yes. However, once you get to population decline, no economic system can help.
I have no idea what they can even do at this point. I have young Japanese friends (early 20s) and they all tell me the same thing: the cost of raising a child is too high in Japan (considering the wages).
When I talk to people it seems that they all have this concern, I doubt it's something that can be changed drastically in the short term.
But this is basically the same story everywhere. Living costs are really high. Add children to the mix and how do you manage?
If I put my pessimist hat on, it's just a matter of time till the same happens in Europe/US.
Heck, I already see friends in Ireland and UK struggling with that and they are all high earners.
When I talk to people it seems that they all have this concern, I doubt it's something that can be changed drastically in the short term.
But this is basically the same story everywhere. Living costs are really high. Add children to the mix and how do you manage?
If I put my pessimist hat on, it's just a matter of time till the same happens in Europe/US.
Heck, I already see friends in Ireland and UK struggling with that and they are all high earners.
The cost of raising a child is basically the socially acceptable (but untrue) excuse that people get to use.
It is pretty easy to look at millionaires and billionaires and see that money isn't what is holding down birthrates.
Just look at the millionaire CEO of your own company. Do they have 6 kids? They probably don't even have 4 kids.
And there have been studies (though I don't have any at hand) that sudden exogenous wealth (e.g. winning the lottery) doesn't really lead to people having more kids like they claim they wanted to.
Or do cross-country comparisons. The US birthrate is (very roughly) the same as countries that have (even adjusted for purchasing power parity) dramatically lower incomes.
Or look at low engagement levels of grandparents nowadays despite being dramatically richer than in previous generations.
It isn't (mainly) about money. It is just that it is okay to complain about money but not as okay to complain "I'd honestly rather do my hobbies than have another kid".
It is pretty easy to look at millionaires and billionaires and see that money isn't what is holding down birthrates.
Just look at the millionaire CEO of your own company. Do they have 6 kids? They probably don't even have 4 kids.
And there have been studies (though I don't have any at hand) that sudden exogenous wealth (e.g. winning the lottery) doesn't really lead to people having more kids like they claim they wanted to.
Or do cross-country comparisons. The US birthrate is (very roughly) the same as countries that have (even adjusted for purchasing power parity) dramatically lower incomes.
Or look at low engagement levels of grandparents nowadays despite being dramatically richer than in previous generations.
It isn't (mainly) about money. It is just that it is okay to complain about money but not as okay to complain "I'd honestly rather do my hobbies than have another kid".
>It is just that it is okay to complain about money but not as okay to complain "I'd honestly rather do my hobbies than have another kid".
I'm a loser and don't want to condemn my kids by virtue of creating them to be losers to. Money of course a part of being a loser. I say that here anonymously. In real life i of course say something general like everybody else about money, time, etc.
I'm a loser and don't want to condemn my kids by virtue of creating them to be losers to. Money of course a part of being a loser. I say that here anonymously. In real life i of course say something general like everybody else about money, time, etc.
Cost of raising is not only about the money. It's also about your personal time, energy, and commitment. For some people having kids is rewarding, for others it's not.
It takes a village to raise a child, and modern society is not conducive to such an environment.
I never quite bought that "it takes a village" rhetoric.
But, at least, if you don't have a village and so it's all on you, that's a lot more work...
But, at least, if you don't have a village and so it's all on you, that's a lot more work...
It's possible people aren't lying and instead that there are multiple issues where finance is just the immediate issue for many people.
>Just look at the millionaire CEO of your own company. Do they have 6 kids? They probably don't even have 4 kids.
Couldn’t this also be evidence that money is the issue? i.e. you can’t get to that millionaire CEO spot if you have a lot of kids you need to pay for. Instead the successful are those having fewer kids.
Couldn’t this also be evidence that money is the issue? i.e. you can’t get to that millionaire CEO spot if you have a lot of kids you need to pay for. Instead the successful are those having fewer kids.
Another kid? What justification is there to have kids in the first place?
I often wonder about this.
Cost of having children is definitely very high. But I wonder if this is in part due to shifts in global culture.
Was the cost lower in the past? Perhaps state schools and nurseries were better and more available. But also less money went into things we grew accustomed to as consumers - fancier cars, new phones, holidays. Also non-consumerist things - perhaps people worry more about quality education for their potential kids. When children were more of a necessity, families found the money somehow.
Housing is expensive. But it is more so in booming megacities where the good jobs are. Were people more content in the past to plod along in their small town buying their affordable house?
This isn't a "drink less lattes" takedown, I have kids too and feel the pinch - and above all I might just be looking at it all wrong. But I'm having a hard time reconciling this observation with the fact that we are so much richer as a society than we were in say 1970. Presumably even the poorer people are, in absolute terms, wealthier than they were then.
Cost of having children is definitely very high. But I wonder if this is in part due to shifts in global culture.
Was the cost lower in the past? Perhaps state schools and nurseries were better and more available. But also less money went into things we grew accustomed to as consumers - fancier cars, new phones, holidays. Also non-consumerist things - perhaps people worry more about quality education for their potential kids. When children were more of a necessity, families found the money somehow.
Housing is expensive. But it is more so in booming megacities where the good jobs are. Were people more content in the past to plod along in their small town buying their affordable house?
This isn't a "drink less lattes" takedown, I have kids too and feel the pinch - and above all I might just be looking at it all wrong. But I'm having a hard time reconciling this observation with the fact that we are so much richer as a society than we were in say 1970. Presumably even the poorer people are, in absolute terms, wealthier than they were then.
In the 1800s, you had fewer closets, because people didn't have enough clothes to need more than a chest.
In the 19... well, at least the 1950s, maybe even the 1970s, kids didn't each need their own bedroom, and bedrooms were smaller. (I mean, if you've got neurodivergent kids, it's really helpful for them to have their own space.) It didn't have that much of a yard; you didn't need a power mower for it. Our standards have changed.
In the 1970s, you probably drove a car that didn't have air conditioning, unless you lived in Arizona or something. Your house may not have had it, either.
It's not just lattes. It's housing and cars. The houses people lived in in the 1970s are now in the "less desirable" parts of town. The cars people drove... well, they may have been top-of-the-line cars in those days, but the equal functionality now is a very low-end car.
You can maybe survive as a family the way a family did in the 1950s - one breadwinner working a factory job, one car, small house, no cell phone plan, no cable TV, books from the library. But it's not the 1950s anymore and nobody wants to live that way.
In the 19... well, at least the 1950s, maybe even the 1970s, kids didn't each need their own bedroom, and bedrooms were smaller. (I mean, if you've got neurodivergent kids, it's really helpful for them to have their own space.) It didn't have that much of a yard; you didn't need a power mower for it. Our standards have changed.
In the 1970s, you probably drove a car that didn't have air conditioning, unless you lived in Arizona or something. Your house may not have had it, either.
It's not just lattes. It's housing and cars. The houses people lived in in the 1970s are now in the "less desirable" parts of town. The cars people drove... well, they may have been top-of-the-line cars in those days, but the equal functionality now is a very low-end car.
You can maybe survive as a family the way a family did in the 1950s - one breadwinner working a factory job, one car, small house, no cell phone plan, no cable TV, books from the library. But it's not the 1950s anymore and nobody wants to live that way.
> But I'm having a hard time reconciling this observation with the fact that we are so much richer as a society than we were in say 1970. Presumably even the poorer people are, in absolute terms, wealthier than they were then.
Is this really true though? Yes, in 1970, we did not have computers in our pockets, fine. But, in 1970, my parents owned their own home in their 20s just from the tiny salary of a single school teacher. They financed their educations without loans. They had easy and cheap access to health care. Their day-to-day costs still allowed them to save money. They had a strong safety net and a local community that cared.
We don't have any of that today, but we do have billionaires skewing the "average" higher and higher. I wouldn't say that anyone but them are in real terms wealthier today than in 1970.
Is this really true though? Yes, in 1970, we did not have computers in our pockets, fine. But, in 1970, my parents owned their own home in their 20s just from the tiny salary of a single school teacher. They financed their educations without loans. They had easy and cheap access to health care. Their day-to-day costs still allowed them to save money. They had a strong safety net and a local community that cared.
We don't have any of that today, but we do have billionaires skewing the "average" higher and higher. I wouldn't say that anyone but them are in real terms wealthier today than in 1970.
I hate the cost excuse. People in Africa have kids with no money. You would think a country with historic low birth rates would have a good welfare system for moms.
>I hate the cost excuse. People in Africa have kids with no money.
In 2022, the infant mortality rate in Sub-Saharan Africa was 49 deaths per 1,000 live births, while the infant mortality rate in the United States was 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. Cost isn't excuse. Cost is what for example decreases infant mortality. And that is just the start what the cost does, all the way to the better education and beyond.
In 2022, the infant mortality rate in Sub-Saharan Africa was 49 deaths per 1,000 live births, while the infant mortality rate in the United States was 5.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. Cost isn't excuse. Cost is what for example decreases infant mortality. And that is just the start what the cost does, all the way to the better education and beyond.
You look at birthrates in Africa and they're also falling fairly rapidly. The better run places are the larger the drop.
It's a tarpit because it's so intuitive and tends to resonate with our personal experience - but it absolutely fails to explain the data.
Child rearing requires parents to expend resources on their kids that the economy would rather have for itself. Capturing someone's undivided labor and their limited capacity to truly give a shit about anything in the world are great for productivity figures.
So steering people away from having children gets baked into the culture haphazardly by people who will later be scratching their head about why they can't find labor and start advocating for the next-easiest short term solution. The mechanisms don't quite matter. They do, but they're a distraction. Both because they're entirely replaceable with other things that would accomplish the same goals, and they're very tricky to discuss in polite company.
So steering people away from having children gets baked into the culture haphazardly by people who will later be scratching their head about why they can't find labor and start advocating for the next-easiest short term solution. The mechanisms don't quite matter. They do, but they're a distraction. Both because they're entirely replaceable with other things that would accomplish the same goals, and they're very tricky to discuss in polite company.
There is certainly something cultural going on—at least in the US, I notice this. Older generations will look at you with puzzled expressions if you ask them about what made them decide to have children and why they thought it was worth it at the time. Having children simply wasn't a question for people that were born before a certain year.
Analyzing the tradeoffs of having children does not lead to some profound realization—mostly people recognize that it would take a lot of their time, and that sounds like that might make them less happy. But we also know that humans are not really very good at judging what would make them happy.
We also know that as you say, economic forces have normalized a situation where it's difficult for two people to find the time to justify the value of child-rearing. But I find it hard to see how we reverse this trend if the only discussion is economic—people don't have more children in Scandinavia even though the economic burden is lower.
Analyzing the tradeoffs of having children does not lead to some profound realization—mostly people recognize that it would take a lot of their time, and that sounds like that might make them less happy. But we also know that humans are not really very good at judging what would make them happy.
We also know that as you say, economic forces have normalized a situation where it's difficult for two people to find the time to justify the value of child-rearing. But I find it hard to see how we reverse this trend if the only discussion is economic—people don't have more children in Scandinavia even though the economic burden is lower.
You mean, the generation before them were financially inevitably fucked if they didn't have children. For our parent's generation it was more-or-less neutral and for this generation it's a strong financial disincentive. You have enough (barely, but still), right into old age, if you don't have children. In fact it's easier without children. Simple as that.
As for a solution short of canceling pension plans? That would do it, of course, but ... of course this is exactly what current governments in EU, US, Japan, ... are effectively doing: canceling pension plans. They can either cancel pensions in the future ... or they can choose to spend much less now. So of course they are really reducing pensions (from already insufficient levels to basically nothing...) That won't help the current generation choose children, although that may turn out to be the smart play. The trouble is humans largely don't learn rationally, we learn from example. So we first need to see a large number of Americans and Europeans (and ...) fall into destitution after 65, and see the few that did have many children get rescued by their children from that fate, only then will we choose to have children again.
I guess this is how natural selection stabilizes the human population.
This has happened before and it will happen again. (seriously, human birth rates change in "waves")
As for a solution short of canceling pension plans? That would do it, of course, but ... of course this is exactly what current governments in EU, US, Japan, ... are effectively doing: canceling pension plans. They can either cancel pensions in the future ... or they can choose to spend much less now. So of course they are really reducing pensions (from already insufficient levels to basically nothing...) That won't help the current generation choose children, although that may turn out to be the smart play. The trouble is humans largely don't learn rationally, we learn from example. So we first need to see a large number of Americans and Europeans (and ...) fall into destitution after 65, and see the few that did have many children get rescued by their children from that fate, only then will we choose to have children again.
I guess this is how natural selection stabilizes the human population.
This has happened before and it will happen again. (seriously, human birth rates change in "waves")
Their work culture is changing but it’s not changing enough. People need to be able to go home at 5pm and need to be paid more.
Imagine leave home at 7am to ride a full train, getting to work at 8:15 (because you need to be ready to work by 8:30!) Then staying late till 7pm so you get home around 8:15pm to your small one-room studio. You eat, shower and clean. It’s time to sleep. You start doom scrolling in bed till 1am when you fall asleep.
Would you want to marry and have kids?
Imagine leave home at 7am to ride a full train, getting to work at 8:15 (because you need to be ready to work by 8:30!) Then staying late till 7pm so you get home around 8:15pm to your small one-room studio. You eat, shower and clean. It’s time to sleep. You start doom scrolling in bed till 1am when you fall asleep.
Would you want to marry and have kids?
>what can actually be done in Japan to increase the birth rate?
what for? it is a pretty legitimate choice for a society to have less children. Does the society have any issues that can be solved only by increasing birth rate? With AI/robots the issue of taking care of elders will be solved anyway. The AI will also possibly make the labor market even tougher, so less people may be better. Anecdotally, when i look at IQ charts and birth rate charts of various countries for the last several decades i see negative correlation between directions those two parameters move, and the higher IQ/lower birth rate doesn't look like a bad strategy for the projected technological future.
what for? it is a pretty legitimate choice for a society to have less children. Does the society have any issues that can be solved only by increasing birth rate? With AI/robots the issue of taking care of elders will be solved anyway. The AI will also possibly make the labor market even tougher, so less people may be better. Anecdotally, when i look at IQ charts and birth rate charts of various countries for the last several decades i see negative correlation between directions those two parameters move, and the higher IQ/lower birth rate doesn't look like a bad strategy for the projected technological future.
There are no such thing as real IQ charts broken down by countries, and anybody trying to sell you one is peddling junk science.
> what can actually be done in Japan to increase the birth rate?
Re-establish the social contract that was unceremoniously thrown away in the ‘90s and was replaced with a ragtag collection of weak measures and inaction.
Large swathes of the population that used to live comfortably and relatively stress free in terms of money are now paranoid, sometimes reasonably, sometimes not.
This paranoia on top of structural changes just crushed the velocity of money.
Re-establish the social contract that was unceremoniously thrown away in the ‘90s and was replaced with a ragtag collection of weak measures and inaction.
Large swathes of the population that used to live comfortably and relatively stress free in terms of money are now paranoid, sometimes reasonably, sometimes not.
This paranoia on top of structural changes just crushed the velocity of money.
The only ideas I have are to look at, like, 2 examples: The Victorians and Ulaanbaatar.
The Victorians had a bit of a higher birthrate as compared to their continental cousins. This is due to Queen Victoria's penchant for her husband and the subsequently large amount of children she had. Essentially, since the queen had a lot of children, it was fashionable to have more children.
Ulaanbaatar is also a fair bit above the fertility rate for the rest of central Asia. Most commenters state this is because of the social status that mothers receive. Mongolia is pretty urbanized, in that most everyone lives in Ulaanbaatar. So parking gets hard, and they have laws that preference mothers with a lot of children for things like parking. They also get little medals/feathers that they wear about and thow in the faces of other women. Since Ulaanbaatar is the place in Mongolia, demographically, these social status rewards end up highly coveted, so people have more kids to get the rewards.
Based on these 2 examples, and pretty much nothing else, I'm gong to say the way Japan can reverse the fertility crisis is via social engineering. And based on the Victorians, you can use the power and prestige of the imperial family to accomplish this.
Currently, the only young people in the family are Princess Kako (30), Prince Hisahito (18, second in line to the throne), Princess Aiko (23), Princess Akiko (43), Princess Yohko (41), and Princess Tsuguko (38).
Essentially, you'd need Prince Hisahito and Princess Aiko (maybe Princess Akiko) to marry quickly (not each other, of course) and have a whole mess of kids. Then play up every little thing possible about these kids growing up in the press. Follow their every move. Make having kids fun and gossipy and a sign of social status. Have the Princesses talk about how easy it is, how hard it is, how fun it is, how they pity women without children. Really be mean about it and hammer it home all the time. Lots of paparazzi stuff, standard British royal family treatment (showing my ignorance here).
I'm not Japanese, so what I'm saying here may just be outright impossible though due to cultural expectations.
The Victorians had a bit of a higher birthrate as compared to their continental cousins. This is due to Queen Victoria's penchant for her husband and the subsequently large amount of children she had. Essentially, since the queen had a lot of children, it was fashionable to have more children.
Ulaanbaatar is also a fair bit above the fertility rate for the rest of central Asia. Most commenters state this is because of the social status that mothers receive. Mongolia is pretty urbanized, in that most everyone lives in Ulaanbaatar. So parking gets hard, and they have laws that preference mothers with a lot of children for things like parking. They also get little medals/feathers that they wear about and thow in the faces of other women. Since Ulaanbaatar is the place in Mongolia, demographically, these social status rewards end up highly coveted, so people have more kids to get the rewards.
Based on these 2 examples, and pretty much nothing else, I'm gong to say the way Japan can reverse the fertility crisis is via social engineering. And based on the Victorians, you can use the power and prestige of the imperial family to accomplish this.
Currently, the only young people in the family are Princess Kako (30), Prince Hisahito (18, second in line to the throne), Princess Aiko (23), Princess Akiko (43), Princess Yohko (41), and Princess Tsuguko (38).
Essentially, you'd need Prince Hisahito and Princess Aiko (maybe Princess Akiko) to marry quickly (not each other, of course) and have a whole mess of kids. Then play up every little thing possible about these kids growing up in the press. Follow their every move. Make having kids fun and gossipy and a sign of social status. Have the Princesses talk about how easy it is, how hard it is, how fun it is, how they pity women without children. Really be mean about it and hammer it home all the time. Lots of paparazzi stuff, standard British royal family treatment (showing my ignorance here).
I'm not Japanese, so what I'm saying here may just be outright impossible though due to cultural expectations.
The problem will eventually solve itself, because people who don't have children won't pass their values down, while people with (sub)cultures that prioritise childbearing will. So eventually the subcultures that place a strong emphasis on having children will outbreed and replace those that don't. We already see the start of this in the US and Israel, where the ultra-religious are becoming a larger and larger fraction of the local-born population.
I don't know why this is down voted. It's spot on. Societies are ruthlessly darwinian. If liberal, open minded people stop having children then whoever does have more children will prevail.
You might not care but in terms of the mechanics, this is just the natural consequence.
You might not care but in terms of the mechanics, this is just the natural consequence.
My parents were pretty pro-kids, but I'm not. It's a flawed argument.
It's not perfect, but surely globally there must be 90%+ correlation between the views held by parents and children.
It won't look that way when you look within a smaller unit, but on a global scale, it must be significant.
It won't look that way when you look within a smaller unit, but on a global scale, it must be significant.
We are glamorizing everything else except having kids and raising a family, to the point where a DING couple with a garage full of Porsches and three yearly vacations is considered more successful than the working couple with four kids, which to me a ridiculous.
I don't think the natural instinct to reproduce has gone away. It is just being overwritten by other cultural values.
They are cooked, there is so much inertia with everything related to demography. That would need an instant culture shift in the the relation Japanese have with work, family, foreigners and just change overall. Japanese culture, without judgement, is very rigid so this just won't happen.
There are Western European countries that have similar birthrates to Japan (Italy and Spain are very similar). However, they manage to sustain their population, and even have population growth, through immigration.
If you're trying to convince East Asians that immigration is a good solution by using Europe as an example, you're not going to go very far...
I simply made a statement of fact. I'm not recommending anything to anyone.
If people choose not to have children, then they choose not to. That leaves only two possibilities: change social and economic conditions such that enough of them choose to, or force women to. Obviously, no society would choose the latter option.
>> force women to. Obviously, no society would choose the latter option.
Well, many governments today seek to limit reproductive rights specifically to encourage pregnancy over other options. Limits on the termination of pregnancies, along with discouragement of contraception and education, have the net effect of making more women pregnant. We in the glass houses ...
Well, many governments today seek to limit reproductive rights specifically to encourage pregnancy over other options. Limits on the termination of pregnancies, along with discouragement of contraception and education, have the net effect of making more women pregnant. We in the glass houses ...
why would we even need to increase birth rates? humanity is nowhere near extinction from low birth rates
Not so obvious anymore in the US.
Or be more open to migration - but this is Japan so hell would sooner freeze
Immigration is not a solution.
East Asian countries were never keen and when they see what has happened in Europe I doubt they will change their mind (or they will be extremely careful and picky)
East Asian countries were never keen and when they see what has happened in Europe I doubt they will change their mind (or they will be extremely careful and picky)
What happened in Europe? I’m an immigrant in Europe myself to be honest
we will never know apparently
It's important to preserve the cultural integrity of Japan, and migration would ruin that.
Yes, it seems to me that Japan, and other East Asian (and also South East Asian) countries put a high importance on keeping their ethnic and cultural homogeneity. My experience, as mentioned in other comments, is that they tend to be horrified when they see the consequences of large non-European immigration in Europe, so I doubt that they will adopt similar policies anytime soon.
How does this even work? Is there something in the Japanese Haplogroup that enables this cultural inclusion that no other human can acquire.
If I may address you in a non culturally appropriate manner: Please stop with the bullshit and get real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populatio...
Urgently!
No sane society would...
If we can force men to go to war, we can also force women to have children.
The demographic and cultural experts of hn will recommend adding more foreigners since that was very successful and without any issues in the west.
An actual improvment could include not only reducing working hours but cultural norms such as staying longer than actually needed. Also building more living spaces around cities to reduce costs.
An actual improvment could include not only reducing working hours but cultural norms such as staying longer than actually needed. Also building more living spaces around cities to reduce costs.
The root cause is it need 30 years to establish a self-sustaining life. The average first birth of Japanese women are reaching to almost 30 years old
Most Japanese are expected to graduate high school(18 years), more than half of them get a degree(22 years minimum). Then you start working for many years.
The issue is clear. If we make our life self-sustaining in late teen, problem will be solved.
I have an idea that works but nobody(including myself) appreciate it.
Spread certain religions like Christianity or Islam.
Significantly reduce University students.
Significantly reduce high school students, especially female students.
Abandon modern health care so significant percentage of people die before reaching 15 years old.(It may sounds like counter-intuitive, but this situation motivate human to give more birth)
It has serious moral issue as well as political and economical issues. We somehow manage to keep the political stability and food supply under this condition.
I think it's more reasonable we wait for the natural selection that evolve the human to give a healthy first birth in their 50s.
Most Japanese are expected to graduate high school(18 years), more than half of them get a degree(22 years minimum). Then you start working for many years.
The issue is clear. If we make our life self-sustaining in late teen, problem will be solved.
I have an idea that works but nobody(including myself) appreciate it.
Spread certain religions like Christianity or Islam.
Significantly reduce University students.
Significantly reduce high school students, especially female students.
Abandon modern health care so significant percentage of people die before reaching 15 years old.(It may sounds like counter-intuitive, but this situation motivate human to give more birth)
It has serious moral issue as well as political and economical issues. We somehow manage to keep the political stability and food supply under this condition.
I think it's more reasonable we wait for the natural selection that evolve the human to give a healthy first birth in their 50s.
I think what's interesting about it, and not just in Japan, is the effect on society and changes in society. I don't think it's controversial to say older people are more conservative on average (why that is so is a separate discussion), and it's questionable how change can happen if older parts of the population become more and more represented and thus more influential in choosing who will run societies.
So I think a lot of the turmoil and backlash in societies we have today is because of that, the scale has tipped in favor of people who wants things to stay as they are. And especially why younger people are becoming more and more radical because otherwise it's becoming less and less likely change will be possible. It's their way of tipping the scales back the other way.
So I think a lot of the turmoil and backlash in societies we have today is because of that, the scale has tipped in favor of people who wants things to stay as they are. And especially why younger people are becoming more and more radical because otherwise it's becoming less and less likely change will be possible. It's their way of tipping the scales back the other way.
Here in the US the old people elected a government which is set to gut the services they, the old people, depend on. Yesterday it was announced that the SSA, the Social Security Administration, which is the main support in retirement of much of the country, will eliminate 50% of its support staff and locations. The old people, who generally only trust propaganda outfits, will be told that someone else did this to them. They will get angry and elect more people who will cut their services.
People may think they're voting to keep things the same, but in practice they vote for people who are tearing down everything without checking to see what those things are supposed to do, whether they should be doing those things, or whether they are doing them. We'll see how this works out in the rest of the world.
People may think they're voting to keep things the same, but in practice they vote for people who are tearing down everything without checking to see what those things are supposed to do, whether they should be doing those things, or whether they are doing them. We'll see how this works out in the rest of the world.
> people who are tearing down everything without checking to see what those things are supposed to do, whether they should be doing those things, or whether they are doing them.
From what they've torn down already, were there consequences? Genuinely interested.
From what they've torn down already, were there consequences? Genuinely interested.
I'm sure we'll find out, in time. When you shut down an airplane's engine, it can glide for a long time before it crashes.
It's just, I would be happy to join the anti-Trump crowd, but I don't see any substantial evidence that he has done something bad.
Given this statement
> I don't see any substantial evidence that he has done something bad
and the ubiquity and frequency of stories regarding what Trump has done I fine this statement
> I would be happy to join the anti-Trump crowd
vanishingly improbable. The list of things he has done which I find bad is too vast to enumerate in a little comment box, but I'm guessing, given the first statement above, that you applaud them.
So here are some things that might move you, assuming you're pro science and technology: he has frozen research grants. I have a friend who lost his postdoc because the funding was cut. There was no evaluation of merit -- he is a chemistry Ph.D. -- just a cut. They have indefinitely suspended the group that prepares the next season's flu shot. They have suspended the program working on an mRNA bird flu vaccine, the thing that is primarily responsible for egg prices.
There are many, many more things just in that vein which are easily discoverable. I'll leave the rest to you.
> I don't see any substantial evidence that he has done something bad
and the ubiquity and frequency of stories regarding what Trump has done I fine this statement
> I would be happy to join the anti-Trump crowd
vanishingly improbable. The list of things he has done which I find bad is too vast to enumerate in a little comment box, but I'm guessing, given the first statement above, that you applaud them.
So here are some things that might move you, assuming you're pro science and technology: he has frozen research grants. I have a friend who lost his postdoc because the funding was cut. There was no evaluation of merit -- he is a chemistry Ph.D. -- just a cut. They have indefinitely suspended the group that prepares the next season's flu shot. They have suspended the program working on an mRNA bird flu vaccine, the thing that is primarily responsible for egg prices.
There are many, many more things just in that vein which are easily discoverable. I'll leave the rest to you.
It's ok, Niger had a population of 19 million in 2019 and is set to be at 70 million in 2050, so they'll make up for Japan.
jxjnskkzxxhx(2)
nobody has a clear answer, it's a complex problem. i personally don't either.
people in power need to run many, many experiments in parallel, and propagate what works. it's already too late so they should start yesterday...
pick a few hundred ideas, hire some good statisticians. run experiments for 2-3-4 years, then spread the good stuff and test a new batch of ideas.
i don't think that will happen though. so we got to prepare for the crash as best as we can.
the economy being not so good is certainly a part of the problem, but if we're going to over-focus on that we are pretty much doomed.
people in power need to run many, many experiments in parallel, and propagate what works. it's already too late so they should start yesterday...
pick a few hundred ideas, hire some good statisticians. run experiments for 2-3-4 years, then spread the good stuff and test a new batch of ideas.
i don't think that will happen though. so we got to prepare for the crash as best as we can.
the economy being not so good is certainly a part of the problem, but if we're going to over-focus on that we are pretty much doomed.
In my opinion the birth rate panic in developed world countries is not going to turn out to be a big deal. Much like peak oil and other worries of the past.
Technology will result in highly productive societies, even with falling populations.
Technology will result in highly productive societies, even with falling populations.
To people callously saying that immigration is the solution, I want to ask: don't you care at all if within a few generations your home country loses its culture and becomes inhabited by other people of a different ethnicity?
To me, what makes a country is the constitution of the local ethnicities. If I live in Germany, and nobody if having kids anymore and we compensate by importing Australians. It's not like I have something against Australians, but I did not choose to go live in Australia. I expect people to be German not Australian.
Maybe people who grew up in places like New York City cannot understand this, but not everywhere is like NYC.
I completely understand this point and I think it is very valid. However, part of what makes Germany German is having a socially oriented economy. For example, having a pension system based on solidarity, without which a German custom like having a beer at the local pub could become difficult if you don't have a social net to protect you in your old age.
Now the question is: can this work without immigrants? If Germany's population shrinks, you can also kiss the culture goodbye.
Now the question is: can this work without immigrants? If Germany's population shrinks, you can also kiss the culture goodbye.
I am not against immigration, neither as a stop-gap measure nor in general. I believe limited immigration can even be beneficial, even with regards to cultural aspects. I also do not believe that cultures are static but rather living and evolving. And I also believe that input from foreign cultures can also improve local cultures.
But I also do not believe that we should give up on birthrates and just resign to let our cultures fade away to be completely replaced in short order by completely foreign cultures. I also do not believe that a planet Earth with one global monoculture would be as resilient as the one we have today. I also would NOT want the whole world to share the same cultural aspects that I embrace.
But I also do not believe that we should give up on birthrates and just resign to let our cultures fade away to be completely replaced in short order by completely foreign cultures. I also do not believe that a planet Earth with one global monoculture would be as resilient as the one we have today. I also would NOT want the whole world to share the same cultural aspects that I embrace.
This mentality is generally frowned upon in the US. Aside from Native Americans, nobody has any more inherent right to live here than another; everyone either immigrated here or descends from someone who did. Thinking otherwise is seen as backwards at best. There's a Ronald Reagan quote I'm quite fond of that encapsulates the perspective:
> America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'
Who's to say which mentality is better, but, don't be surprised if you get a lot of pushback from people from the US when you talk about maintaining ethnic purity as it has only negative connotations here.
> America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, 'You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won't become a German or a Turk.' But then he added, 'Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.'
Who's to say which mentality is better, but, don't be surprised if you get a lot of pushback from people from the US when you talk about maintaining ethnic purity as it has only negative connotations here.
I'll start with the pushback. I'm a huge critic of my own country (USA) but that's one thing I think we get really right, and that many other countries get really wrong. I don't care what the "ethnicity" of my neighbors is. I don't give someone a blood test before I decide to be friends with them, or to welcome them into my family. This whole "I am the pure German, and you are only living here!" ethnic purity attitude is so gross and really not something I can even remotely relate to.
Okay, but like, Will Japan be more Japanese when the last fully Japanese person dies, or will it be more Japanese if people move and live there and melt into the culture.
Yes, there will necessarily be parts of your culture that get lost (in Japan's case it will be the part where they don't like immigrants), but not as much as if you fold people into the culture and teach them about it.
And yes, change is scary, but sometimes it's good for us. Sometimes change makes us more resilient as a species. Also, Japanese culture isn't going to disappear just because they allow immigrants in. In the same way that other cultures haven't disappeared just because they allow immigrants in.
American culture used to be so exciting because you can experience any kind of culture in the world just by meeting your neighbors. I miss meeting new people and experiencing their local cultures through them.
Yes, there will necessarily be parts of your culture that get lost (in Japan's case it will be the part where they don't like immigrants), but not as much as if you fold people into the culture and teach them about it.
And yes, change is scary, but sometimes it's good for us. Sometimes change makes us more resilient as a species. Also, Japanese culture isn't going to disappear just because they allow immigrants in. In the same way that other cultures haven't disappeared just because they allow immigrants in.
American culture used to be so exciting because you can experience any kind of culture in the world just by meeting your neighbors. I miss meeting new people and experiencing their local cultures through them.
> but not everywhere is like NYC.
Not yet, but that's the way the world is heading with increased inter-connectivity and mixing. I expect cultures will not be so widespread at the nation level and more at the 'tribe' level, where tribe can be a subculture or political affiliation or whatever.
Not yet, but that's the way the world is heading with increased inter-connectivity and mixing. I expect cultures will not be so widespread at the nation level and more at the 'tribe' level, where tribe can be a subculture or political affiliation or whatever.
If you look at history at large enough scale, concepts of patriotism or keeping one's culture are completely meaningless. Or to phrase it better - there is as much meaning as you give it to, can be from 0 to extreme and only you decide what it is, or your emotions if you can't control them. There is nothing strictly rational about this. You can tie your identity to it or not, in 21st century western world one can truly forge one's own destiny, mind, identity and so on. What a true freedom!
For me personally, I couldn't care less about cultural or religious origins of people living around me, or color of their skin. I've met people of very diverse cultures at their home countries and can't say my own culture is better, sometimes glaringly worse.
And I come from extremely homogeneous eastern European bloc country with rich cultural background, ie I saw first black person in my late teens for example and started traveling only in my 20s.
What I care utmost about is that they are good moral people who follow rules and respect others, just like I respect them. We can disagree on certain topics, but not on basic moral ones. And at least basic language level.
For me, Switzerland wins above all in this, hence I moved here. Not perfect place by any means, but darn good not only in aspects above.
For me personally, I couldn't care less about cultural or religious origins of people living around me, or color of their skin. I've met people of very diverse cultures at their home countries and can't say my own culture is better, sometimes glaringly worse.
And I come from extremely homogeneous eastern European bloc country with rich cultural background, ie I saw first black person in my late teens for example and started traveling only in my 20s.
What I care utmost about is that they are good moral people who follow rules and respect others, just like I respect them. We can disagree on certain topics, but not on basic moral ones. And at least basic language level.
For me, Switzerland wins above all in this, hence I moved here. Not perfect place by any means, but darn good not only in aspects above.
Dude, I am not talking about patriotism, nationalism, ethnowhatthefuckism or any such notions. I am simply talking about cultures. Are you going to tell that you have no preference with regards to living in Germany, France, Poland, Argentina, or Canada? That is obviously not true.
> What I care utmost about is that they are good moral people who follow rules and respect others
What counts as rules and morals is dependent on culture. I would never live in Switzerland for example. I would utterly detest living there. And I was not even talking about rules or morals or any of these big differences that might arise between wildly different cultures. I'm talking about normal everyday stuff.
Maybe some of you should take a course in cross-cultural communication, to really understand what I am talking about. People have different expectations and conventions in their everyday lives. It is not like one is better than the other, but they are different and those form a way of thinking that is at the core of what the culture of the place is.
> What I care utmost about is that they are good moral people who follow rules and respect others
What counts as rules and morals is dependent on culture. I would never live in Switzerland for example. I would utterly detest living there. And I was not even talking about rules or morals or any of these big differences that might arise between wildly different cultures. I'm talking about normal everyday stuff.
Maybe some of you should take a course in cross-cultural communication, to really understand what I am talking about. People have different expectations and conventions in their everyday lives. It is not like one is better than the other, but they are different and those form a way of thinking that is at the core of what the culture of the place is.
Even within Switzerland there are multiple different cultures.
I am from Sweden(another country with different cultures, like most countries) and live in Zürich. It is unlikely I would fit in in Graubünden or even Basel…
But I loved Antwerpen, Belgium.
I’ve traveled extensively for work and love to witness the different places and how cool it is how diverse the world is.
But I loved Antwerpen, Belgium.
I’ve traveled extensively for work and love to witness the different places and how cool it is how diverse the world is.
Hi grunder it would be great if you could enlighten us as to what you think is wrong with Australians and with Switzerland. Is it too high-up, too down-under? ;-D
Hmm not sure why the offensive tone, you make a lot of assumptions about ie me while knowing 0 about me, and obviously you are wrong here.
> Are you going to tell that you have no preference with regards to living in Germany, France, Poland, Argentina, or Canada? That is obviously not true.
That is certainly true for me. Please add some more diverse cultures, your list is pretty narrow-minded. And it already had happened so not talking theory here, and it was and still is properly enriching for me and my family.
But you highlight an interesting point - I wouldn't mind living in same country as people like you as long as they can handle those basic requirements, but I would certainly prefer not having to spend any time around such people.
> Are you going to tell that you have no preference with regards to living in Germany, France, Poland, Argentina, or Canada? That is obviously not true.
That is certainly true for me. Please add some more diverse cultures, your list is pretty narrow-minded. And it already had happened so not talking theory here, and it was and still is properly enriching for me and my family.
But you highlight an interesting point - I wouldn't mind living in same country as people like you as long as they can handle those basic requirements, but I would certainly prefer not having to spend any time around such people.
The future you would like, or at least wouldn’t mind, would be one where there was no Japan, no Australia, no Switzerland, to go to?
Just a place with slightly different geography, but everywhere you went the culture would be largely indistinguishable from a place half a world away, where there were no Japanese, no Swiss, no Aussies, just, what? Earthers?
Just a place with slightly different geography, but everywhere you went the culture would be largely indistinguishable from a place half a world away, where there were no Japanese, no Swiss, no Aussies, just, what? Earthers?
I don't care about that, I truly don't. What for? Traditions worth their salt survive and thrive to these days and will continue to do so. The rest can disappear, just like endless stream of such disappeared over millennia. Its not that I want to push for this ASAP, but its eventually inevitable with the way we live our lives and move around.
Life for me is about more important matters - family, friends, my own happiness going back to everything. And yes eventually world will over-mingle, the only way this won't happen is some proper catastrophe that will return whole humanity, or tiny remainder of it back to caves.
You want benefits of travel trivially globally but forbid people falling in love elsewhere and making kids, moving for better life or simply location/climate/culture they feel is much better for them?
In 1000 years most if not all countries we know now will not exist, maybe even memories and records of it will be vague and incorrect. Thats the lens I use to judge what is worthy of an effort and what is not.
Life for me is about more important matters - family, friends, my own happiness going back to everything. And yes eventually world will over-mingle, the only way this won't happen is some proper catastrophe that will return whole humanity, or tiny remainder of it back to caves.
You want benefits of travel trivially globally but forbid people falling in love elsewhere and making kids, moving for better life or simply location/climate/culture they feel is much better for them?
In 1000 years most if not all countries we know now will not exist, maybe even memories and records of it will be vague and incorrect. Thats the lens I use to judge what is worthy of an effort and what is not.
What exactly do you think culture is?
It’s a lot more than food and traditions. If it all became the same, chances are we would all live in a giant Dubai. No thanks(though I loved it there for 2 years).
I’ve picked my place, where people work hard and party hard, but with quiet streets at 10pm.
It’s a lot more than food and traditions. If it all became the same, chances are we would all live in a giant Dubai. No thanks(though I loved it there for 2 years).
I’ve picked my place, where people work hard and party hard, but with quiet streets at 10pm.
I don't think the idea that even human cultures change over geological time is a coherent argument for immediately allowing free travel across borders.
I'm American, I'm actually writing this from NYC, but I understand where you're coming from.
But at the end of the day, your approach isn't working. No country seems to have made really any progress on this issue aside from immigration, despite incredible amounts of money and focus being put on this issue for decades from different angles.
So I guess I view the comfort with diversity and skill at assimilation as another cultural aspect that makes some cultures more competitive and resilient than others.
But at the end of the day, your approach isn't working. No country seems to have made really any progress on this issue aside from immigration, despite incredible amounts of money and focus being put on this issue for decades from different angles.
So I guess I view the comfort with diversity and skill at assimilation as another cultural aspect that makes some cultures more competitive and resilient than others.
Well, I'm in the US. In my view, what makes it the US is not particular ethnicities, it's particular ideals. The US isn't "X% white, Y% black, Z% hispanic, W% oriental"; it's the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If you hold to those ideals, you belong, no matter what your ethnicity or skin color or language of origin.
(Yeah, I know, the US fails to live up to the ideals as well as it should. I'm painfully aware. Still, the attempt produces a culture that is different from not making that attempt, and I like the result.)
(Yeah, I know, the US fails to live up to the ideals as well as it should. I'm painfully aware. Still, the attempt produces a culture that is different from not making that attempt, and I like the result.)
You forgot the /s next to Australians.
No, I did not. My point holds just as well for any ethnicity. If I choose to live in Germany it is because I like being around Germans. Australia is not Germany. They behave and think very differently.
I thought they meant /s because Australians are notoriously sarcastic.
Do Germans choose to live in Germany, or are they born there by some cosmic accident? If you chose to live in Germany, native Germans let you in. You have no right to stop them letting another person in.
I picked Germany and Australia as the example, because they are two countries with a similiar standard of living, both considered western, and culturally Christian, and yet, to anyone who is acquainted with both, they are quite culturally dissimilar. Because my point is not that some cultures are somehow inferior to an extent that they do not belong in western countries, but rather that people have a preference for living with others of the same culture, because that is literally the whole point of having a culture in the first place.
I do not understand why discussion about this topic has to be so uncharitable.
I do not understand why discussion about this topic has to be so uncharitable.
You’re right, being born in a place is a violent act perpetrated against you.
Anyway, if you move to, say Germany, and are naturalised, or otherwise granted voting rights, and you vote for a regime that tightens immigration control, then do you not, in a sense, have a right to stop them letting other people in.
Elsewise, would you mind if someone had an opinion different to yours, and expressed that opinion, here in this forum, which, if I understand correctly, is based in the USA, a country known for its elevation of the principal of free speech?
Anyway, if you move to, say Germany, and are naturalised, or otherwise granted voting rights, and you vote for a regime that tightens immigration control, then do you not, in a sense, have a right to stop them letting other people in.
Elsewise, would you mind if someone had an opinion different to yours, and expressed that opinion, here in this forum, which, if I understand correctly, is based in the USA, a country known for its elevation of the principal of free speech?
They expressed an opinion. I expressed a different opinion in response. Whose free speech has been hurt?
> You have no right to stop them letting another person in.
What exactly did you mean by this? Let’s follow it to its logical conclusion.
What exactly did you mean by this? Let’s follow it to its logical conclusion.
It's just a figure of speech. Obviously, citizens have the right to vote for whatever immigration policy they would like. Maybe I should have said "ethically, you should not deny others a benefit that was granted to you", which is what I meant.
Even if doing so is a net negative? Remember when Tunisian and Saudi nationals didn't drive cars through crowds at Christmas markets in Germany?
[deleted]
125 years? So has it ever been lower or it wasn't tracked?
if you bothered to read past the title:
> The 2024 figure is a 5 per cent drop from the previous year and the lowest since records began during Japan’s Meiji era in 1899.
> The 2024 figure is a 5 per cent drop from the previous year and the lowest since records began during Japan’s Meiji era in 1899.
We'd love to read past the title, but sadly FT is paywalled.
Is it?
Article shows up fine for myself. Maybe because my browser scrubs cookies and always looks like a first time site visitor, maybe not locked for Australasian IP's. Dunno - never had an issue reading the FT though.
All the same - https://archive.md/yBCh0
Article shows up fine for myself. Maybe because my browser scrubs cookies and always looks like a first time site visitor, maybe not locked for Australasian IP's. Dunno - never had an issue reading the FT though.
All the same - https://archive.md/yBCh0
Probably an IP thing then, all I see after the header is "Subscribe to unlock this article" and various rates/durations.
Yes, FT is paywalled by default.
It's total births, not birth rate. 125 years ago, the population was smaller, but the birth rate higher.
It’s the cost of living. Everyone is dancing around the obvious, but the problem is Capitalism isn’t serving society like it needs to, society is serving Capitalism. At some point we need to address the elephant in the room.
indulona(2)
I was just talking about this the other night with my wife. I'm coming from a western perspective but we were agreeing that allowing women in the workplace was a total scam. We're religious so buckle up if you're sensitive. Once you erased our traditional value system which was upheld by our common faith in Christianity, you had 2 people bringing home only slightly more than 1 man could do before.
Businesses suddenly had twice the employees overnight, and this drove down wages. Of course no one cares about the consequences when you get an immediate economic boost like that. And then you convince women that men were having "all the fun" away from home. Yet even far left women I've run into admit if they've stayed at home while the husband provided that it was a "really nice" time in their life.
The old ways were sustainable. And it's almost as if our God Jesus knew what was best for us from the start. Instead of all these cockamamie ideas everyone has about life and how to do things, maybe we should just do what we we're told. Instead, people run around with no children and riddled with STDs. Anyone here with a daughter like that idea? At this point, wouldn't be surprised. That's our reality. How about women are kept from laboring outside the home, protected, valued, and honored as God's highest example of submission to Him was actually a woman now referred to as the Blessed Mother.
The best move going forward to resolve the birth rate for the entire world is to venerate women as we're supposed to and not treat them like dogs or cattle to labor for us so some businessman can get rich. It's shameful to even allow women to be treated this way. And the only way to enforce that culturally is to submit our societies and ourselves to the One True Living God Jesus Christ. In the US it may require Catholics and Protestants to agree to work together to reconquer the levers of power and lost souls in looking for the real answer. The answer is not Communism as most people think. That has never ended well. Not once.
Businesses suddenly had twice the employees overnight, and this drove down wages. Of course no one cares about the consequences when you get an immediate economic boost like that. And then you convince women that men were having "all the fun" away from home. Yet even far left women I've run into admit if they've stayed at home while the husband provided that it was a "really nice" time in their life.
The old ways were sustainable. And it's almost as if our God Jesus knew what was best for us from the start. Instead of all these cockamamie ideas everyone has about life and how to do things, maybe we should just do what we we're told. Instead, people run around with no children and riddled with STDs. Anyone here with a daughter like that idea? At this point, wouldn't be surprised. That's our reality. How about women are kept from laboring outside the home, protected, valued, and honored as God's highest example of submission to Him was actually a woman now referred to as the Blessed Mother.
The best move going forward to resolve the birth rate for the entire world is to venerate women as we're supposed to and not treat them like dogs or cattle to labor for us so some businessman can get rich. It's shameful to even allow women to be treated this way. And the only way to enforce that culturally is to submit our societies and ourselves to the One True Living God Jesus Christ. In the US it may require Catholics and Protestants to agree to work together to reconquer the levers of power and lost souls in looking for the real answer. The answer is not Communism as most people think. That has never ended well. Not once.
Strange that you support a president who does the opposite of venerating women.
[flagged]
> Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
That best describes Obama, Biden and Kamala to be honest. Maybe not Kamala, I don't think she's smart enough. People try to proclaim Trump's lust for women to be a problem, but Fallen Messiah Obama was confirmed LGBT when we learned about Larry Sinclair. And I am convinced he's scared of Big Momma. Trump is not in sheep's clothing. He does profess a belief in Christ. Which for the antichrist is impossible, so that particular claim cannot be true.
Forcing your religious beliefs on others has also famously never ended well, so that's a big no thanks from me. Especially given your other comments on this forum:
> Haters getting mad because the war is already lost for them. Trump is the President. Resorting to little games like this, and will be fun to watch the pain and tears for the next 4 years.
I'm sure your "One True Living God Jesus Christ" would be very proud of you taking pleasure in the pain of others.
> Haters getting mad because the war is already lost for them. Trump is the President. Resorting to little games like this, and will be fun to watch the pain and tears for the next 4 years.
I'm sure your "One True Living God Jesus Christ" would be very proud of you taking pleasure in the pain of others.
[flagged]