Japan PM’s solution to dire birthrate has already been rejected by young(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Japan PM’s solution to dire birthrate has already been rejected by young
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/24/japan-birthrate-population-pm-solution-already-rejected-by-young
194 comments
I think this is an excellent point.
I've had a similar thought: we've made societies where nothing gets done without paying for it, and where it's financially incredibly hard to be a parent without both parents working near 100%. Yet having kids is basically an essential service to society. With most things in our economy, we don't expect things to happen without paying for it. So why do we expect parents to do free labor, taking from whatever extremely limited free time they have left to raise kids? Is it really that surprising that people aren't having kids?
When women was expected to stay at home and manage the house and raise kids, you essentially had a lot of dedicated labor to raise kids. They weren't paid, but the wages and the costs in society was such that the father could support the family on his wage alone. We need to realize that if you want someone to raise 5+ kids (which is a necessity if some people have 0 kids), that's really a full time job until all the kids are of school age, and it should be paid as such. Obviously, we shouldn't return to what we had before. We should pay the parent directly instead of it going through the husband, and in todays society it can be either mom or dad that stays home.
I've had a similar thought: we've made societies where nothing gets done without paying for it, and where it's financially incredibly hard to be a parent without both parents working near 100%. Yet having kids is basically an essential service to society. With most things in our economy, we don't expect things to happen without paying for it. So why do we expect parents to do free labor, taking from whatever extremely limited free time they have left to raise kids? Is it really that surprising that people aren't having kids?
When women was expected to stay at home and manage the house and raise kids, you essentially had a lot of dedicated labor to raise kids. They weren't paid, but the wages and the costs in society was such that the father could support the family on his wage alone. We need to realize that if you want someone to raise 5+ kids (which is a necessity if some people have 0 kids), that's really a full time job until all the kids are of school age, and it should be paid as such. Obviously, we shouldn't return to what we had before. We should pay the parent directly instead of it going through the husband, and in todays society it can be either mom or dad that stays home.
[deleted]
And you'd think with all the inane things they've finances in the name of trying to stimulate economic activity they'd be putting more into subsidizing childcare and other birthrate stimulators. Surely that would be more stimulative in the face of multi-decade deflation than building parks absolutely everywhere.
It is interesting how birth rate ties into their whole economic picture -- after multi-decade deflation, they're still sitting at well under 3% unemployment, and a poverty rate only slightly higher than the United States. Prices may be falling, but apparently, when your population is simultaneously shrinking at such a rapid pace, it's less painful than you'd expect on the average household economically speaking.
It is interesting how birth rate ties into their whole economic picture -- after multi-decade deflation, they're still sitting at well under 3% unemployment, and a poverty rate only slightly higher than the United States. Prices may be falling, but apparently, when your population is simultaneously shrinking at such a rapid pace, it's less painful than you'd expect on the average household economically speaking.
My observation here in the UK among my friends and family, we (mid 30s, with 4+8yo) are an outlier having two children. The norm is increasingly looking like single child families, and I believe it's mostly cost driven. They have no intention of expanding their family in future.
People I know who started family's around the same time but were in the later 30s or early 40s seem more likely to have grown a larger family.
I suspect in five years time when the statistics for this "cohort" (30s now) stabilises we will see a significant drop multi child families.
People I know who started family's around the same time but were in the later 30s or early 40s seem more likely to have grown a larger family.
I suspect in five years time when the statistics for this "cohort" (30s now) stabilises we will see a significant drop multi child families.
> In countries without social safety nets, younger generations are expected to directly support older famility members.
And in countries with social safety nets, workers pay to support other, retiring workers. With increasing lifespans, sharply decreasing numbers of workers, and relatively early retirement ages… the wheels are going to fall right off the train, unless robots save us.
And in countries with social safety nets, workers pay to support other, retiring workers. With increasing lifespans, sharply decreasing numbers of workers, and relatively early retirement ages… the wheels are going to fall right off the train, unless robots save us.
I’m optimistic about robots increasing productivity, but I worry they won’t be used to uplift everyone equally. They seem well-poised to increase wealth disparity rather than reduce it. I would love to be wrong, though.
The wealth created by robots will go to a few.
Funny how the assumption is that robots have to save us. Worker productivity is at a never before seen, all-time high. The benefits of that productivity are going straight into the pockets of the largest holders of capital.
We don't need robots, we need guillotines.
We don't need robots, we need guillotines.
Nothing is quite as progressive as ghoulish threats of political violence.
People need to start using the word guillotines more so that the sentiment analysis bots pick up on it.
Simply raising tax credit on children would help a lot in the US. It also should not be progressively reduced like other tax credits do with income, as it is disincentivizing successful people from procreating.
Same for canada.
I use to chat with my friends and all their plans for life are literally "I'll do this when/if I have the money".
That's it.
My life (have two children and my wife was at home for 4 years) instead, the moment my first child was born has been: figure out life insurance so that your kids are safe if you die, figure out income for retirement to avoid weighting on your children, figure out savings necessary to pay for education, figure out housing because you will need 3 bedrooms and rent keeps going up.
I had to really take ownership of my finances. Amazing, I learned a lot, but government support is nowhere it should be for somebody that greatly contribute to society.
I use to chat with my friends and all their plans for life are literally "I'll do this when/if I have the money".
That's it.
My life (have two children and my wife was at home for 4 years) instead, the moment my first child was born has been: figure out life insurance so that your kids are safe if you die, figure out income for retirement to avoid weighting on your children, figure out savings necessary to pay for education, figure out housing because you will need 3 bedrooms and rent keeps going up.
I had to really take ownership of my finances. Amazing, I learned a lot, but government support is nowhere it should be for somebody that greatly contribute to society.
Having just had a baby this is absolutely true. We’re in the UK and yes, healthcare is taken care of, but daycare is going to be around £1800+ a month. This is our first kid and I’m 35 and wife is 36. We had to wait this long as we needed to make sure we could absorb such an insane cost. Somehow we’re still meant to save for pensions etc. We’ll be ok, but we have a ridiculously high household income compared to the total population. I truly don’t know how others do it. Yet pensions go up 10% a year - and I’m not against universal pensions, but c’mon.
Pensions have gone up 10% this year because inflation has been 10% over the past year.
State pensions in the UK are very low to start with. If they don't at least keep up with inflation many elderly will end up destitute (and cost even more to the NHS...).
State pensions in the UK are very low to start with. If they don't at least keep up with inflation many elderly will end up destitute (and cost even more to the NHS...).
I'm well aware of inflation, but it says a lot that penioners vote tory and literally no one else seems to anymore. As I said, I support universal pensions, but why not do anything serious to help people raising children? I'm seriously wondering what the point of staying in London is. I still love the city, but the country has a death wish - not born here, almost a citizen, have been able to vote since we arrived due to commonwealth. After more than a decade of effective austerity as well, it's hard to see how anything can actually get better without a political will and consensus to invest that just doesn't seem to exist. It really does feel like the place is falling apart when you interact with govt services these days.
I think daycare prices are mandated by law here in Finland so that parents are paying between 28 and 295 euro per month per child. Price depends on whether it's the first or second child, and what kind of household income you are earning.
The actual dream. I often gently tease my wife as I've advocated moving to Berlin on and off over the years - I think state support for families in DE is quite generous.
My wife lived in Germany before she met me, and was married then. She was getting a lot of input that she should pop out some kids and raise them with Kindergeld. It seemed like the kind of system that U.S. opponents of Welfare get nightmares from. But I don't know how it currently operates.
> but daycare is going to be around £1800+ a month
Is that entirely private? Are there no public child care options?
Is that entirely private? Are there no public child care options?
Yeah, all the ones close are private and priced similarly. I think there might be some council centres, but it depends on which borough you live in, and I think it's means tested.
I think it's hard to appreciate just how hollowed out the UK public service has become, yet we still pay a decent amount of tax relative to other OECD countries.
I think it's hard to appreciate just how hollowed out the UK public service has become, yet we still pay a decent amount of tax relative to other OECD countries.
> but the economic benefits once they reach adulthood tend to flow to government and society at large.
Not at all. Almost everything is privatized today. When children reach adulthood, the economic benefits that they create also go to the private sector. 'Small government' in the West meant that the government being pushed out of every sector from education to healthcare and private profiteers taking their place. And as private players, their objective is to maximize their profit.
So even child raising became a thing that requires ever-increasing amount of effort and cost from parents as the profit margins rose. Japan got hit before other Western countries and got hit harder because it already had a 'work or die' culture that required 100% from the employees. To have children, you had to put 120%. And when the private sector's increasing fees made it require putting in 200%, the youth just stopped trying...
Not at all. Almost everything is privatized today. When children reach adulthood, the economic benefits that they create also go to the private sector. 'Small government' in the West meant that the government being pushed out of every sector from education to healthcare and private profiteers taking their place. And as private players, their objective is to maximize their profit.
So even child raising became a thing that requires ever-increasing amount of effort and cost from parents as the profit margins rose. Japan got hit before other Western countries and got hit harder because it already had a 'work or die' culture that required 100% from the employees. To have children, you had to put 120%. And when the private sector's increasing fees made it require putting in 200%, the youth just stopped trying...
Since the government benefit from more children (i.e. form more tax revenue in the future), how about let the government breed and raise childern with donated eggs & sperm, surrogate pregnancy, and public school & daycares?
Like in Brave New World's Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre? Ha, be careful what you wish for!
It was never going to work. You want to encourage family formation, you need to make it a viable life path, and without radical tax (as in, family can't lead to a drop in standard of living compared to DINKs) and education reform (not being economically established until your late 20s means you realistically only have 6 years to start a family rather than the historical 12) this won't happen.
Why bother getting married when you'll functionally never see your wife, and why bother having kids when you'll basically never see them? The Japanese aren't unique in not seeing the point, as this pattern is a constant all over the world.
Why bother getting married when you'll functionally never see your wife, and why bother having kids when you'll basically never see them? The Japanese aren't unique in not seeing the point, as this pattern is a constant all over the world.
Haven’t seen any top down government interventions work at increasing TFR.
The only thing that seems to work is high religiosity.
The only thing that seems to work is high religiosity.
> Haven’t seen any top down government interventions work at increasing TFR.
I believe this is because you won't see any effect until having kids is paid just as well as working any other job.
If you can choose between a regular job paying 100%, and an incredibly hard and demanding job paying 50%, you're going to pick the first option every single time. Increasing the pay to 60% isn't going to help. You need to be around 100% or above. And like with anything else in our economy, if you're not getting enough people to take that essential job, you need to keep increasing pay until they do.
So no matter how much government intervention, you're still only getting the share of people who want to have kids as a kind of hobby. Not because government intervention doesn't work at all, but because you get very little effect until you cross that threshold where having kids is a job that pays fairly.
I think parts of Northern Europe is close to that threshold, but there's still some ways to go. Parental leave needs to be a few months longer (there's often a gap between parental leave ending and kindergarten starting), kindergarten must be free, and financial support for parents needs to be quite a bit higher.
I believe this is because you won't see any effect until having kids is paid just as well as working any other job.
If you can choose between a regular job paying 100%, and an incredibly hard and demanding job paying 50%, you're going to pick the first option every single time. Increasing the pay to 60% isn't going to help. You need to be around 100% or above. And like with anything else in our economy, if you're not getting enough people to take that essential job, you need to keep increasing pay until they do.
So no matter how much government intervention, you're still only getting the share of people who want to have kids as a kind of hobby. Not because government intervention doesn't work at all, but because you get very little effect until you cross that threshold where having kids is a job that pays fairly.
I think parts of Northern Europe is close to that threshold, but there's still some ways to go. Parental leave needs to be a few months longer (there's often a gap between parental leave ending and kindergarten starting), kindergarten must be free, and financial support for parents needs to be quite a bit higher.
Seems a bit extreme to have the government pay people to have kids on the level of a full time job when you consider that through most of human history people worked to support their kids / families and at much lower income levels.
Looking at Northern Europe seems their TFR is similar to the USA despite incentives.
Looking at Northern Europe seems their TFR is similar to the USA despite incentives.
That is until the children were able to work for the family, so having children was literally an investment: pay upfront to have income.
>Haven’t seen any top down government interventions work at increasing TFR.
Well, they've all been symbolic measures... but that's all they can realistically do.
In terms of education reform (the "give young men and women their twenties back" part), constituents of the education-managerial complex will fight hard to preserve their positions (making the education system more efficient would put many out of work), and are a significant enough cross-section of the population that threatening them will have electoral consequences that no sitting governments could survive.
And that's before you get into the tax hike/redistribution schemes (the "parents need to be compensated just as much as other economic value-creators" part), which will impact everyone else, and irrevocably screws the folks that are now too old to have kids (who, coincidentally, are approaching peak voting age).
For those reasons, proper reform is and will continue to be impossible for the forseeable future.
Well, they've all been symbolic measures... but that's all they can realistically do.
In terms of education reform (the "give young men and women their twenties back" part), constituents of the education-managerial complex will fight hard to preserve their positions (making the education system more efficient would put many out of work), and are a significant enough cross-section of the population that threatening them will have electoral consequences that no sitting governments could survive.
And that's before you get into the tax hike/redistribution schemes (the "parents need to be compensated just as much as other economic value-creators" part), which will impact everyone else, and irrevocably screws the folks that are now too old to have kids (who, coincidentally, are approaching peak voting age).
For those reasons, proper reform is and will continue to be impossible for the forseeable future.
USSR bred reasonably well up until its breakup without religion.
You don't necessarily need religion in order to wish to continue yourself beyond your lifetime.
I believe the USSR had a fairly conservative stance on those issues, favouring families. It's not religion but it is still social pressure.
The USSR's advantage was that everyone's life was guaranteed all the way from the start and without overwork. You went to your job at 15 min. walking distance (entire cities were planned that way) in the morning, worked from 9 to 5 without having to overwork, got back home in 15 min, at the same time your children came back home from state-funded schools as your wife got grocieries for the dinner at lowest cost. (until the economic war started by the US and its Gulf Allies in the 80s). You had paid vacations, paid maternity/paternity leave, reasonable working hours, reasonable retirement age, free social clubs, hobby clubs, everything.
And the most critical point: Your children were also entitled to ALL of that from birth. They were going to study in state schools, they would get a job somewhere, they would work under the same conditions, they would acquire their first car and their first flat around the same age, and if they married, not only the state would help them marry but also provide more incentives.
So there was absolutely no reason to hesitate from having children - you had the money, energy, resources, and on top of that the state guaranteed that your children would be well set from the moment they born.
Hence, population boomed.
The USSR is not unique in that aspect. In every period of society, when people's and their childrens' lives are guaranteed, population boomed. The sociopathic profiteering in capitalist societies crippling everything including birth rates seems more like a case of natural selection when seen in that light - these countries have all the money and power in the world to stop the population decline and reverse it, but they just dont want to do it for the sake of profit...
And the most critical point: Your children were also entitled to ALL of that from birth. They were going to study in state schools, they would get a job somewhere, they would work under the same conditions, they would acquire their first car and their first flat around the same age, and if they married, not only the state would help them marry but also provide more incentives.
So there was absolutely no reason to hesitate from having children - you had the money, energy, resources, and on top of that the state guaranteed that your children would be well set from the moment they born.
Hence, population boomed.
The USSR is not unique in that aspect. In every period of society, when people's and their childrens' lives are guaranteed, population boomed. The sociopathic profiteering in capitalist societies crippling everything including birth rates seems more like a case of natural selection when seen in that light - these countries have all the money and power in the world to stop the population decline and reverse it, but they just dont want to do it for the sake of profit...
You could try peddling that to those who never lived in the USSR.
Nothing was guaranteed, everything had to be fought for, even food. You were at the mercy of the local party boss, one careless word could cost you your career, not just in one company but in the whole country (goes without saying that you couldn't move to another).
Paternity leave is something new, never have heard a lie that blatant.
Also anything "free" of course wasn't, The Soviet government was the ultimate capitalist, appropriating all fruits of all labour and keeping people at "just above rioting" living standard by design, and sometimes failing even at that.
Nothing was guaranteed, everything had to be fought for, even food. You were at the mercy of the local party boss, one careless word could cost you your career, not just in one company but in the whole country (goes without saying that you couldn't move to another).
Paternity leave is something new, never have heard a lie that blatant.
Also anything "free" of course wasn't, The Soviet government was the ultimate capitalist, appropriating all fruits of all labour and keeping people at "just above rioting" living standard by design, and sometimes failing even at that.
> You could try peddling that to those who never lived in the USSR.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietuni...
Those who lived there want it back.
I grew up in a country that imitated the Yugoslavian system, mixing Soviet system with social democracy. Until the country turned capitalist, directly declaring that 'free market was the best' and the objective was to become 'little America', everybody was happy. From food to education to housing, everything just worked out thanks to the state providing most of them. Including marrying and raising children. Then the 'free market' came and everything went down the same hellhole that Japan and other countries are going down into right now.
> You were at the mercy of the local party boss, one careless word could cost you your career
Wow that's so bad and its so more different than being at the mercy of your capitalist boss.
The discussion is at a 'people dont have food to eat next month and can go homeless at any time' level. Not 'my career' level. Yeah, you could lose you career and maybe get sent to somewhere in the middle of central Asia. And yet you would still have a job, house, your children would still go to school. Beats entire family working and not being able to feed their children like its in the US or outright going homeless.
> Paternity leave is something new, never have a lie that blatant.
It says 'maternity/paternity' leave in my comment. USSR had maternity leave.
...
> "Peddle"
How about you don't peddle the cold war propaganda that's 60 years old now? I grew up in a Soviet-like system, and despite I am doing FAR better at the top percentiles of my society, I would go back to that Soviet-like system in a blink so that millions would not have to suffer and go hungry and the society would not devolve into a hellhole.
Heres a frame of reference for you: Nobody is conducting economic war against the US. The US is not in an existential war. There is not global catastrophe that has been affecting the US. There is no alien invasion. No apocalypse. And yet this is the reality there:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret...
I'd much rather 'peddle' what i 'peddled' than smear what was better.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-sovietuni...
Those who lived there want it back.
I grew up in a country that imitated the Yugoslavian system, mixing Soviet system with social democracy. Until the country turned capitalist, directly declaring that 'free market was the best' and the objective was to become 'little America', everybody was happy. From food to education to housing, everything just worked out thanks to the state providing most of them. Including marrying and raising children. Then the 'free market' came and everything went down the same hellhole that Japan and other countries are going down into right now.
> You were at the mercy of the local party boss, one careless word could cost you your career
Wow that's so bad and its so more different than being at the mercy of your capitalist boss.
The discussion is at a 'people dont have food to eat next month and can go homeless at any time' level. Not 'my career' level. Yeah, you could lose you career and maybe get sent to somewhere in the middle of central Asia. And yet you would still have a job, house, your children would still go to school. Beats entire family working and not being able to feed their children like its in the US or outright going homeless.
> Paternity leave is something new, never have a lie that blatant.
It says 'maternity/paternity' leave in my comment. USSR had maternity leave.
...
> "Peddle"
How about you don't peddle the cold war propaganda that's 60 years old now? I grew up in a Soviet-like system, and despite I am doing FAR better at the top percentiles of my society, I would go back to that Soviet-like system in a blink so that millions would not have to suffer and go hungry and the society would not devolve into a hellhole.
Heres a frame of reference for you: Nobody is conducting economic war against the US. The US is not in an existential war. There is not global catastrophe that has been affecting the US. There is no alien invasion. No apocalypse. And yet this is the reality there:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret...
I'd much rather 'peddle' what i 'peddled' than smear what was better.
Mate I lived there (towards the end) and heard first-hand accounts about the glorious past, from my grandfather's as privileged as a school principal for example.
For the great many it literally was about constantly worrying about putting the food in the table.
People who want USSR back actually want their youth back, youth, not the time when their extended family of five lived in a one bedroom flat.
People who want USSR back actually want their youth back, youth, not the time when their extended family of five lived in a one bedroom flat.
> For the great many it literally was about constantly worrying about putting the food in the table.
It was at the end. After the US got its Gulf Allies to start waging economic war against the USSR in 1980s by playing with the price of oil, while blockading it from every other angle to prevent the USSR from trading with anyone outside.
If any other country did half of that to the US, it would end up in nuclear war. The fault of the USSR was allowing its hostile enemy to strangle it step by step by avoiding confrontation.
Otherwise during 1960s Kennedy administration thought that the USSR was developing too rapidly and others would start taking it as an example, causing a 'domino effect'. Which is the basis of the 'domino theory' and the Vietnam war was its resolution - 'making example of countries who attempt to follow that model'.
Even my country in the sidelines got an economic crisis and scarcity EVERY single time it went against a US foreign policy project or US-pushed 'economic reform'. From local wars to privatizations. When those were not enough to 'persuade' the governments to do what they were told, coups did the work. The last one hanged 10,000 and the government that it put into power started privatizing the living daylights of the country. The stock market started breaking records. Whereas a lot of people started eating less, some having to eat from garbage. Therefore:
> People who want USSR back actually want their youth back, youth, not the time when their extended family of five lived in a one bedroom flat.
No people just want their better, worry-free, non-overworked lives back. In the former USSR, in East Germany, and in every other country that got US backed 'free market'. If you aren't able to get into the top 10% in such a system, you are literally hosed. Those who made it into that segment think that 'everything is better' because now they are shielded from the poverty that plagues the rest of their society. Whereas for the troubled majority, there is no comparing guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing, healthcare, childcare, education, retirement and all that to any 'freedom' that comes with the new system.
As I said, Im doing quite comfortably in this system. But, for the sake of the majority, I would happily go back to that system so that people wouldnt have to overwork and still not be able to feed their children without anyone waging an economic war or even an actual war against the country.
It was at the end. After the US got its Gulf Allies to start waging economic war against the USSR in 1980s by playing with the price of oil, while blockading it from every other angle to prevent the USSR from trading with anyone outside.
If any other country did half of that to the US, it would end up in nuclear war. The fault of the USSR was allowing its hostile enemy to strangle it step by step by avoiding confrontation.
Otherwise during 1960s Kennedy administration thought that the USSR was developing too rapidly and others would start taking it as an example, causing a 'domino effect'. Which is the basis of the 'domino theory' and the Vietnam war was its resolution - 'making example of countries who attempt to follow that model'.
Even my country in the sidelines got an economic crisis and scarcity EVERY single time it went against a US foreign policy project or US-pushed 'economic reform'. From local wars to privatizations. When those were not enough to 'persuade' the governments to do what they were told, coups did the work. The last one hanged 10,000 and the government that it put into power started privatizing the living daylights of the country. The stock market started breaking records. Whereas a lot of people started eating less, some having to eat from garbage. Therefore:
> People who want USSR back actually want their youth back, youth, not the time when their extended family of five lived in a one bedroom flat.
No people just want their better, worry-free, non-overworked lives back. In the former USSR, in East Germany, and in every other country that got US backed 'free market'. If you aren't able to get into the top 10% in such a system, you are literally hosed. Those who made it into that segment think that 'everything is better' because now they are shielded from the poverty that plagues the rest of their society. Whereas for the troubled majority, there is no comparing guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing, healthcare, childcare, education, retirement and all that to any 'freedom' that comes with the new system.
As I said, Im doing quite comfortably in this system. But, for the sake of the majority, I would happily go back to that system so that people wouldnt have to overwork and still not be able to feed their children without anyone waging an economic war or even an actual war against the country.
This is bullshit, plain and simple.
Calling the reality 'bullshit' does not make the reality go away. Here's some of that reality.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-he....
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-he....
Nothing wrong with social pressure to do the right thing.
Society very rarely knows what the right thing is. Hence why the USSR existed in the first place post Lenin.
Unless you have a good reason to believe otherwise, your ancestors did the right thing, for anything they did. USSR lasted that long because some people made themselves a very good repressive machine very early on.
That’s survivorship bias. My ancestors wanted a good life for themselves, and many of them suffered different despots and sultans. They would go to war to defend their country, but not when the enemy is the ruler himself.
My ancestors were wrongly conditioned to think life has to be rough, that one must suffer through. A great deal of those who opposed rulers profiting from this, were eliminated.
My ancestors were wrongly conditioned to think life has to be rough, that one must suffer through. A great deal of those who opposed rulers profiting from this, were eliminated.
Mimicking what survivors did is a reasonable strategy. You don't know why but it works. Again, if you realise some of what they did didn't actually contribute to their survival it qualifies as a good reason not to do it.
And I am not saying it is wrong, but it is a form of social conservatism.
Maybe social structure of some sort is responsible ? I am not sure just looking at the patterns I see in developed countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_on_childlessness
Childless people between 20-50, both men and women, paid an extra 6% in taxes to the state.
Childless people between 20-50, both men and women, paid an extra 6% in taxes to the state.
This is no different from getting taxes from everyone and paying child benefits.
Practically, yes - it's more-or-less equivalent.
Psychologically, I'm not so sure. Loss aversion is a much stronger than not getting a benefit (think about not getting your bonus versus taking a pay-cut at work; even if the amounts are the same, I doubt you would feel the same about it) - so I think the explicit tax on childlessness would be more influential because of that.
Psychologically, I'm not so sure. Loss aversion is a much stronger than not getting a benefit (think about not getting your bonus versus taking a pay-cut at work; even if the amounts are the same, I doubt you would feel the same about it) - so I think the explicit tax on childlessness would be more influential because of that.
> Haven’t seen any top down government interventions work at increasing TFR
Top down government interventions to raise birth rates and population work pretty well in countries where the government provides vital services like healthcare, education at lowest cost and also social safety nets.
Top down government interventions to raise birth rates and population work pretty well in countries where the government provides vital services like healthcare, education at lowest cost and also social safety nets.
Was that sarcasm? Because the reality is exactly opposite to what you say when you look at TFRs of societies having the best welfare - Finland (1.37), Norway (1.48), Germany (1.53), Switzerland (1.46). Even Sweden and Denmark are around (1.66), the same as the US (1.64).
Those countries are not running interventions. They are merely providing aid to those who have children, and not much of it. Even with that, Germany had some success with it.
That is because governments attempts to raise birth rates are like fat people trying to lose weight: "We've tried nothing, and it didn't work!"
Just increase the tax burden X-times the default rate for those without Y kids. If you aren't willing to repopulate the nation then you should be subsidizing those who are.
Just increase the tax burden X-times the default rate for those without Y kids. If you aren't willing to repopulate the nation then you should be subsidizing those who are.
The rational, logical, _intelligent_ population they should want to breed the most will respond when the environment encourages them to live like humans and have children.
The article touches on this, but the entire demand structure and set of expectations in society In Japan (and also at least in the US where my observational experience is) is counter to being human. The barriers to being part of a community, of interacting with others in third places / spaces, of having time to focus on family instead of the job. Society as a whole has gone crazy in a relentless quest to extract all the value it can, forgetting the very reason it sought to do that in a blind quest for numbers.
The article touches on this, but the entire demand structure and set of expectations in society In Japan (and also at least in the US where my observational experience is) is counter to being human. The barriers to being part of a community, of interacting with others in third places / spaces, of having time to focus on family instead of the job. Society as a whole has gone crazy in a relentless quest to extract all the value it can, forgetting the very reason it sought to do that in a blind quest for numbers.
Well what did the world expect when an entire generation is forced to live in an ongoing economic crisis for most of their life.
Here is a thought: If people have their basic needs met, and I don't mean "barely survive", I mean "having the same fair chance at building wealth as prior generations", then maybe people in such a society may be willing to have more children.
If, on the other hand, it becomes ever harder to build wealth, becomes ever harder to cover the cost of living, education is demanded but also becomes ever more expensive to get, and any time not spent working becomes an economic malus on the individual, well ... I don't see how people will flock to the joys of parenthood then.
Here is a thought: If people have their basic needs met, and I don't mean "barely survive", I mean "having the same fair chance at building wealth as prior generations", then maybe people in such a society may be willing to have more children.
If, on the other hand, it becomes ever harder to build wealth, becomes ever harder to cover the cost of living, education is demanded but also becomes ever more expensive to get, and any time not spent working becomes an economic malus on the individual, well ... I don't see how people will flock to the joys of parenthood then.
They should offer more incentives to have children, make it easier.
Provide tax breaks, additional compensation benefits, mandatory time off work etc.
Edit: After doing some searching, learned more about what they get. https://www.ipmu.jp/en/page/dbbb4775-1008-4deb-8d7d-8766e5d8....
Overall I think the benefits are decent, however I don't think they fully support fathers.
Fathers can take 7 days while mom is on mat leave at same time.
Then later you can have nursing time, 30 min breaks from work? Can show up 30 mins late??
How about some actual time off so you can help out at early stages of life and not too be financially worried.
Canada we get 12-18 months shared between spouses, other countries get better
Provide tax breaks, additional compensation benefits, mandatory time off work etc.
Edit: After doing some searching, learned more about what they get. https://www.ipmu.jp/en/page/dbbb4775-1008-4deb-8d7d-8766e5d8....
Overall I think the benefits are decent, however I don't think they fully support fathers.
Fathers can take 7 days while mom is on mat leave at same time.
Then later you can have nursing time, 30 min breaks from work? Can show up 30 mins late??
How about some actual time off so you can help out at early stages of life and not too be financially worried.
Canada we get 12-18 months shared between spouses, other countries get better
Canada time off is paid at most 2000/month though. That's almost nothing in big cities where rent is 2500 for 2 bedrooms (Vancouver).
I appreciate the incredible parental leave, but it's still very rough, one parent MUST go back to work or it gets really hard. If you have a mortgage is probably just impossible.
That being said, 7 days is a joke. To any father, 7 days and your baby is as big as your forearm, and you are supposed to leave that creature at home. Bah.
1 month seems the minimum, given that afterbirth complications start to settle only after that mark and medically speaking there is a big "mark" in terms of weight for that date.
I appreciate the incredible parental leave, but it's still very rough, one parent MUST go back to work or it gets really hard. If you have a mortgage is probably just impossible.
That being said, 7 days is a joke. To any father, 7 days and your baby is as big as your forearm, and you are supposed to leave that creature at home. Bah.
1 month seems the minimum, given that afterbirth complications start to settle only after that mark and medically speaking there is a big "mark" in terms of weight for that date.
And yet, Canada's TFR is only 1.4 in spite of generous parental leave, free healthcare and free education. What gives?
None of those statements are 100% true, and in some provinces basically false.
Leave isn't generous, and requires that you have paid into EI for at least 1 year, otherwise you get nothing.
Education definitely isn't true, though in-province rates, esp. in QC, aren't crazy. But most of my friends had student loans.
Healthcare in a hospital is free. You need dental, optical, or 3rd party specialist stuff? Good luck. The quality also varies greatly -- if you're in the nicest part of Toronto I'm sure it's great, but rural SK healthcare is basically bandaids and a bus ticket to the provincial capital.
Ontario has their own mini-Trump who just push through healthcare privatization, and Alberta has been hammering it for years. AB, despite being the richest province due to all that oil, has consistently slashed education and healthcare, most notably booting out a ton of hospital staff right before COVID hit, which lead to big protests from the AHS ("nurses strike", etc).
QC has subsidized daycare, but seats are often hard to get. In exchange taxes are the highest in Canada, and salaries are unimpressive.
Leave isn't generous, and requires that you have paid into EI for at least 1 year, otherwise you get nothing.
Education definitely isn't true, though in-province rates, esp. in QC, aren't crazy. But most of my friends had student loans.
Healthcare in a hospital is free. You need dental, optical, or 3rd party specialist stuff? Good luck. The quality also varies greatly -- if you're in the nicest part of Toronto I'm sure it's great, but rural SK healthcare is basically bandaids and a bus ticket to the provincial capital.
Ontario has their own mini-Trump who just push through healthcare privatization, and Alberta has been hammering it for years. AB, despite being the richest province due to all that oil, has consistently slashed education and healthcare, most notably booting out a ton of hospital staff right before COVID hit, which lead to big protests from the AHS ("nurses strike", etc).
QC has subsidized daycare, but seats are often hard to get. In exchange taxes are the highest in Canada, and salaries are unimpressive.
Oh wow, thanks for shedding some light. Do you mind sharing references to what you said? Will be useful to counter the "US so bad, look at Canada bwahaha" smug narratives.
Canadians can remain smug that their social safety net is much better than the USA and many other countries, but nonetheless there are enormous holes that can still be filled which would make life more affordable for regular people and would conceivably aid in making people feel more comfortable to be able to afford to have more children.
Parent correct to note that Dentalcare is not part of Universal Healthcare, but even more significant than that there is no Universal Pharmacare, though there's some aids for the poor and elderly.
Two weeks vacation is pretty standard and many Canadians have very little vacation time.
Until very recently many people had no minimum sick days (though your typical tech company would have a few). Only during the pandemic has there been adgitation to try to create some minimums. The Feds brought in 10 days minimum sick days for workers under their purview, but provinces demurred from going that far.
Only just now is Canada slowly rolling out affordable universal $10/day childcare and so the next few decades will be interesting in that academics can study the impact of this on births.
The most significant thing Canada could do to encourage more births would be to make family friendly homes (ie. 1300 sqft+) dramatically more available and affordable. Right now there's a huge shortage and they're basically unaffordable without existing wealth.
Japan does not seem to have this problem so bad as they have an enormous surplus of homes and their home prices have been stagnant for a long time.
Parent correct to note that Dentalcare is not part of Universal Healthcare, but even more significant than that there is no Universal Pharmacare, though there's some aids for the poor and elderly.
Two weeks vacation is pretty standard and many Canadians have very little vacation time.
Until very recently many people had no minimum sick days (though your typical tech company would have a few). Only during the pandemic has there been adgitation to try to create some minimums. The Feds brought in 10 days minimum sick days for workers under their purview, but provinces demurred from going that far.
Only just now is Canada slowly rolling out affordable universal $10/day childcare and so the next few decades will be interesting in that academics can study the impact of this on births.
The most significant thing Canada could do to encourage more births would be to make family friendly homes (ie. 1300 sqft+) dramatically more available and affordable. Right now there's a huge shortage and they're basically unaffordable without existing wealth.
Japan does not seem to have this problem so bad as they have an enormous surplus of homes and their home prices have been stagnant for a long time.
One note 1300sqft homes could be condos, even if Canadians are condo resistant.
They should make the condo more soundproof, no doubt, but living in a 3 bedroom condo @ 1300sqft is pretty nice, we do so ourselves with 2 children. Plenty of space. It was super expensive for us.
They should make the condo more soundproof, no doubt, but living in a 3 bedroom condo @ 1300sqft is pretty nice, we do so ourselves with 2 children. Plenty of space. It was super expensive for us.
According to the article, that is the plan
> As long as successive conservative governments continue to shun immigration as part of a potential solution to chronic labour shortages and the increasing strain on funding for health and social security, the consensus is that the answers must come from within.
Ever since I saw the news that adult diapers outsell baby diapers in Japan (2011!), it's been fun to check in on their attitudes to immigration. I wish this article delved into it a little bit more.
Ever since I saw the news that adult diapers outsell baby diapers in Japan (2011!), it's been fun to check in on their attitudes to immigration. I wish this article delved into it a little bit more.
But mass immigration has huge problems - look at Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, etc.
And in Japans case very little immigration also has huge problems.
It's not black and white, we should stop treating every problem as such.
It's not black and white, we should stop treating every problem as such.
What about them? Have you been there? Noticed anything problematic?
There are huge problems with immigration in France and it's been a growing problem for the past 40 years.
But contrarely to what people think, crime isn't IMHO the worst of them. The worst is the feeling that the cultural norm of the country, as well as its "visual" identity has shifted from a european country to a (mostly) african one ( and please read the rest before making hasty judgments on what i'm saying).
To understand the problem, imagine going to a few remote rural areas in japan in 40 years and each time only see tall 7 feet blond and blue eyes people, speaking swedish and not finding sushis or ramen anywhere.
I like all cultures, and i believe there's great things everywhere, but that's why i'm also a bit sad to see "traditional" France (whatever that means) disappear.
But contrarely to what people think, crime isn't IMHO the worst of them. The worst is the feeling that the cultural norm of the country, as well as its "visual" identity has shifted from a european country to a (mostly) african one ( and please read the rest before making hasty judgments on what i'm saying).
To understand the problem, imagine going to a few remote rural areas in japan in 40 years and each time only see tall 7 feet blond and blue eyes people, speaking swedish and not finding sushis or ramen anywhere.
I like all cultures, and i believe there's great things everywhere, but that's why i'm also a bit sad to see "traditional" France (whatever that means) disappear.
"the cultural norm of the country, as well as its "visual" identity has shifted from a european country to a (mostly) african one"
This is delusional, and yes, I did read the rest of your comment.
This is delusional, and yes, I did read the rest of your comment.
not a native english so i'm not sure what you mean by delusional ?
We can't legally compile ethnics statistics in France, so all we have to rely on is our personal feeling, which is of course very subjective ( and this has been the counter argument to my type of argument for a very long time). But it has reached such a level now that nobody is contesting that diagnosis. People give it different names depending on their political orientation ( "creolisation" for the left, "grand remplacement" for the right), but it's basically the same conclusion.
We can't legally compile ethnics statistics in France, so all we have to rely on is our personal feeling, which is of course very subjective ( and this has been the counter argument to my type of argument for a very long time). But it has reached such a level now that nobody is contesting that diagnosis. People give it different names depending on their political orientation ( "creolisation" for the left, "grand remplacement" for the right), but it's basically the same conclusion.
>We can't legally compile ethnics statistics in France
This is bullshit, because even if France made it illegal (it's obviously not) other groups would definitely still do it. France is still 86% white people, mostly french. Nobody is being replaced anywhere, because immigration is tiny everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France
This is bullshit, because even if France made it illegal (it's obviously not) other groups would definitely still do it. France is still 86% white people, mostly french. Nobody is being replaced anywhere, because immigration is tiny everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France
From your own article :
"Due to a law dating from 1872 at the start of the Third Republic, France has prohibited the collection of data on a citizens race, ethnicity or their beliefs such as religion through national censuses,[47][48] however estimates have been made of the ethnic and racial demography of the country in the present"
We're talking estimation as it is indeed illegal, no matter how crazy it may sound like. Estimation is highly dependant on who's doing the estimation, and for what purpose, and as you can see in the article itself, the topic is highly controversial among specialist.
Now, if you were living in france for the past 40 years, and had regularely travelled across the country, you would see that in that particular case, the situation is very obvious, and the only circle left still debating the issue is demographic specialists.
Politicians and media used to deny the issue and flagged anyone mentioning it as racist, but things have recently changed and we finally start talking about it like grown ups.
"Due to a law dating from 1872 at the start of the Third Republic, France has prohibited the collection of data on a citizens race, ethnicity or their beliefs such as religion through national censuses,[47][48] however estimates have been made of the ethnic and racial demography of the country in the present"
We're talking estimation as it is indeed illegal, no matter how crazy it may sound like. Estimation is highly dependant on who's doing the estimation, and for what purpose, and as you can see in the article itself, the topic is highly controversial among specialist.
Now, if you were living in france for the past 40 years, and had regularely travelled across the country, you would see that in that particular case, the situation is very obvious, and the only circle left still debating the issue is demographic specialists.
Politicians and media used to deny the issue and flagged anyone mentioning it as racist, but things have recently changed and we finally start talking about it like grown ups.
I have lived and travelled in France for around 40 years and I don't at all recognize what you are describing.
Your claims appear to be based on suggesting that you (and, in a laughable falsehood, the wide range of opinion in French society) knows for a fact that this situation exists, but if anyone does not agree with you, that is merely their opinion, since it is impossible to measure.
Your claims appear to be based on suggesting that you (and, in a laughable falsehood, the wide range of opinion in French society) knows for a fact that this situation exists, but if anyone does not agree with you, that is merely their opinion, since it is impossible to measure.
may i ask where you have lived and travelled in france ?
Have you ever been to any suburb, not just in Paris ( which already has some suburbs with close to 99% non-french inhabitants) but in pretty much any average sized city in the country ?
based on your saying I can only assume you only lived in the central part of paris, and went on holidays in the west coast such as bordeaux or brest. Because all the rest of the country is pretty much in transition.
Have you ever been to any suburb, not just in Paris ( which already has some suburbs with close to 99% non-french inhabitants) but in pretty much any average sized city in the country ?
based on your saying I can only assume you only lived in the central part of paris, and went on holidays in the west coast such as bordeaux or brest. Because all the rest of the country is pretty much in transition.
"France is still 86% white people, mostly french."
Now look forward 30-50 years, and see who is more: the native population who has no kids or very few ones, or the immigrant cultures that encourage 3-5+ kids per family.
It's just basic population maths.
But even from an economic point of view, the French immigration is mostly an uneducated when not illiterate, african, immigration, in a country that has deindustrialised like all other major western economies. It's not a like for like replacement for the local birth rate. You start to see convergence at the second generation. That's a long time.
> imagine going to a few remote rural areas in japan in 40 years and each time only see tall 7 feet blond and blue eyes people, speaking swedish and not finding sushis or ramen anywhere.
to me, that sounds great actually
https://en.japantravel.com/shizuoka/izu-shuzenji-british-vil...
to me, that sounds great actually
https://en.japantravel.com/shizuoka/izu-shuzenji-british-vil...
What makes French (or Japanese) culture something we need to keep ideologically pure?
The movement of people causes an interchange of culture.
The movement of people causes an interchange of culture.
This is 2023. I can get plenty of interchange on netflix, or hop on a plane and try the interchange in person.
I wasn't talking about keeping it pure. Just keeping it alive.
Why does it die with immigrants? French/Japanese culture exists in the French/Japanese homelands.
of course, it doesn't have to. And france has dealt with immigration in the past quite successfully, with newcomers melting their identity completely as to become almost undistinguishable from the french one after just a few generations.
For some reasons it doesn't seem to having worked that way in the last decades (and it would be really interesting to know why).
For some reasons it doesn't seem to having worked that way in the last decades (and it would be really interesting to know why).
What you're doing is called "True Scotsman" and you're missing the point. French culture is whatever happens in France. It's not some ideologically sterile idea that you make it out to be. Same for Japan. French and Japanese culture evolve with time and influence, just as the rest of the world. However it is still French/Japanese culture.
In some far distant world where people in France no longer eat baguettes or people in Japan are not synonymous with Sushi, those people still exist in French and Japanese culture. (And those ideological totems still exist as legacies in French and Japanese culture, they're just no longer practiced).
And I'm not even going to begin to address the influences that France and Japan have had on other cultures (the entirety of Africa and Asia). The cultures of the places that France and Japan have influence have not been "superseded". They are still the culture's of those lands. They just have outside influence.
In some far distant world where people in France no longer eat baguettes or people in Japan are not synonymous with Sushi, those people still exist in French and Japanese culture. (And those ideological totems still exist as legacies in French and Japanese culture, they're just no longer practiced).
And I'm not even going to begin to address the influences that France and Japan have had on other cultures (the entirety of Africa and Asia). The cultures of the places that France and Japan have influence have not been "superseded". They are still the culture's of those lands. They just have outside influence.
"French culture is whatever happens in France"
This sounds to me as a bit tautological. If we move 200 millions from china in 1 month, you wouldn't say "french culture is about eating rice, and french people generally look like chinese".
Culture sometimes change intrinsically, but sometimes because of huge foreign influence or demographics ( invasion being historically the most influencial one). Doesn't mean you can't observe the change when it happens and judge it.
This sounds to me as a bit tautological. If we move 200 millions from china in 1 month, you wouldn't say "french culture is about eating rice, and french people generally look like chinese".
Culture sometimes change intrinsically, but sometimes because of huge foreign influence or demographics ( invasion being historically the most influencial one). Doesn't mean you can't observe the change when it happens and judge it.
Being reverse colonized must really suck. Almost as bad as the people who were originally trampled by French boots.
I live in Spain and go to France relatively often. In France the problems are quite severe by this point. It's not only in Paris and Marselle, is also beginning in other places too. This means insecurity, gang violence, threats, etc.
There's also a cultural aspect to it. It used to be just extreme-right speech but IMO It's time to stop looking elsewhere and face the problem.
In Spain it's only insecurity, and controlled to a certain degree, but in Barcelona is noticeable, and in Madrid is beginning to bein noticed. Is nowhere the level of France but it's definitely growing. A lot of people is looking up north and wondering if we should take this more seriously, so we don't end up like our northern neighbours.
There's also a cultural aspect to it. It used to be just extreme-right speech but IMO It's time to stop looking elsewhere and face the problem.
In Spain it's only insecurity, and controlled to a certain degree, but in Barcelona is noticeable, and in Madrid is beginning to bein noticed. Is nowhere the level of France but it's definitely growing. A lot of people is looking up north and wondering if we should take this more seriously, so we don't end up like our northern neighbours.
I live in Sweden and there was a bombing outside my apartment last week due to gang conflicts.
"Haven't noticed anything problematic" is a naive take
Nothing to worry about in Rotherham
Nothing to worry about in Parisian Banlieues https://www.lepoint.fr/education/laicite-pres-d-un-enseignan...
Of course there's a difference between bringing people with a degree for example and letting any kind of migration happen (which for the most part wasn't the case during the migrations of the XXth century to the US)
This is not to say immigration doesn't have its advantages and that criminal issues are not only due to recent arrivals (quite the contrary)
Nothing to worry about in Rotherham
Nothing to worry about in Parisian Banlieues https://www.lepoint.fr/education/laicite-pres-d-un-enseignan...
Of course there's a difference between bringing people with a degree for example and letting any kind of migration happen (which for the most part wasn't the case during the migrations of the XXth century to the US)
This is not to say immigration doesn't have its advantages and that criminal issues are not only due to recent arrivals (quite the contrary)
I'll only speak about Brussels since I'm Belgian.
There's a serious unemployment issue in Brussels. Brussels has more foreign born people than local born and definitely more than ethnic Belgians. The thing is it's not much tied to people born in the EU as per study. Those tend to come for the jobs requiring higher eductation for the EU, NATO or some international company or the like. They contribute to varying degrees (NATO folks are often tax exempt for example) but i don't think anyone wants them gone or cares too much.
It's not much tied to locals either. It's tied to the people that are typically the focus of anti migration parties which typically are non eu migrants.
They often don't have the education that the city demands nor the language skills (It's pretty damn easy to get a job if you speak the 2 national languages perfectly but don't have a degree for example). All in all they don't really fit the niche of sustaining the social security net as is often brought up as the core advantage except for the fact that they have more children which is tied to a brand of persistent social conservatism ....which isn't really wanted either.
All in all it feels like immigration is happening too fast to avoid this group setting itself appart in various ways leading to (self)-segregation and probably persistent social strife down the line.
They often don't have the education that the city demands nor the language skills (It's pretty damn easy to get a job if you speak the 2 national languages perfectly but don't have a degree for example). All in all they don't really fit the niche of sustaining the social security net as is often brought up as the core advantage except for the fact that they have more children which is tied to a brand of persistent social conservatism ....which isn't really wanted either.
All in all it feels like immigration is happening too fast to avoid this group setting itself appart in various ways leading to (self)-segregation and probably persistent social strife down the line.
Have you read the article? Until recent years, "there is no relationship between the scale of refugee inflow and the crime rate". Now there's a (in my opinion) small increase in the probability that a crime is perpetrated by a foreigner, but this seems to be _mostly_ related to the demographics of immigrants:
> This was attributed by criminologists to the subgroup consisting of men aged 16–29 is disproportionately large at 34% of the total [number of immigrants] and that young males are overrepresented as criminals in all parts of the world, rather than to their ethnic origin.
It seems pretty clear to me that the benefits of immigration outweigh this, as long as the total amount of crime stays at a low level, which subjectively seems to be the case.
> This was attributed by criminologists to the subgroup consisting of men aged 16–29 is disproportionately large at 34% of the total [number of immigrants] and that young males are overrepresented as criminals in all parts of the world, rather than to their ethnic origin.
It seems pretty clear to me that the benefits of immigration outweigh this, as long as the total amount of crime stays at a low level, which subjectively seems to be the case.
If you don't think immigration is the source of the majority of the crime in europe, I suggest you watch any documentary on French prisons and look at the inmate.
Now there might be many reasons for that, poverty probably plays, etc. But the outcome is fairly obvious.
Now there might be many reasons for that, poverty probably plays, etc. But the outcome is fairly obvious.
I don't know about France but it definitely is not the case in Germany.
I am not familiar with Germany but the numbers quoted here seem to suggest it is the case there also: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13711/germany-immigrants-...
> Gatestone Institute is a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles.
From Wikipedia. So no, not even gonna read that article.
From Wikipedia. So no, not even gonna read that article.
Better stay in one's bubble
Says the guy literally parroting the narrative of a far-right, anti-muslim think tank.
I don't mind reading all sort of opinions, won't burn my eyes. "I won't read it because it is written by people from a different political persuasion" is a very strange statement to make, and the very definition of a bubble.
Yes, here are some examples from Berlin:
• Iraqi brutally rapes & tortures/torments 14yo and 21yo [1]
• 11yo children (Afghan and Syrian) raping 10yo [1b]
• Afghan Islamist stabs woman (unprovoked) -> half paralyzed [2]
• organized crime (55% suspects are non-German, 5% unidentified) [3]
• Islamist terror attack [4]
• violence in public open-air baths, mass brawl [5]
• primary school pupil threatens teacher with beheading [6] comparing it to [7]
• honor killings [8]
• > 1 billion euros fraud alone with covid test centers by submission of false claims, many operated by Turks and criminal clans (non-Germans)
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-frauen-ins-aut...
[1b] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-grundschueler-...
[2] https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/2022/04/hobbygaertneri...
[3]https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Jah...
[4] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschlag_auf_den_Berliner_Weih...
[5] https://twitter.com/austausch_info/status/153881355654778880...
[6] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/extremismus-berlin-musli...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty
[8] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/berli...
[9] https://archive.is/PNDHS , https://archive.is/SnyJE
• Iraqi brutally rapes & tortures/torments 14yo and 21yo [1]
• 11yo children (Afghan and Syrian) raping 10yo [1b]
• Afghan Islamist stabs woman (unprovoked) -> half paralyzed [2]
• organized crime (55% suspects are non-German, 5% unidentified) [3]
• Islamist terror attack [4]
• violence in public open-air baths, mass brawl [5]
• primary school pupil threatens teacher with beheading [6] comparing it to [7]
• honor killings [8]
• > 1 billion euros fraud alone with covid test centers by submission of false claims, many operated by Turks and criminal clans (non-Germans)
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-frauen-ins-aut...
[1b] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/berlin-grundschueler-...
[2] https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/beitrag/2022/04/hobbygaertneri...
[3]https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Jah...
[4] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschlag_auf_den_Berliner_Weih...
[5] https://twitter.com/austausch_info/status/153881355654778880...
[6] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/extremismus-berlin-musli...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty
[8] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/berli...
[9] https://archive.is/PNDHS , https://archive.is/SnyJE
[deleted]
I'm sure there's a number somewhere between 0% and 100% that can ameliorate both demographic problems, and the avoid the vague 'huge problems' you cite. Canada seems to be doing just fine with a quarter of its population being foreign-born.
An alternative answer to this situation, of course, is to observe that the demographic problems in question are largely overrated, and that the productivity gains of the last century will keep old people from having to live under bridges and eating cat food.
An alternative answer to this situation, of course, is to observe that the demographic problems in question are largely overrated, and that the productivity gains of the last century will keep old people from having to live under bridges and eating cat food.
> Canada seems to be doing just fine with a quarter of its population being foreign-born.
Canada is not doing fine. There are major problems with wage suppression and lowering standards of living, as well as dwindling access to housing and medical services. The Canadian economy has become a bubble propped up by massive influx of immigrants to hide glaring systemic issues; it's not sustainable, and in recent years has become a growing source of controversy.
Canada is not doing fine. There are major problems with wage suppression and lowering standards of living, as well as dwindling access to housing and medical services. The Canadian economy has become a bubble propped up by massive influx of immigrants to hide glaring systemic issues; it's not sustainable, and in recent years has become a growing source of controversy.
> There are major problems with wage suppression and lowering standards of living
Canada's big businesses, protected by their political friends, and largely controlled by a few old-boys-clubs is to blame for that.
> dwindling access to housing and medical services.
Dwindling access to housing is because NIMBYs refuse to build any.
Access to medical services continues to be the same thing that Canadians have complained about for decades. Everyone bitches about it, but all-in-all, they are fine.
> The Canadian economy has become a bubble propped up by massive influx of immigrants to hide glaring systemic issues; it's not sustainable, and in recent years has become a growing source of controversy.
'It's become a controversy among the fringe-right' is not a sufficient metric for telling me that there's a problem. All sorts of normal things have a tendency to turn into controversies for those folks.
What are the actual issues? Money laundering through the Canadian real estate markets? That's not an immigration problem, that's a ML problem, and it could be fixed by not selling permanent residencies to 'investors' building sham self-dealing companies.
Canada's big businesses, protected by their political friends, and largely controlled by a few old-boys-clubs is to blame for that.
> dwindling access to housing and medical services.
Dwindling access to housing is because NIMBYs refuse to build any.
Access to medical services continues to be the same thing that Canadians have complained about for decades. Everyone bitches about it, but all-in-all, they are fine.
> The Canadian economy has become a bubble propped up by massive influx of immigrants to hide glaring systemic issues; it's not sustainable, and in recent years has become a growing source of controversy.
'It's become a controversy among the fringe-right' is not a sufficient metric for telling me that there's a problem. All sorts of normal things have a tendency to turn into controversies for those folks.
What are the actual issues? Money laundering through the Canadian real estate markets? That's not an immigration problem, that's a ML problem, and it could be fixed by not selling permanent residencies to 'investors' building sham self-dealing companies.
> Access to medical services continues to be the same thing that Canadians have complained about for decades. Everyone bitches about it, but all-in-all, they are fine.
Ontario's health-care system is collapsing. In the past year several emergency rooms have been forced to close, and 9-11 calls have gone unanswered or faced severe delays.
People are not fine. It's a multi-faceted issue, sure, but ramping up immigration is pouring fuel on the fire.
> 'It's become a controversy among the fringe-right' is not a sufficient metric for telling me that there's a problem. All sorts of normal things have a tendency to turn into controversies for those folks.
It's disingenuous to write-off any concerns about immigration about immigration as right-wing histeria. I quite left-leaning, pro-immigration, and believe in having strong social programs; however, Canada's current immigration policy is a band-aid covering an ever-growing wound.
E.g., https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1049ykb/opinion_its...
> What are the actual issues? Money laundering through the Canadian real estate markets? That's not an immigration problem, that's a ML problem, and it could be fixed by not selling permanent residencies to 'investors' building sham self-dealing companies.
A major "actual issue" is that Canada's economy is largely predicated on real estate continously growing 20% year-over-year. Real estate is one of the, if not THE, largest sectors in several provinces. Millions of people don't have a retirement plan beyond "sell my house for 5-10x what I paid for it", and having massive levels of immigration definitely plays into that (far more than foreign home ownership does).
Ontario's health-care system is collapsing. In the past year several emergency rooms have been forced to close, and 9-11 calls have gone unanswered or faced severe delays.
People are not fine. It's a multi-faceted issue, sure, but ramping up immigration is pouring fuel on the fire.
> 'It's become a controversy among the fringe-right' is not a sufficient metric for telling me that there's a problem. All sorts of normal things have a tendency to turn into controversies for those folks.
It's disingenuous to write-off any concerns about immigration about immigration as right-wing histeria. I quite left-leaning, pro-immigration, and believe in having strong social programs; however, Canada's current immigration policy is a band-aid covering an ever-growing wound.
E.g., https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1049ykb/opinion_its...
> What are the actual issues? Money laundering through the Canadian real estate markets? That's not an immigration problem, that's a ML problem, and it could be fixed by not selling permanent residencies to 'investors' building sham self-dealing companies.
A major "actual issue" is that Canada's economy is largely predicated on real estate continously growing 20% year-over-year. Real estate is one of the, if not THE, largest sectors in several provinces. Millions of people don't have a retirement plan beyond "sell my house for 5-10x what I paid for it", and having massive levels of immigration definitely plays into that (far more than foreign home ownership does).
Canada having not enough housing is because the established rich use their political power to block housing creation at the local level. It's not something induced by immigration existing.
It's exacerbated by the rich heavily relying on cheap labour and fresh credit to keep wages low and the GDP growing.
Lots of companies rely on the Temporary Foreign Worker program to fill menial minimum-wage jobs, often paying those TFWs below minimum-wage and abusing them. Similarly, the student visa program is a backdoor for lots of companies (particularly delivery & logistics). I also used to work at a government-sponsored employment centre where I met hundreds of skilled new-immigrants who gave up everything to emigrate, only to arrive in Canada and realize they'd been deceived about their prospects (e.g. the barriers to recertification).
I am not against immigration — both my spouse and I are children of immigrants — but it's important to differentiate between reasonable immigration policies and excessive ones designed to prop up a failing system by constantly injecting new bodies. Canada's immigration system is the latter; it predominantly benefits the rich and nobody else.
Lots of companies rely on the Temporary Foreign Worker program to fill menial minimum-wage jobs, often paying those TFWs below minimum-wage and abusing them. Similarly, the student visa program is a backdoor for lots of companies (particularly delivery & logistics). I also used to work at a government-sponsored employment centre where I met hundreds of skilled new-immigrants who gave up everything to emigrate, only to arrive in Canada and realize they'd been deceived about their prospects (e.g. the barriers to recertification).
I am not against immigration — both my spouse and I are children of immigrants — but it's important to differentiate between reasonable immigration policies and excessive ones designed to prop up a failing system by constantly injecting new bodies. Canada's immigration system is the latter; it predominantly benefits the rich and nobody else.
Housing problem is in the entire western world, mostly due to the 2007 financial crisis which caused builders to stop building for a few years which dried up supply.
We essentially need the immigrants to prop up programs like pension for future.
Canada is too big, land area wise for the population it has to support major infrastructure.
So we need constant stream of new souls to collect taxes and help prop up the next group
Canada is too big, land area wise for the population it has to support major infrastructure.
So we need constant stream of new souls to collect taxes and help prop up the next group
I wouldn’t count the land area, really. It’s mostly tundra. Doesn’t something like 95% of the population live within 100 miles of the US border?
Yea sorry if my point wasn't clear, I was basically trying to say this.
Because of the vast distance between inhabitable area, it is very Costly to support connected infrastructure without the population needs to support it
Because of the vast distance between inhabitable area, it is very Costly to support connected infrastructure without the population needs to support it
[deleted]
More than half of Canadians live south of Seattle, 80% of the country is completely uninhabited, and most of what is - is not much different in infrastructure (and the lack thereof) as the middle-of-nowhere parts of the US.
A lot of Canada has no soil due to glaciers repeatedly scraping it off and dumping it in the US midwest.
"It's too big for infrastructure" is a garbage take made up by American conservatives to pretend our absurdly bad infrastructure is not directly their fault from neglect and lack of funding.
Meanwhile, 80 years ago we had no problems literally covering the entire country with brand new highways and giant dams and bridges everywhere, so many that we don't even inspect them all right now. We could build infrastructure perfectly fine when we taxed high incomes and invested heavily in infrastructure.
Canada is not a poor country and could very well afford such infrastructure as well.
Meanwhile, 80 years ago we had no problems literally covering the entire country with brand new highways and giant dams and bridges everywhere, so many that we don't even inspect them all right now. We could build infrastructure perfectly fine when we taxed high incomes and invested heavily in infrastructure.
Canada is not a poor country and could very well afford such infrastructure as well.
The democrats also are in control in many areas…
The bones of the democratic party are 100% fiscally conservative.
The ‘no true democrat’ fallacy?
Canada has the benefit of having no bordering countries aside from the USA though. So it chooses its immigrants carefully.
Whereas Europe has a much bigger issue with the refugee crisis and illegal immigration.
Whereas Europe has a much bigger issue with the refugee crisis and illegal immigration.
I did look at Sweden. I moved here 6 years ago.
Japan has lax immigration laws but you can not sustain Japan just with immigration. It will cease to be Japan just as much as it will be by losing a huge portion of the population.
Not sure what you consider "lax". Japan is generally considered to have one of the (if not the) most restrictive immigration laws in the world.
- https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hardest-c...
- https://pressat.co.uk/releases/the-top-ten-toughest-immigrat...
- https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/hardest-c...
- https://pressat.co.uk/releases/the-top-ten-toughest-immigrat...
Japan is incredibly easy to immigrate to if you’re educated. Abe also initiated some major reforms to open up a lot of unskilled immigration.
The small number of Japanese women I know in Australia universally say it's not a kind place to give birth in, or raise a young child. They prefer Australia for that "warts and all"
Japan as I understand it has strong conformity drives which runs counter to both immigration-assimilation in non Asian cultures and to young women seeking independence in their life.
Japan as I understand it has strong conformity drives which runs counter to both immigration-assimilation in non Asian cultures and to young women seeking independence in their life.
> non Asian cultures
It’s actually worse for Asian non-Japanese cultures. You’re basically expected to stay in the circle of your culture, whether you like it or not. For non-Asians, it’s easier for them to be distinguished visually, of course, but at least Japanese people are not likely to have hostile emotions on them..
It’s actually worse for Asian non-Japanese cultures. You’re basically expected to stay in the circle of your culture, whether you like it or not. For non-Asians, it’s easier for them to be distinguished visually, of course, but at least Japanese people are not likely to have hostile emotions on them..
Speaking to the comments here:
What would it take for you to have two more children starting today?
Not just one more child, but two. Not the Japanese, but you. Not sometime, but today.
I think that just limiting the horizon on this issue of childrearing is not as helpful. Thinking of the concerns of the 'other place' makes it less impactful. Thinking of just one child more is less impactful. Thinking of a future date where everything is perfect is less impactful.
Making the problem bigger, immediate, and personal may give better insights.
My personal answer is health, time, and then money. My family's health for two more children is not the best. Another pregnancy, starting today, would endanger us. Then it comes down to time. With the family we already have, we're already time strapped. A live-in-nurse would be hugely beneficial to us to have more kids. Basically, we'd need a 'wife' to get all the housework done. Then it would be money. College in the US in ~18 years is going to be very expensive. Kids are expensive. Daycare is another mortgage as is.
What would it take for you to have two more children starting today?
Not just one more child, but two. Not the Japanese, but you. Not sometime, but today.
I think that just limiting the horizon on this issue of childrearing is not as helpful. Thinking of the concerns of the 'other place' makes it less impactful. Thinking of just one child more is less impactful. Thinking of a future date where everything is perfect is less impactful.
Making the problem bigger, immediate, and personal may give better insights.
My personal answer is health, time, and then money. My family's health for two more children is not the best. Another pregnancy, starting today, would endanger us. Then it comes down to time. With the family we already have, we're already time strapped. A live-in-nurse would be hugely beneficial to us to have more kids. Basically, we'd need a 'wife' to get all the housework done. Then it would be money. College in the US in ~18 years is going to be very expensive. Kids are expensive. Daycare is another mortgage as is.
This is really the question to ask.
I'm due in less than two weeks, and I'm doing the "one and done" route. Costs, house space, time, and frankly, pregnancy wrecked me emotionally and physically. It's incredibly difficult to have a high-paced career (which I love and thrive on, to be clear!) ...when you are throwing up in the toliet constantly.
Yup, only one. One is enough.
I'm due in less than two weeks, and I'm doing the "one and done" route. Costs, house space, time, and frankly, pregnancy wrecked me emotionally and physically. It's incredibly difficult to have a high-paced career (which I love and thrive on, to be clear!) ...when you are throwing up in the toliet constantly.
Yup, only one. One is enough.
Truth! It was 8 months of retching for our first.
It's strange though, after they come, the feelings change. It was important for us to give ourselves the space and permission (?) to want others.
Not saying in any way that they will for you. Please don't take this that way.
Also, best of luck in delivery! It's very very tough, but it's amazing how nature takes over and makes you tougher. For us, it felt like the deepest of magics came in and just took over.
It's strange though, after they come, the feelings change. It was important for us to give ourselves the space and permission (?) to want others.
Not saying in any way that they will for you. Please don't take this that way.
Also, best of luck in delivery! It's very very tough, but it's amazing how nature takes over and makes you tougher. For us, it felt like the deepest of magics came in and just took over.
In our case is age (my wife is past safe pregnancy age), flight costs (we have family in Italy and with 2 children our ticket is something like 4k CAD), children cost: 2 children education is already 420$/month + 800/month for childcare, with 4 children it would be 2000,without counting that we wouldn't be able to use car sharing anymore which saves us 1000/month. On top of that, my wife wouldn't be able to work for another 4 years, which means she will never have a high paying career. Support at home would probably be needed, since we have no family here. All in all, I suspect we would need a net additional ~6K net take home just to consider it, and we would still need to make some sacrifices.
I also have to point out that we really liked our 2 children and would have loved to have more.
That's still not accounting for the fact that we might need a bigger home, although still doable with our 3 bedroom.
I also have to point out that we really liked our 2 children and would have loved to have more.
That's still not accounting for the fact that we might need a bigger home, although still doable with our 3 bedroom.
Ignoring the fact that I'm single, I really don't even know what it would take. I don't have any internal motivation to have 1 child let alone two.
Thanks for the answer.
To probe a bit deeper, if you are willing: When you say 'internal motivation' what do you mean? Can you explain more, again, if willing?
What I'm trying to get at is, if the motivation is lacking due to, I dunno, climate change, then to have 2 more kids today you'd (hypothetically here) need to have significant evidence that climate change is reversing or some such thing. That's actionable data (if nearly insurmountable).
To probe a bit deeper, if you are willing: When you say 'internal motivation' what do you mean? Can you explain more, again, if willing?
What I'm trying to get at is, if the motivation is lacking due to, I dunno, climate change, then to have 2 more kids today you'd (hypothetically here) need to have significant evidence that climate change is reversing or some such thing. That's actionable data (if nearly insurmountable).
If I didn't want kids because of climate change, which is not a factor at all, I would call that an external factor, not internal. I would also call that a demotivator rather than a motivator. Instead, what I'm talking about it that I have no baseline intrinsic motivation to have kids. I don't wake up thinking "I need to find a partner to have kids". Having kids isn't a thought that comes to my mind ever.
Without this baseline internal motivation, what possible external, familial or societal, changes could occur to motivate me to have children? I can't think of any.
Without this baseline internal motivation, what possible external, familial or societal, changes could occur to motivate me to have children? I can't think of any.
I don't know, the solution seems pretty obvious to me. Put a hard cap of something like 50 worked hours per week, or, alternatively, mandate double pay for hours after 40. This plus financial incentives and free daycare actually has a chance to work. They're only addressing one leg of the problem.
50 with children is already too much. 40 is already too much for what is worth, and I work from home!
Falling birthrates are inevitable consequences of development of the world. Children in the past were more of an economic choice when majority of families have farms as their local businesses.Children have been a free labor until adulthood when they would be expected to take over the farm from old parents.Simply put,employees were just children in many families.
It's a dangerous trend to our entire economic system,which is based on the ever growing pool of people to consume and keep paying pensions.Political solutions probably won't work as the consumption number needs to grow to keep the economic system running.So we need to figure out robotics and automation as a whole.
It's a dangerous trend to our entire economic system,which is based on the ever growing pool of people to consume and keep paying pensions.Political solutions probably won't work as the consumption number needs to grow to keep the economic system running.So we need to figure out robotics and automation as a whole.
[..]The population of the world’s third-biggest economy has been in decline for several years, and suffered a record fall of 644,000 in 2020-21, according to government data. It is expected to plummet from its current 125 million to an estimated 88 million in 2065 – a 30% decline in 45 years.[..]
Population of Japan in 1800 was 30 million. Japan in 1950 was 90 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066956/population-japan...
Meanwhile: [..]As of 2021, South Korea is the country with the world's lowest total fertility rate at 0.81. The TFR of the capital Seoul was 0.63 in 2021.[..]
The declining TFR is in countries with the highest population density. I am surprised that the brightest minds in the world are hand wringing over what is essentially an obvious mathematical certainty. It’s exponential growth. Across the world, population will peak and then plummet. As it should for the survival of the human species and the rest of the eco system.
Population of Japan in 1800 was 30 million. Japan in 1950 was 90 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066956/population-japan...
Meanwhile: [..]As of 2021, South Korea is the country with the world's lowest total fertility rate at 0.81. The TFR of the capital Seoul was 0.63 in 2021.[..]
The declining TFR is in countries with the highest population density. I am surprised that the brightest minds in the world are hand wringing over what is essentially an obvious mathematical certainty. It’s exponential growth. Across the world, population will peak and then plummet. As it should for the survival of the human species and the rest of the eco system.
Probably the best way forwards is not scolding women or young persons but rather extending healthy productive lifespan and raising retirement ages accordingly.
This would require great investment in innovative anti aging and longevity research, as well as true public health improvements in Western diwts and lifestyle.
If we are serious about sustainability, the environment, and the 'climate crisis' we need to embrace population decrease at least for a few decades.
To blast us continually about the environment crisis and a 'population crisis' at the same time is contradictory (or bad faith).
To blast us continually about the environment crisis and a 'population crisis' at the same time is contradictory (or bad faith).
Productivity went through the roof in the last 100 years. We need less workers to achive the same results, but still it seems to be a catastrophy when the workforce is shrinking. Imagine a planet earth with only 1 Billion people but with the same productivity as now with almost 10 Billion. No poverty, no famine, much less pollution. just my 2 cents.
Maybe that is one of the Great Filters of the Fermi paradox.
Maybe that is one of the Great Filters of the Fermi paradox.
> Imagine a planet earth with only 1 Billion people but with the same productivity as now with almost 10 Billion. No poverty, no famine, much less pollution. just my 2 cents.
That's what I imagine is possible and would indeed make for a better world overall.
That's what I imagine is possible and would indeed make for a better world overall.
I agree you guys let's kill 7 billion people
The people blasting us about a population crisis are not the same as those decrying the environmental crisis; quite the opposite. Dropping population is bad for the economy, as is giving a crap about the environment.
Also, its like saying the economy will shrink, which may be true, but not necessarily that the per capita economy will shrink. Obviously Japan -- for example -- can function as a nation with a fraction of its current population. Less labor is good for people who sell their labor, but bad for people who buy labor (capital).
GDP per capital will shrink if the proportion of the working population declines.That’s pretty obvious
> people who buy labor
so basically everyone unless you grow your own food etc.?
> people who buy labor
so basically everyone unless you grow your own food etc.?
>> GDP per capital will shrink if the proportion of the working population declines.That’s pretty obvious
Only if productivity / price of labor is constant. Which it isn't over time historically.
Only if productivity / price of labor is constant. Which it isn't over time historically.
There is a big overlap if only because governments complain about both in their official communication to the public.
Regarding the economy, I think we need to shift paradigm from measuring the size of the economy overall, which indeed obviously benefits from ever more people, to focusing on figures per capita. Ultimately the whole point of economic growth is to make people better off individually and we can do that with a decreasing population, in fact perhaps a decreasing population helps achieving that by forcing companies to increase productivity as much as possible instead of relying on abundant and cheap labour.
Regarding the economy, I think we need to shift paradigm from measuring the size of the economy overall, which indeed obviously benefits from ever more people, to focusing on figures per capita. Ultimately the whole point of economic growth is to make people better off individually and we can do that with a decreasing population, in fact perhaps a decreasing population helps achieving that by forcing companies to increase productivity as much as possible instead of relying on abundant and cheap labour.
It is not about the population getting smaller. It is about the population getting smaller at an alarming rate.
Well, if there is a global environmental crisis and the world "is running out of time", surely that's a good thing? Population growth has been happening at an alarming rate...
the problem is not the decline in population itself but rather the aging. If/when the working population will be outnumbered by those who are retired we’ll have serious problems.
Aging is unavoidable sooner or later as population cannot keep growing forever and we don't want to live in Logan's Run, either. So IMHO this is a red herring: we need to face the inevitable and adapt to it in any case.
What if instead of immigration the government decides to raise the orphan children from other countries? That wouldn't harm the culture I hope.
Children need families, not institutions to raise them, so the same incentives would really be needed for this kind of program as any other.
Orphan children already have enough problems, and don't need to be raised in a culture totally foreign to them
Idea I've been rolling over in my head is the west (other places too) are straight jacked by the way that passive capitalists/financiers see the world. When they see demographic shifts which reduce the number of workers, family formation and gasp shrinking population all they are capable of doing is react in horror about what that's going to do to the value of their paper asset hoards.
Population decline -> decline in demand for paper products -> Dunder Mifflin sales down -> DMI market cap go down? ...no No NOOOOOO.
Population decline -> decline in demand for paper products -> Dunder Mifflin sales down -> DMI market cap go down? ...no No NOOOOOO.
It would be really cool if you took this discourse to Africa, China or India, Mr Malthus.
"The UN forecasts that China’s population will decline from 1.426 billion this year to 1.313 billion by 2050 and below 800 million by 2100"
Yes but not India or Africa. Nigeria is still projected to hit 500mil by mid-century, don't they?
Actually, compared to South Korea, Taiwan, and China, Japanese birthrate is the highest in the region. It's just Japan went earlier than the three of them in subreplacement, so they hit the major pain points earlier in time. But maybe China will hit the subreplacement pains faster than what Japan experienced....
Actually, compared to South Korea, Taiwan, and China, Japanese birthrate is the highest in the region. It's just Japan went earlier than the three of them in subreplacement, so they hit the major pain points earlier in time. But maybe China will hit the subreplacement pains faster than what Japan experienced....
India -> it's already in motion.
> From 1965 to 2009, contraceptive usage has more than tripled (from 13% of married women in 1970 to 48% in 2009) and the fertility rate has more than halved (from 5.7 in 1966 to 2.4 in 2012)
> India's fertility rate has greatly decreased in recent years and is now distinctly below the global rate.
> From 1965 to 2009, contraceptive usage has more than tripled (from 13% of married women in 1970 to 48% in 2009) and the fertility rate has more than halved (from 5.7 in 1966 to 2.4 in 2012)
> India's fertility rate has greatly decreased in recent years and is now distinctly below the global rate.
Sounds like universal childcare could be a big part of the solution.
This overlooks the fact that parents want to spend time with their children, I'm not sure childcare is just the solution.
I work from home and I miss my daughter 30 minutes after she's in school... And I have another little toddler at home
I work from home and I miss my daughter 30 minutes after she's in school... And I have another little toddler at home
Childcare is good for child development and avoids parental burn out. Missing your kid is better than wishing they were somewhere else. Parents still have plenty of time to be with their kids, and they can put more effort into that time.
Sorry I guess I misinterpreted that as "childcare all day long".
Still, especially until the 3 years mark I wouldn't consider childcare.
Before that time they are really attached to the parents. Then around 3 they make friends, so it's easy at that point
Still, especially until the 3 years mark I wouldn't consider childcare.
Before that time they are really attached to the parents. Then around 3 they make friends, so it's easy at that point
We started at the end of my kid’s second year, so that’s about right. It was great for his social development at that point, since he wasn’t in an infant room or anything.
It's still pretty challenging for a parent to say "you have a child for 3 years at home", from the career perspective.
If both parents are working, they will definitely need a caretaker in some form, and the best would still be that they worked less time and actually spent more with them (incredibly helpful to know the child well)
If both parents are working, they will definitely need a caretaker in some form, and the best would still be that they worked less time and actually spent more with them (incredibly helpful to know the child well)
I got laid off just as my kid was born, so took a few years off, but when it was time to start looking for a job, it just happened to be time to start with day care as well. I admit, it was hard, I'm not mentally prepared to do child care as a full time job, I got really bored sometimes and everything was about routine. Also, I got the feeling that he wanted to start playing with friends and have more diversity in what he did during the day, it works out.
Totally agree. I'm probably forgetting part of it, since with the second one, things are way different, they play together and the younger learns to play by himself way faster, thanks to his "teacher" (the sibling)
Ya, we are missing amortization benefits by not having a second kid :(
Kinda, you get a lot of benefits when the children are awake, but they always nap out of sync, so you never, ever get alone time with your partner for a couple of years until they both go to school, which is painful.
When the older hits 4 years old, there are a lot of games you can start playing with them but the younger one might drastically limit that (for example, they destroy board games, while the 4 years one is very into them!)
On the upside, they melt my heart when I see them playing together
When the older hits 4 years old, there are a lot of games you can start playing with them but the younger one might drastically limit that (for example, they destroy board games, while the 4 years one is very into them!)
On the upside, they melt my heart when I see them playing together
[deleted]
Young women in Japan have a hard life with young children, especially male children. If the country wants more children they will have to make life better for fertile women. But this would be such a wrenching change for their culture that it's very unlikely to happen. C'est la vie baby.
Why male children?
one solution to maintain stable population despite low birth rates is to selectively birth women. japans 1.3 babies per women would more than sufficient. read about it here: https://lvenneri.com/blog/sexratioed
Make housing accessible to regular folks. So they have a place to live, and raise their kids. Why is so hard?
Japan has the highest birthrate in Asia.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2020/
Projections have Japan losing 50 million population over the next 80 years. They needed to fix this population decline about 20 years ago. Incidentally their tremendous debt and basically 100% tax makes solving their problem impossible.
You can calculate the window in which Japan may pull themselves out of their crisis. Certainly not happening in the next 30 years unless they do something dramatic. It appears 45 years or so and they'll maybe manage to solve their problem?
The reality, they are going to become crippled and stop functioning properly.
Projections have Japan losing 50 million population over the next 80 years. They needed to fix this population decline about 20 years ago. Incidentally their tremendous debt and basically 100% tax makes solving their problem impossible.
You can calculate the window in which Japan may pull themselves out of their crisis. Certainly not happening in the next 30 years unless they do something dramatic. It appears 45 years or so and they'll maybe manage to solve their problem?
The reality, they are going to become crippled and stop functioning properly.
I'll get downvoted to shit for this but the data for Japan's birth rate over time shows the decline setting in precisely when women were given freedom there. The cause/effect couldn't be more obvious, I feel like we're just avoiding the elephant in the room in these threads because it's politically unpalatable to state these truths nowadays. (The same is the case elsewhere, this isn't a strictly Japanese trend)
Firstly, so that I can understand the strength of the correlation, can you pinpoint when "women were given freedom there" and what that consisted of?
Secondly, regardless of the cause of the lowered birth rate, do you agree that freedom for women is a fundamental and inalienable right, and that the problem is how society should advance so that birth rates and family formation go back up without rolling back freedon?
Secondly, regardless of the cause of the lowered birth rate, do you agree that freedom for women is a fundamental and inalienable right, and that the problem is how society should advance so that birth rates and family formation go back up without rolling back freedon?
Are you suggesting that women should be forced to be house wifes and baby makers? Or maybe Japan should go full Handmaids Tale?
It isn't pointed out because removing freedom is not an option. We have evolved beyond such primitive ways.
It isn't pointed out because removing freedom is not an option. We have evolved beyond such primitive ways.
Lol we just went through global lockdowns and most of the population was forced to have an at-best unhelpful injection in order to participate in the economy
Surprise: As soon as women get the freedom to not be broodmares but their own persons (i.e. they are allowed to work, live alone, have bank accounts, use contraception and divorce abusive husbands), they don't have kids because having kids is a physically and mentally exhausting effort, not to mention medically risky even in a developed country (for example, Italy has 2/100k births fatality rate, while the US has 19/100k).
Now look where the US (and parts of Europe) are heading towards, with bans on contraception being openly discussed (e.g. with the recent Supreme Court decision that hinted at a reversal of the Griswold case), or access to abortion being made difficult more and more (e.g. Germany, where you have a limited-ish right to abortion, but good luck finding a practice in rural areas such as Lower Bavaria)... it's straight back to female slavery.
If societies want children, they could and should encourage people to have them. Not leave them with no choice. And for what it's worth my s/o and I would like to have children, but rents and general expenses have been insane before covid hit, and now with the Russian war it's gone even worse.
Now look where the US (and parts of Europe) are heading towards, with bans on contraception being openly discussed (e.g. with the recent Supreme Court decision that hinted at a reversal of the Griswold case), or access to abortion being made difficult more and more (e.g. Germany, where you have a limited-ish right to abortion, but good luck finding a practice in rural areas such as Lower Bavaria)... it's straight back to female slavery.
If societies want children, they could and should encourage people to have them. Not leave them with no choice. And for what it's worth my s/o and I would like to have children, but rents and general expenses have been insane before covid hit, and now with the Russian war it's gone even worse.
Women's education has the strongest correlation with declining births per woman. Glibally, not just Japan.
Japan is an excellent counter-point for your argument. In practice, Japanese women have far less freedom than other countries -- if they don't quit their job when they have babies, they are fired.
So why does Japan have such a low birth rate if women have less freedom than other western countries?
So why does Japan have such a low birth rate if women have less freedom than other western countries?
The costs (time, money) of raising children are significantly privatised but the economic benefits once they reach adulthood tend to flow to government and society at large.
In the past, many parents expected to receive direct economic benefits from the labour of their children. Children were expected to e.g. contribute on the farm.
In countries without social safety nets, younger generations are expected to directly support older famility members.
Having kids used to be something with pretty direct economic benefits, it's now expected to be a somewhat more altruistic enterprise.