Japan births fall to record low as population crisis deepens(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Japan births fall to record low as population crisis deepens
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/asia/japan-births-2022-record-low-intl-hnk/index.html
117 comments
I think the "it's too expensive" part is a very minor part of the issue.
People had way less opportunities one or two generations ago, and my parents generation in Italy bought their house with a mortgage and payed it in decades just like their kids did.
What changed is expectations: you feel like you should travel before getting a kid. You should have plenty of sexual experiences before picking a partner. You should give priority to your career before settling in a given city, etc.
Empowerment of women made "get married and out of your parents house" a less interesting option, education and options for people added up, and cultural shifts happened.
Having children is just another bucket list item these days.
People had way less opportunities one or two generations ago, and my parents generation in Italy bought their house with a mortgage and payed it in decades just like their kids did.
What changed is expectations: you feel like you should travel before getting a kid. You should have plenty of sexual experiences before picking a partner. You should give priority to your career before settling in a given city, etc.
Empowerment of women made "get married and out of your parents house" a less interesting option, education and options for people added up, and cultural shifts happened.
Having children is just another bucket list item these days.
This explanation needs to be worded a bit more carefully because it sounds like you complain about "all that rights that women got are destroying the society" and that's pretty offensive.
IMHO this is a more general problem of people making less kids as they get wealthier. It's a well known trend, the number of kids fall as the countries climb out of poverty.
I'm sure there are plenty of studies about it and proposed solutions but the world's population is doing just fine and I don't think that we should walk away from having a life in order to have "more children from our kind".
This is a theme in the "white genocide" circles and I don't believe that we should force women into being baby factories, instead we should create an equal world and embrace the high number of babies born in some places.
Eventually everything will stabilize and the population pyramid will get into a healthy shape. Obviously, as the boomer generation climbs to the top of the pyramid we will have a period of distress.
I'm sorry to offend armchair babyboomers but no, giving up rights and life to increase population and race share is something that no one is obligated to participate. If you feel like that, do it yourself.
IMHO this is a more general problem of people making less kids as they get wealthier. It's a well known trend, the number of kids fall as the countries climb out of poverty.
I'm sure there are plenty of studies about it and proposed solutions but the world's population is doing just fine and I don't think that we should walk away from having a life in order to have "more children from our kind".
This is a theme in the "white genocide" circles and I don't believe that we should force women into being baby factories, instead we should create an equal world and embrace the high number of babies born in some places.
Eventually everything will stabilize and the population pyramid will get into a healthy shape. Obviously, as the boomer generation climbs to the top of the pyramid we will have a period of distress.
I'm sorry to offend armchair babyboomers but no, giving up rights and life to increase population and race share is something that no one is obligated to participate. If you feel like that, do it yourself.
I'm sorry if it sounded like that, it was not what I intended at all.
I mentioned women only in a sub-sentence in a single line, I did not expect it to become the focus of the message: everyone has more options these days, the betterment of women's position in society is more glaring, but changes in the same direction applied to everyone.
I have no doubt humankind will be just fine with less people, and without any drastic drops in our quality of life.
There may be some economical issues in the medium term, but I'm sure we'll manage without baby factories.
I mentioned women only in a sub-sentence in a single line, I did not expect it to become the focus of the message: everyone has more options these days, the betterment of women's position in society is more glaring, but changes in the same direction applied to everyone.
I have no doubt humankind will be just fine with less people, and without any drastic drops in our quality of life.
There may be some economical issues in the medium term, but I'm sure we'll manage without baby factories.
My apologies if I came up a bit harsh, I know what you mean it's just that I recognized a talking point in some circles and wanted to point it put.
The solution is not to regress into some Handmaid's Tale etholudditism.
Nor must we resign ourselves to demographic collapse.
Technology got us into this, but it can get us out.
The solution seems inevitable, when you think about it.
People should be born in pods, in facilities run by the state. The population level will be directly controlled to whatever's desirable. At that level of biological mastery, many things become possible. People can be sexless, to eliminate whole hosts of problems we deal with today related to sex (like reproductive organ cancer risk, which is significant). People can mature faster. They can be raised in large creche-barracks, also run by the state, instead of having parents who can abuse or neglect them. The zygotes can be genetically curated and be edited free of malformations and made stronger, faster, smarter (think Gattaca). Once they reach adulthood, they'll work to pay off their generation debt through taxes as productive citizens.
We will have more keenly harnessed the power of our biological inheritance, like hunter gatherers practicing agriculture instead of leaving our future to chance and animal whim.
In the meantime, we just need to make the best of things. But, if we make it to pod clones, all of these problems will be distant memories, like death by gum disease.
Nor must we resign ourselves to demographic collapse.
Technology got us into this, but it can get us out.
The solution seems inevitable, when you think about it.
People should be born in pods, in facilities run by the state. The population level will be directly controlled to whatever's desirable. At that level of biological mastery, many things become possible. People can be sexless, to eliminate whole hosts of problems we deal with today related to sex (like reproductive organ cancer risk, which is significant). People can mature faster. They can be raised in large creche-barracks, also run by the state, instead of having parents who can abuse or neglect them. The zygotes can be genetically curated and be edited free of malformations and made stronger, faster, smarter (think Gattaca). Once they reach adulthood, they'll work to pay off their generation debt through taxes as productive citizens.
We will have more keenly harnessed the power of our biological inheritance, like hunter gatherers practicing agriculture instead of leaving our future to chance and animal whim.
In the meantime, we just need to make the best of things. But, if we make it to pod clones, all of these problems will be distant memories, like death by gum disease.
This is a theme of some prime dystopian literature but yes, it can be a solution if you are into "more from my kind" ideology.
But this will have hard time competing with religious sects where they will be pushing to turn men and women into breeders. This is already very popular, that's where the ani women's rights and anti LGBT stuff is coming from.
There also would be ideologues who will advocate for reduction of the numbers of others if we can't increase ours.
The "more from my kind" ideology comes with its horrors. I don't like it.
But this will have hard time competing with religious sects where they will be pushing to turn men and women into breeders. This is already very popular, that's where the ani women's rights and anti LGBT stuff is coming from.
There also would be ideologues who will advocate for reduction of the numbers of others if we can't increase ours.
The "more from my kind" ideology comes with its horrors. I don't like it.
>This is a theme of some prime dystopian literature but yes, it can be a solution if you are into "more from my kind" ideology.
The OP suggested making all these new humans genetically engineered to be sexless, so I'm not sure how you got the idea he wants "more from my kind" (GE sexless humans don't exist now); he's obviously talking about making a new race of humans that's genetically engineered to be quite different from modern-day humans, not just with a few improved traits, but some radical differences.
As for religious sects, they're not that numerous today, so unless this Brave New World of state-controlled breeding creates a LOT of new converts, those savages could easily be isolated into their own open-air prison in Oklahoma where everyone else can visit them on tourist packages.
The OP suggested making all these new humans genetically engineered to be sexless, so I'm not sure how you got the idea he wants "more from my kind" (GE sexless humans don't exist now); he's obviously talking about making a new race of humans that's genetically engineered to be quite different from modern-day humans, not just with a few improved traits, but some radical differences.
As for religious sects, they're not that numerous today, so unless this Brave New World of state-controlled breeding creates a LOT of new converts, those savages could easily be isolated into their own open-air prison in Oklahoma where everyone else can visit them on tourist packages.
Empowerment of women made not being forced to take a husband and pop out babies an option. The birth control pill gave women a choice and a ton of them immediately jumped on it to escape from the cycle of being constantly pregnant or breastfeeding. It's been a desire of women probably since the dawn of time to be able to choose whether and when to have kids.
I take serious offense at the idea that it's just less interesting than other options. As if women were just content raising children before the idea of literally doing anything else crossed their minds. As if women today are being selfish by having lives outside of the home. How dare they want to live their life and establish financial stability before procreating? They should be raising 5 kids while struggling to make their hard-working husband's paycheck stretch far enough to feed the family. Because that's what my grandparents did.
I take serious offense at the idea that it's just less interesting than other options. As if women were just content raising children before the idea of literally doing anything else crossed their minds. As if women today are being selfish by having lives outside of the home. How dare they want to live their life and establish financial stability before procreating? They should be raising 5 kids while struggling to make their hard-working husband's paycheck stretch far enough to feed the family. Because that's what my grandparents did.
we're in violent agreement: the fact that women have options is a good thing.
Men also have more options (e.g. no closeted gay man that marry women just to save appearance) and that is also good.
A side effect of this is lower natality, and planet-wise that is _also_ a good thing, even if some economies will get screwed in the medium term.
A side effect of this is lower natality, and planet-wise that is _also_ a good thing, even if some economies will get screwed in the medium term.
Well, they are now miserable in a different and possibly less satisfying way. And time cannot be turned back, unfortunately.
Where do you get the idea that women are miserable due to being able to choose not to have kids early in life? That they're still miserable without kids and that they'd be more satisfied if they had children and no freedom?
There's not exactly a lot of women clambering to go back to having no rights, no choice, and no freedom because it's better than not being able to have kids at 18.
There's not exactly a lot of women clambering to go back to having no rights, no choice, and no freedom because it's better than not being able to have kids at 18.
I've met too many millenials who want kids but can't afford them or the stuff you should have before you have kids to agree with you.
From what I've seen, it's lack of stable employment, stable housing and decent support system for parents. Wages have been declining relative to inflation and cost of living for a very long time, and that's for the job you get after you go into debt to get a degree which you didn't used to need.
From what I've seen, it's lack of stable employment, stable housing and decent support system for parents. Wages have been declining relative to inflation and cost of living for a very long time, and that's for the job you get after you go into debt to get a degree which you didn't used to need.
I can show you many countries with high fertility rates where people do not even have the idea of stable employment or social benefits.
Then there are rich countries, great education, great child care facilities, government support and low fertility rates.
Rich people are busy complaining about not being able to have children. Poor people just have them.
Then there are rich countries, great education, great child care facilities, government support and low fertility rates.
Rich people are busy complaining about not being able to have children. Poor people just have them.
Cat's out of the bag with family planning. If we want more kids we need to make it an option that doesn't impose severe economic penalties. You have one in America and childbirth alone can bankrupt you.
> Cat's out of the bag with family planning.
It does seem that "family planning" is often a euphemism for planning how to avoid having a family.
It does seem that "family planning" is often a euphemism for planning how to avoid having a family.
Does Japan have those values, though? Last I heard, Japanese mostly don't travel (not abroad at least); strongly promote monogomy / long-term relationships; abhor the notion of adult children living with their parents; mostly don't have trouble deciding on which city to live in; and still put a lot of pressure for mothers to stay at home instead of going to work.
I should read TFA first but it seems like the root of their birth problem is simply that the financial & social costs of having children far outweigh the (short-term) benefits.
I should read TFA first but it seems like the root of their birth problem is simply that the financial & social costs of having children far outweigh the (short-term) benefits.
Respectfully, I think your idea of the value the Japanese have is quite off; adult children living with their parents is something almost all east Asian nations see not as big of an issues compared to almost every western nation.
Japanese travels a lot, I'd say even more than your average American. They just travel inside the country (and why not? The best beaches and the best snow is in the south and north of their own country, and it's not like culture is lacking).
I think the original comment you replied to is quite off too, most raw answers you'll get by actually asking the Youngs in Japan is that they're simply too busy; the neither have time or stability to pursue children. Almost all young people flocking to big cities doesn't help this trend either
Japanese travels a lot, I'd say even more than your average American. They just travel inside the country (and why not? The best beaches and the best snow is in the south and north of their own country, and it's not like culture is lacking).
I think the original comment you replied to is quite off too, most raw answers you'll get by actually asking the Youngs in Japan is that they're simply too busy; the neither have time or stability to pursue children. Almost all young people flocking to big cities doesn't help this trend either
Thank you for this insight!
Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan?
To be clear, I take offense to explaining stagnation with women’s rights. You have made an absurd claim and backed it up with a weak argument.
To be clear, I take offense to explaining stagnation with women’s rights. You have made an absurd claim and backed it up with a weak argument.
> Then why doesn’t the birth numbers in for example Sweden sit lower than Japan?
Once you adjust for immigration, they do.
Once you adjust for immigration, they do.
Even with plenty of incentives for families to have children, this is correct. Practically, all of the population growth Sweden has been experiencing in the last decades is due to immigration and immigrants having kids after moving to Sweden.
> Idag föds i snitt 1,88 barn per vuxen kvinna. Det betyder att Sveriges befolkning skulle minska utan invandring. (Today, an adult woman has on average 1.88 children. This means the population would decrease if not for immigration)
> Idag (2023) har Sverige 10,5 miljoner invånare ... År 1950 var bara en procent av den svenska befolkningen född utomlands. 1980 hade andelen ökat till drygt sju procent. 2020 var nästan 20 procent av Sveriges befolkning födda utomlands (Today, Sweden has 10.5 million inhabitants... in 1950, only one percent of the population was born overseas. In 1980, the amount had grown to 7%. In 2020, almost 20% of the population was born overseas).
> Sedan 1980-talet har mer än två miljoner människor fått tillstånd att bo i Sverige, kortare tid eller permanent. (Since the 1980's, more than 2 million people have received permission to live in Sweden, including short-term and permanently.
A lot of people think that Sweden is still an homogenous country, ethnically, like Japan, which couldn't be further from the truth. If I am not mistaken, Sweden is, today, about as "mixed race" (for lack of a better word) as countries like the USA and Australia.
Source: https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individe...
> Idag föds i snitt 1,88 barn per vuxen kvinna. Det betyder att Sveriges befolkning skulle minska utan invandring. (Today, an adult woman has on average 1.88 children. This means the population would decrease if not for immigration)
> Idag (2023) har Sverige 10,5 miljoner invånare ... År 1950 var bara en procent av den svenska befolkningen född utomlands. 1980 hade andelen ökat till drygt sju procent. 2020 var nästan 20 procent av Sveriges befolkning födda utomlands (Today, Sweden has 10.5 million inhabitants... in 1950, only one percent of the population was born overseas. In 1980, the amount had grown to 7%. In 2020, almost 20% of the population was born overseas).
> Sedan 1980-talet har mer än två miljoner människor fått tillstånd att bo i Sverige, kortare tid eller permanent. (Since the 1980's, more than 2 million people have received permission to live in Sweden, including short-term and permanently.
A lot of people think that Sweden is still an homogenous country, ethnically, like Japan, which couldn't be further from the truth. If I am not mistaken, Sweden is, today, about as "mixed race" (for lack of a better word) as countries like the USA and Australia.
Source: https://www.so-rummet.se/kategorier/samhallskunskap/individe...
And for an even better example, look at neighboring Finland. Finland famously gives tons of support for new moms, and their society is quite egalitarian. And their fertility rates have absolutely crashed to right around Japan's levels.
[deleted]
Tell me how women's rights could possibly not effect birth rates? It's a major factor.
Also, Japan is nowhere near as expensive as other countries but they are declining the same rate or faster.
Also, Japan is nowhere near as expensive as other countries but they are declining the same rate or faster.
You contradict yourself. Japan is widely known to be behind on gender equality, much more so than the U.S., and you point out that birth rates are declining faster there. Which means if anything that women's rights increases birth rates.
The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. So far the flawed (i.e. batshit insane) reasoning of "women are forced to marry less" doesn't hold.
The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all. So far the flawed (i.e. batshit insane) reasoning of "women are forced to marry less" doesn't hold.
> The burden of proof is on you to tell us why women's rights affects birth rates at all.
This is an odd challenge. The relationship between women's education levels and lower fertility rates is a famously strong correlation in the social sciences. There are tons and tons of studies that show that as women's education levels and status rise, fertility levels subsequently drop. Here is a page that links to a bunch of studies, https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertili... . But seriously, just Google "women's education levels fertility rates" and you'll find tons and tons of studies.
This is an odd challenge. The relationship between women's education levels and lower fertility rates is a famously strong correlation in the social sciences. There are tons and tons of studies that show that as women's education levels and status rise, fertility levels subsequently drop. Here is a page that links to a bunch of studies, https://worldpopulationhistory.org/womens-status-and-fertili... . But seriously, just Google "women's education levels fertility rates" and you'll find tons and tons of studies.
There are too many factors for me to take studies like this seriously. For example, what does 'education' mean? Does this word have the same meaning in the context of 17th century Europe? 8th century B.C. Egypt?
If we're talking about a certain sort of education received only within the last century or so, I think that should be a pretty big and explicitly stated caveat when spouting "Educating women decreases birth rates." It might be less so that education is the cause, but the social responsibilities that education entails, the role that the educated have in society, etc - that is way different now than it was N years ago.
And that's just one example. So many things are just different in the last 300 years from the last 3000 that it's incredibly difficult to attribute a trend to a single cause. It makes more sense to say it's harder to have children for a variety of factors/the calculus is different, rather than assuming for the bulk of history women have been having children because they lack education/rights.
If we're talking about a certain sort of education received only within the last century or so, I think that should be a pretty big and explicitly stated caveat when spouting "Educating women decreases birth rates." It might be less so that education is the cause, but the social responsibilities that education entails, the role that the educated have in society, etc - that is way different now than it was N years ago.
And that's just one example. So many things are just different in the last 300 years from the last 3000 that it's incredibly difficult to attribute a trend to a single cause. It makes more sense to say it's harder to have children for a variety of factors/the calculus is different, rather than assuming for the bulk of history women have been having children because they lack education/rights.
Japan had a near-apocalyptic financial disaster that to this day they haven’t really recovered from. Could have seriously affected the population’s psyche and stance towards things.
Number of births in Japan has been falling since 1973 [1].
[1] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/
[1] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2160/
You took offense? Why?
When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else).
Thats just the trade off - women are free to choose to not have kids and thats what they choose.
When women didnt have as many rights they had more kids (fewer options to do anything else).
Thats just the trade off - women are free to choose to not have kids and thats what they choose.
Believe it or not, women don't have to be forced into having kids. That you view this as important to birth rates is messed up TBH
I have no idea what you mean by forced.
If you took a look at the data, youd realize it’s mostly people having fewer kids. Almost the same percent of American women give birth as 50 years ago.
Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option.
Why does that offend you?
If you took a look at the data, youd realize it’s mostly people having fewer kids. Almost the same percent of American women give birth as 50 years ago.
Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option.
Why does that offend you?
> Women will choose to have fewer kids if given the option.
This right here. Having a kid is an intensely personal and individual decision. Generalizations like this are the essence of bigotry.
Women that have more social responsibilities will choose to have fewer kids. Now, is that because they're women, or because of the responsibility? Which one do you think matters more?
Also, the idea that women must be cajoled by society into having children is just profane. Women actually want to have kids, you know (I guess not from personal experience?). It's a biological fact. Women can have equal rights and also want kids because wanting kids is natural.
This right here. Having a kid is an intensely personal and individual decision. Generalizations like this are the essence of bigotry.
Women that have more social responsibilities will choose to have fewer kids. Now, is that because they're women, or because of the responsibility? Which one do you think matters more?
Also, the idea that women must be cajoled by society into having children is just profane. Women actually want to have kids, you know (I guess not from personal experience?). It's a biological fact. Women can have equal rights and also want kids because wanting kids is natural.
Huh? “More social responsibilities”? Like what? Plenty of women choose to have lots of kids. There is no “responsibility” to have kids or not, its a choice.
Not sure why you argue with empirical fact that has been seen across the global when countries develop.
When given the option to have fewer kids, women have fewer kids.
You seem offended with the choices women make. Like they shouldnt be making that choice for themselves.
Not sure why you argue with empirical fact that has been seen across the global when countries develop.
When given the option to have fewer kids, women have fewer kids.
You seem offended with the choices women make. Like they shouldnt be making that choice for themselves.
> Huh? “More social responsibilities”? Like what? Plenty of women choose to have lots of kids. There is no “responsibility”.
This is incoherent. Average modern life has many more social demands than it did 100 years ago.
> You seem offended
You seem to be familiar with all the memes. Have fun!
This is incoherent. Average modern life has many more social demands than it did 100 years ago.
> You seem offended
You seem to be familiar with all the memes. Have fun!
We're not talking 100 years ago. You only need to go back to 1970 to see the drop in birth rates.
Does 1970's America have much less social responsibilities?
Does 1970's America have much less social responsibilities?
You should be talking about a hundred years ago. The causes for these trends aren't spontaneous, they're historical. So you look at history. Are the 1970's really more important than WWI? than the industrial revolution? than Enlightenment?
The birth rate decline happened in the 60-70s.
Shouldnt look at what was happening then?
Who cares about 100 years ago. Birth rates werent dropping until decades later.
Shouldnt look at what was happening then?
Who cares about 100 years ago. Birth rates werent dropping until decades later.
Why? Because it is suggesting that the only way to have lasting prosperity is to enslave women. How is that not immediately obvious to you?
I live in one of the countries that, supposedly, support parents so much, and these society offer nowhere near the amount of support required to raise children and have both parents with day jobs. Nowhere NEAR enough.
The logic is very simple. You do not have time and energy to support even one child while living a fulfilling life if both parents work.
That is my explanation, and I didn't have to call women's rights into question. Weird, huh.
When you use a disgusting explanation model, you need a very strong case. Your case is make-believe and handwaving.
I live in one of the countries that, supposedly, support parents so much, and these society offer nowhere near the amount of support required to raise children and have both parents with day jobs. Nowhere NEAR enough.
The logic is very simple. You do not have time and energy to support even one child while living a fulfilling life if both parents work.
That is my explanation, and I didn't have to call women's rights into question. Weird, huh.
When you use a disgusting explanation model, you need a very strong case. Your case is make-believe and handwaving.
I think you misinterpreted my words: it's fantastic that humans (both men and women) have more options, if they choose to have less kids that's noone's business but their own.
We did ok as a species with way less people that exist today, society will adapt, and there is no valid reason to impose "society's choice" on anyone.
We did ok as a species with way less people that exist today, society will adapt, and there is no valid reason to impose "society's choice" on anyone.
This is also well visible in post-communist countries.
During communism there was nothing in the shops, big families were living in small apartment with parents sleeping on beds opening from the wall. There was no disposable diapers. In general people had not much career opportunities.
And then communism collapsed, and as people became richer trough capitalism fertility rates plummeted.
And there was no policies to convince people against having big families.
The basic pattern is the same across the world poor countries have high fertility rates. Rich countries have low fertility rates. And as poor countries become rich their fertility rates go down.
During communism there was nothing in the shops, big families were living in small apartment with parents sleeping on beds opening from the wall. There was no disposable diapers. In general people had not much career opportunities.
And then communism collapsed, and as people became richer trough capitalism fertility rates plummeted.
And there was no policies to convince people against having big families.
The basic pattern is the same across the world poor countries have high fertility rates. Rich countries have low fertility rates. And as poor countries become rich their fertility rates go down.
my n=1 experience (father of two, from Italy and living in Italy):
I think the "too expensive" is part of the problem. Not the only one, but certainly a part.
Very few people here choose to have a child in their 20s, and this matches with "other things to do in life" but then, when you get into your 30s or 35 at most, I think the feeling of wanting a child is definitely there.
And, at that point, the "too expensive" and "too logistically difficult" parts start to get relevant. Even when childcare is there and you can afford it, a kid is often ill in its first three years of life, and requires a lot of attention. If both people in a family work, it's going to be a tremendous effort, and raising my two kids WAS a tremendous effort when they were very young; employers don't usually care a lot, and you don't have time to recharge.
Personally, I was able to go with two kids because all four grandparents live reasonably close, are retired and willing to help, and they had enough savings to help us buying a flat. If we were doing everything on our own, I don't know if I'd have had a second kid.
I know a few people making more money who are childless or with just one kid, because they (correctly) realize that, otherwise, it would be too difficult to go on with their career. And without their career they couldn't afford their flat/house, or a decent lifestyle for their children.
So, I think it's a mix of reasons. What it would help, btw, is getting recurrent, actual money for a child (at least for the first child), like, I don't need to think about how much it will cost me, I even get some money on top so I can pay baby sitters, travelling grandparents, et cetera. On the contrary, you need to pay for childcare out of your pocket (some regions offer reimbursements, but they depend on income limits that may make it very hard to have a kid in the first place) and even in school/pre-school you've got some expenses (meals, transports) that aren't state-paid (currently it's about 200 EUR/month for my two kids for a not-so-great refectory service).
Taxation isn't based on family size, so I get very little state contribution for my children, and I pay the same taxes as a single person, even though I do a lot of "work" - which is for me since the kids are mine, but it's for the future of my nation as well. I understand nobody forced me to have kids, but if nobody does, there's no future, nobody to pay pensions, et cetera. Kidless people expect "somebody somehow" to take care of them when they're older, because it makes sense in a large nation with a proper birth rate, but it could be not true anymore in this future.
So yeah, there's a mix of reasons, but calling the economical reasons _minor_ is just wrong IMHO. More people have no desire for kids because they've got other things to do. But quite a lot of people with desire for kids have a very difficult time in having how many kids they like. I think a better tax planning would make it possible for the state to achieve the desired replacement rate - I think it's about 1.8 - 1.9 children per couple - to lead to a slow population decrease - which is not a problem per se, it's the sharpness of the decline which will be a problem.
I think the "too expensive" is part of the problem. Not the only one, but certainly a part.
Very few people here choose to have a child in their 20s, and this matches with "other things to do in life" but then, when you get into your 30s or 35 at most, I think the feeling of wanting a child is definitely there.
And, at that point, the "too expensive" and "too logistically difficult" parts start to get relevant. Even when childcare is there and you can afford it, a kid is often ill in its first three years of life, and requires a lot of attention. If both people in a family work, it's going to be a tremendous effort, and raising my two kids WAS a tremendous effort when they were very young; employers don't usually care a lot, and you don't have time to recharge.
Personally, I was able to go with two kids because all four grandparents live reasonably close, are retired and willing to help, and they had enough savings to help us buying a flat. If we were doing everything on our own, I don't know if I'd have had a second kid.
I know a few people making more money who are childless or with just one kid, because they (correctly) realize that, otherwise, it would be too difficult to go on with their career. And without their career they couldn't afford their flat/house, or a decent lifestyle for their children.
So, I think it's a mix of reasons. What it would help, btw, is getting recurrent, actual money for a child (at least for the first child), like, I don't need to think about how much it will cost me, I even get some money on top so I can pay baby sitters, travelling grandparents, et cetera. On the contrary, you need to pay for childcare out of your pocket (some regions offer reimbursements, but they depend on income limits that may make it very hard to have a kid in the first place) and even in school/pre-school you've got some expenses (meals, transports) that aren't state-paid (currently it's about 200 EUR/month for my two kids for a not-so-great refectory service).
Taxation isn't based on family size, so I get very little state contribution for my children, and I pay the same taxes as a single person, even though I do a lot of "work" - which is for me since the kids are mine, but it's for the future of my nation as well. I understand nobody forced me to have kids, but if nobody does, there's no future, nobody to pay pensions, et cetera. Kidless people expect "somebody somehow" to take care of them when they're older, because it makes sense in a large nation with a proper birth rate, but it could be not true anymore in this future.
So yeah, there's a mix of reasons, but calling the economical reasons _minor_ is just wrong IMHO. More people have no desire for kids because they've got other things to do. But quite a lot of people with desire for kids have a very difficult time in having how many kids they like. I think a better tax planning would make it possible for the state to achieve the desired replacement rate - I think it's about 1.8 - 1.9 children per couple - to lead to a slow population decrease - which is not a problem per se, it's the sharpness of the decline which will be a problem.
Father of 2 and mostly agree with everything to the word.
Only want to offer a counter-point re money: Poland introduced a 500 PLN / month benefit per child (plus caveats), about 100 EUR equivalent, and a significant amount for Poland, especially smaller towns/countryside. Fertility metrics dropped again since the program started a few years ago.
Only want to offer a counter-point re money: Poland introduced a 500 PLN / month benefit per child (plus caveats), about 100 EUR equivalent, and a significant amount for Poland, especially smaller towns/countryside. Fertility metrics dropped again since the program started a few years ago.
perhaps, but if it was a major reason then we should see higher natality among people with more money, instead we see a higher birthrate among poorer people (which obviously is correlated with education and career chances), even in Italy (compare birthrate between north/center/south).
In Italy people in the highest income bracket _do_ have more kids but only when they are older (>45yo), presumably having reached some kind of stability. Poorer people evidently don't care.
So, I am not saying we shouldn't help people have more kids, we totally should, but I don't think it will push the numbers up by much: if you consider places with "famous" social support services and a less-fucked-up-economy, e.g. Finland, birthrate is also steadily decreasing.
In Italy people in the highest income bracket _do_ have more kids but only when they are older (>45yo), presumably having reached some kind of stability. Poorer people evidently don't care.
So, I am not saying we shouldn't help people have more kids, we totally should, but I don't think it will push the numbers up by much: if you consider places with "famous" social support services and a less-fucked-up-economy, e.g. Finland, birthrate is also steadily decreasing.
Not sure about Japan, but I think that there are some less talked about structural factors that contribute to the housing problems we're seeing today.
1. Housing tends to be extremely expensive in large (mostly coastal) metros. 2. College educated professionals tend to move to these cities. 3. Many small and medium sized towns and cities are experiencing depopulation, and so housing tends to be very inexpensive, but no one is buying it.
So, why is this happening?
The company town is dead. It used to be that someone would go to work at a company for their entire career. If that company was the main employer in town, you'd move there after college, work your career, and maybe retire to some place sunny. If you lost/quit your job, you'd probably have to move to a new town. Jobs used to be more stable, so this didn't happen often enough to be too big of a problem.
The other huge issue is that two income households are now the norm. In the past, if the breadwinner needed to pick up stakes for a new job, there was the logistics of moving to a new town, but there wasn't a second job to consider. Now, if both partners are doing specialized work, they're going to need to find a city that has jobs available for both of their two different specialties. This is much easier in a city.
The end result of this is that we get these huge aglomerations of people, because people need to live places where there are a huge variety of jobs within commuting distance. Less stable work and two income households turbocharge this phenomenon.
1. Housing tends to be extremely expensive in large (mostly coastal) metros. 2. College educated professionals tend to move to these cities. 3. Many small and medium sized towns and cities are experiencing depopulation, and so housing tends to be very inexpensive, but no one is buying it.
So, why is this happening?
The company town is dead. It used to be that someone would go to work at a company for their entire career. If that company was the main employer in town, you'd move there after college, work your career, and maybe retire to some place sunny. If you lost/quit your job, you'd probably have to move to a new town. Jobs used to be more stable, so this didn't happen often enough to be too big of a problem.
The other huge issue is that two income households are now the norm. In the past, if the breadwinner needed to pick up stakes for a new job, there was the logistics of moving to a new town, but there wasn't a second job to consider. Now, if both partners are doing specialized work, they're going to need to find a city that has jobs available for both of their two different specialties. This is much easier in a city.
The end result of this is that we get these huge aglomerations of people, because people need to live places where there are a huge variety of jobs within commuting distance. Less stable work and two income households turbocharge this phenomenon.
> developed world
There are four types of economies. Developed countries, underdeveloped countries, Japan, and Argentina.
Japan has so many unique sociocultural idiosyncrasies that shape economic decisions.
> Tokyo, young people... because of unstable housing and insecure employment.
This couldn't be more wrong.
People on minimum wage jobs in Tokyo can afford a standalone 1 bedroom apartment in the suburbs. White collar workers can pay off a house in less than 5 years if they wanted, too. The Google engineers can do it in 2, a manager probably 1. My rent's barely 5% of my income versus 30%+ of income being commonplace for young people in Bay Area / New York.
Japan's labor laws are exceedingly protective of employees, and it is nearly impossible to fire a full time employee. This is why you don't hear about layoffs happening in Japan. There is still widespread expectation that employees will stay at a job for decades, if not their entire life. Unlike America where 401ks replaced pensions and workers have to take more responsibility in their retirement, pensions are still the de factor employee perk in Japan.
That said, pensions are part of the problem. With demographic collapse, the pension system is growingly unsustainable and the likely solution is significant taxes increases over the next few decades.
Other reasons for declining birthrates is social media. For dating, people are exposed to a lot more options which leads to decision paralysis. It's been known that people less populated areas are more likely to marry their high school sweetheart. (Accessible) travel has made less people want to settle down in their 20s and 30s.
As evidence that young people have different different economic priorities, consider the prevalence of fashion consumption in Japan. There's literally a Louis Vuitton store at every major train station around Tokyo. While not at rates similar to China, the luxury goods market is continuing to grow in Japan, despite inflation and economic repercussions of COVID-19. There's 4 Celine stores in Ginza alone, which is an obscure brand to most Americans, but most young Japanese would recognize this. On any given train car in Japan, you will find a young person sporting a garment that's $500+ which is the average rent for a studio in Tokyo.
There are four types of economies. Developed countries, underdeveloped countries, Japan, and Argentina.
Japan has so many unique sociocultural idiosyncrasies that shape economic decisions.
> Tokyo, young people... because of unstable housing and insecure employment.
This couldn't be more wrong.
People on minimum wage jobs in Tokyo can afford a standalone 1 bedroom apartment in the suburbs. White collar workers can pay off a house in less than 5 years if they wanted, too. The Google engineers can do it in 2, a manager probably 1. My rent's barely 5% of my income versus 30%+ of income being commonplace for young people in Bay Area / New York.
Japan's labor laws are exceedingly protective of employees, and it is nearly impossible to fire a full time employee. This is why you don't hear about layoffs happening in Japan. There is still widespread expectation that employees will stay at a job for decades, if not their entire life. Unlike America where 401ks replaced pensions and workers have to take more responsibility in their retirement, pensions are still the de factor employee perk in Japan.
That said, pensions are part of the problem. With demographic collapse, the pension system is growingly unsustainable and the likely solution is significant taxes increases over the next few decades.
Other reasons for declining birthrates is social media. For dating, people are exposed to a lot more options which leads to decision paralysis. It's been known that people less populated areas are more likely to marry their high school sweetheart. (Accessible) travel has made less people want to settle down in their 20s and 30s.
As evidence that young people have different different economic priorities, consider the prevalence of fashion consumption in Japan. There's literally a Louis Vuitton store at every major train station around Tokyo. While not at rates similar to China, the luxury goods market is continuing to grow in Japan, despite inflation and economic repercussions of COVID-19. There's 4 Celine stores in Ginza alone, which is an obscure brand to most Americans, but most young Japanese would recognize this. On any given train car in Japan, you will find a young person sporting a garment that's $500+ which is the average rent for a studio in Tokyo.
> give it a few years to really set in and maybe then there will be the impetus to start fixing it.
The problem has already begun. Politicians will only begin to look at the problem in 10 years time. Then the political power will shift from Labor to Liberal, or Liberal to Labor, (and back again), and any plans to fix the issue will be blown out by billions of dollars and another decade. By then, it’s too late.
The problem has already begun. Politicians will only begin to look at the problem in 10 years time. Then the political power will shift from Labor to Liberal, or Liberal to Labor, (and back again), and any plans to fix the issue will be blown out by billions of dollars and another decade. By then, it’s too late.
I believe the issue is not the price, but that the distribution of wealth has become highly unequal.
We now have 90% who cannot afford to raise kids well. And 10% who can. But no matter how wealthy, each couple can only get pregnant once at a time.
One solution would be to allow extremely rich people to marry multiple times so that they can produce more kids in parallel. But that's going to cause a lot of societal issues when marriable women become sparse for the majority of the population (see China).
We now have 90% who cannot afford to raise kids well. And 10% who can. But no matter how wealthy, each couple can only get pregnant once at a time.
One solution would be to allow extremely rich people to marry multiple times so that they can produce more kids in parallel. But that's going to cause a lot of societal issues when marriable women become sparse for the majority of the population (see China).
I think its more to do with less societal pressure. People at higher income levels are having less kids as well.
Perhaps it is not sustainable to have more than 100 million people on a small island with limited resources for the long term.
People talking about population collapse forget that the population explosion that has happened in the recent past is quite the exception in human history and such high population growth was never sustainable in the long run.
Continuously increasing the population while maintaining a good quality of life is a challenging task. The current population "crisis" may simply be a return to the norm, as nature seeks to establish a stable equilibrium. Japan has prospered as a civilization for thousands of years without being as densely populated as it is now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Japan_b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Empire_of_Ja...
People talking about population collapse forget that the population explosion that has happened in the recent past is quite the exception in human history and such high population growth was never sustainable in the long run.
Continuously increasing the population while maintaining a good quality of life is a challenging task. The current population "crisis" may simply be a return to the norm, as nature seeks to establish a stable equilibrium. Japan has prospered as a civilization for thousands of years without being as densely populated as it is now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Japan_b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Empire_of_Ja...
Indeed. It is very telling that the article characterises it as a "crisis". We are facing the twin existential threats climate change and environmental collapse, and population is a staggeringly huge driver of both those problems. Reduction in population is generally a good thing.
That's if you care about existential threats. Most people don't. The media doesn't talk about this. It's not a safe topic to discuss and if you dare to you are instantly politisied and become "the scary bad person".
People care about the economy, they care about jobs, they care about growth, they care about having kids, they care about petrol prices, they care about a bigger TV and having a lithium battery drone they play with for a couple of weeks and then put it in the cupboard, they care about driving a 4WD in a city because the advertising made it look rugged and outdoorsy and anyway, Fred has one so you need one too, they care about having an electric car because it's painted "green" (it's not; the environmental costs are abstracted away to a place where you don't have to think about it).
"Crisis"? Yes, but not in population.
That's if you care about existential threats. Most people don't. The media doesn't talk about this. It's not a safe topic to discuss and if you dare to you are instantly politisied and become "the scary bad person".
People care about the economy, they care about jobs, they care about growth, they care about having kids, they care about petrol prices, they care about a bigger TV and having a lithium battery drone they play with for a couple of weeks and then put it in the cupboard, they care about driving a 4WD in a city because the advertising made it look rugged and outdoorsy and anyway, Fred has one so you need one too, they care about having an electric car because it's painted "green" (it's not; the environmental costs are abstracted away to a place where you don't have to think about it).
"Crisis"? Yes, but not in population.
I think almost everyone is actually talking about the aging population problem rather than the declining population problem.
We simply haven't seen a situation yet where such a massive proportion of the population is old and economically not contributing, while being supported by a welfare state (and pension) and having disproportionate political power (and incentives) to not correct the course
We simply haven't seen a situation yet where such a massive proportion of the population is old and economically not contributing, while being supported by a welfare state (and pension) and having disproportionate political power (and incentives) to not correct the course
Endless variable but I think key 5 things they could do to help;
- Reduce house prices, couples often want to get the house while they have 2 incomes and then have kids. Pricing people out is going to add delay here making it harder to start a family and how many kids you can have.
- Reduce education debt for the same reason as above, let youth start life without a burden holding them back.
- Put tax break on kids. Have something like an extra $5k added to each parents tax free threshold for every child you have. This benefits people having children plus those returning to work which is good for society.
- Paid maternity of a significant lenght for both the mum and dad. I was fortunate to have my kids in Norway where (more detail but roughly) you get 12 months paid to split between the mum and the dad. And the dad must take 3 month minimum. This was it normalises all people out of work for having kids and really helps the attitude to exit/entry and all sorts of benefits, its a real game changes to helping support families having a few kids IMO.
- Subsided preschool - in Australia it was hardly worth my wife returning to work for the cost of 2 kids in pre-school. She wanted to but its a huge financial burden in many countries. Kids are covered when they get to school age but there is a window here that is financially very tough on families.
- Reduce house prices, couples often want to get the house while they have 2 incomes and then have kids. Pricing people out is going to add delay here making it harder to start a family and how many kids you can have.
- Reduce education debt for the same reason as above, let youth start life without a burden holding them back.
- Put tax break on kids. Have something like an extra $5k added to each parents tax free threshold for every child you have. This benefits people having children plus those returning to work which is good for society.
- Paid maternity of a significant lenght for both the mum and dad. I was fortunate to have my kids in Norway where (more detail but roughly) you get 12 months paid to split between the mum and the dad. And the dad must take 3 month minimum. This was it normalises all people out of work for having kids and really helps the attitude to exit/entry and all sorts of benefits, its a real game changes to helping support families having a few kids IMO.
- Subsided preschool - in Australia it was hardly worth my wife returning to work for the cost of 2 kids in pre-school. She wanted to but its a huge financial burden in many countries. Kids are covered when they get to school age but there is a window here that is financially very tough on families.
Japan already has many of these things.
Preschool is free. And after-school programs are either free or very inexpensive for elementary school students with working parents. And there are tax breaks as well as a monthly stipend that gets deposited into your bank account for people with children (not sure of the exact amount off the top of my head). Housing is also quite affordable compared to many developed countries.
Preschool is free. And after-school programs are either free or very inexpensive for elementary school students with working parents. And there are tax breaks as well as a monthly stipend that gets deposited into your bank account for people with children (not sure of the exact amount off the top of my head). Housing is also quite affordable compared to many developed countries.
But why do Japanese parents seem to struggle?
Compared to who? Parenting is a struggle for all parents I've seen, but in Japan it's more common I think for grandparents to live close enough to help out sometimes. It's also more common for women to be stay-at-home mothers.
When you compare the birthrate of Japanese people (in Japan) to westerners, after subtracting immigration in the western countries, Japan actually looks pretty normal, or even a little better.
When you compare the birthrate of Japanese people (in Japan) to westerners, after subtracting immigration in the western countries, Japan actually looks pretty normal, or even a little better.
The common narrative always appears to be money. I would contend that the modern life is too fragile. Day to day life is so filled with stress and anxiety that young people don't mate until it's too late.
Life has become too complicated. There is far too much paperwork, government bureaucracy and things to keep on top of. If you don't keep up on the bureaucracy, you will get penalized harshly.
E.g. why the fuck does a car need to be registered every year? If I need to register a car, why can't I do it online? If I can do it online, why can't I do it if I change my address? Why do I need to present a thousand documents for 5 mins worth of work? Why does the registration have to be sent via snail mail? What happens if USPS loses it?
These questions may sound trivial but for someone who may lose their job due to slow bureaucracy, this is a matter of their life.
And now, imagine the same bureaucracy with income tax, property tax, drivers license, voter registration, health insurance, property insurance, car insurance, healthcare providers with a zillion portals, loan providers and their bullshit paperwork etc.
One mistake with any of them will add even more burden on you to clear your records, pay things on time etc.
Life has become too burdensome. And after living 30 years with this, the thought of more paperwork for kids seems awful.
This all discounts how unstable jobs and incomes are. Without income stability, all of the above becomes crazier.
Life has become too complicated. There is far too much paperwork, government bureaucracy and things to keep on top of. If you don't keep up on the bureaucracy, you will get penalized harshly.
E.g. why the fuck does a car need to be registered every year? If I need to register a car, why can't I do it online? If I can do it online, why can't I do it if I change my address? Why do I need to present a thousand documents for 5 mins worth of work? Why does the registration have to be sent via snail mail? What happens if USPS loses it?
These questions may sound trivial but for someone who may lose their job due to slow bureaucracy, this is a matter of their life.
And now, imagine the same bureaucracy with income tax, property tax, drivers license, voter registration, health insurance, property insurance, car insurance, healthcare providers with a zillion portals, loan providers and their bullshit paperwork etc.
One mistake with any of them will add even more burden on you to clear your records, pay things on time etc.
Life has become too burdensome. And after living 30 years with this, the thought of more paperwork for kids seems awful.
This all discounts how unstable jobs and incomes are. Without income stability, all of the above becomes crazier.
It is a common misconception that the birthrate is declining because of poor childcare support from the government. It is declining because people aren't getting married. The birthrate among married couples remains unchanged over the years. [0]
Personally, I'm quite happy with this trend because the social 空気 that the grown man must get married is getting weaker and weaker. Why would I want to get married when I can't even pay for my own shit?
[0]: https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/644174 (Japanese)
Personally, I'm quite happy with this trend because the social 空気 that the grown man must get married is getting weaker and weaker. Why would I want to get married when I can't even pay for my own shit?
[0]: https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/644174 (Japanese)
Well people aren't getting married because of poor childcare support among others. I think otherwise you are spot on though---I recall the same kind of statistics in South Korea. Trying to convince people to get married or have children won't work, in any case it will need an extensive social restructuring.
Yes it's the problem. Everyone confuse about parenting support and improving birthrate. Fist of all, separate surname must be legal to support getting married.
1.3 looks pretty good next to 0.78 :p
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/22/asia/south-korea-lowest-f...
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/22/asia/south-korea-lowest-f...
What I find really fascinating about this is that even in the depths of the birth rate crisis Japan cannot find the political will to take any of the "obvious" drastic measures. Begin covering childcare costs, subsidize housing for families, etc.
But it probably won't work. The highest birthrates are in poor countries. Every country that became rich(er) ended up with a drastic reduction in birth rates. Piling on more money doesn't seem like it would help the issue. It sounds like you would just enter into an ever-increasing spiral of more spending to try to increase birth rates.
The current PM has said he'd like to double govt spending on child benefits. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-kishida-...
They need an order of magnitude more spending. Child care is expensive and hard to find, and so is housing.
If child related policies don't cover a fraction of childcare then doubling that fraction won't move the needle.
It’ll take some time for the effects to materialize. Second, many possible future parents realize how burdened their children would be in the population pyramid which is inverted beyond hope at this point.
Didn't they later say that 'double' was a figure of speech, and that they would increase it /after/ birth rates increase?
> birth rate crisis
There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping. It might be bad for the economy (gasp!), but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse.
Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off.
(... and there's the downvote. The truth is not just inconvenient, it's unpalateable).
There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping. It might be bad for the economy (gasp!), but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse.
Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off.
(... and there's the downvote. The truth is not just inconvenient, it's unpalateable).
> There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping.
Which is a crisis, but I'll get back to that.
> but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse.
> Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off.
True, less people means less pollution, simplistically looked.
However things aren't that simple. A person in a developed country today pollutes far more (and some like the US are even bigger outliers) than a developing one. Population growth in developing countries is huge though, with massive amounts of young people (was it Nigeria where more than 50% of the population are younger than 20?). So the population crisis in some countries won't have that much of an impact on pollution and climate change, because globally they're being replaced by multiple youngsters in developing countries, who will only pollute more as their countries develop more and more.
Meanwhile, where the crisis hits hard is in social services - for instance pensions, which Japan has, are based on the idea that there will be a young working population to pay for the older non-working one, otherwise the system crumbles. It absolutely is a problem because insanely complicated problems will arrise and tough choices will have to be made - with an older, dying population, some places will simply not have enough people remaining to make it worthwhile to maintain scarce services such as healthcare, fire fighting, etc. There are already problems about companies having to close in rural places because there's nobody to pass the mantle to.
Learning how to do that, and also the changes needed around evaluating everything around economic life (there will be no more growth, probably deflation, spending will have to be cut and Japan is already in massive debts, all things which are considered "bad") absolutely deserve calling it a crisis. Crisis that might have some mid-term benefits, but crisis nonetheless.
Which is a crisis, but I'll get back to that.
> but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse.
> Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off.
True, less people means less pollution, simplistically looked.
However things aren't that simple. A person in a developed country today pollutes far more (and some like the US are even bigger outliers) than a developing one. Population growth in developing countries is huge though, with massive amounts of young people (was it Nigeria where more than 50% of the population are younger than 20?). So the population crisis in some countries won't have that much of an impact on pollution and climate change, because globally they're being replaced by multiple youngsters in developing countries, who will only pollute more as their countries develop more and more.
Meanwhile, where the crisis hits hard is in social services - for instance pensions, which Japan has, are based on the idea that there will be a young working population to pay for the older non-working one, otherwise the system crumbles. It absolutely is a problem because insanely complicated problems will arrise and tough choices will have to be made - with an older, dying population, some places will simply not have enough people remaining to make it worthwhile to maintain scarce services such as healthcare, fire fighting, etc. There are already problems about companies having to close in rural places because there's nobody to pass the mantle to.
Learning how to do that, and also the changes needed around evaluating everything around economic life (there will be no more growth, probably deflation, spending will have to be cut and Japan is already in massive debts, all things which are considered "bad") absolutely deserve calling it a crisis. Crisis that might have some mid-term benefits, but crisis nonetheless.
[deleted]
Leading isn't the job of a Japanese politician nowadays, staying in power is.
Personally I'd move to Japan in a heartbeat if discrimination was illegal and they provided a pathway to (dual) citizenship.
From Wikipedia:
> Japan lacks any law which prohibits racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. The country also has no national human rights institutions.[3] Non-Japanese individuals in Japan often face human rights violations that Japanese citizens may not.[4] In recent years, non-Japanese media has reported that Japanese firms frequently confiscate the passports of guest workers in Japan, particularly unskilled laborers.[5][6]
From Wikipedia:
> Japan lacks any law which prohibits racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. The country also has no national human rights institutions.[3] Non-Japanese individuals in Japan often face human rights violations that Japanese citizens may not.[4] In recent years, non-Japanese media has reported that Japanese firms frequently confiscate the passports of guest workers in Japan, particularly unskilled laborers.[5][6]
Here is a case of a foreign citizen winning a lawsuit against a discriminatory car dealership in Japan
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/10/11/issues/att...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2017/10/11/issues/att...
Can you speak Japanese? Also, I assume you are not African-American or South Asian.
I've lived here (Tokyo and Kyoto) for about ten years and my Japanese is terrible. If you're in a big city here, English-only actually works. There are also some good channels and videos on YouTube talking about the Black experience in Japan (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2eqJ4hZkFg).
I've visited for a total of a month across multiple trips.
I don't really know any Japanese, maybe the odd words here and there but that's it.
Major cities all have fantastic english signage. Just not everyone speaks English "well". But Line or Google Translate work fine enough, especially when making friends.
The only place I struggled a little with public transportation was Sapporo on some random bus line that surprisingly had no english signage or announcements, but even then GPS helped well enough.
I don't really know any Japanese, maybe the odd words here and there but that's it.
Major cities all have fantastic english signage. Just not everyone speaks English "well". But Line or Google Translate work fine enough, especially when making friends.
The only place I struggled a little with public transportation was Sapporo on some random bus line that surprisingly had no english signage or announcements, but even then GPS helped well enough.
Living in Japan, even in Tokyo, is a vastly different experience from the tourism bubble one experience in a short visit.
My (British) manager living in the international district of Tokyo still struggle with basic paperwork due language barrier. Which affect your work, tax, real estate errands, traveling, visa, daily shopping.
My (British) manager living in the international district of Tokyo still struggle with basic paperwork due language barrier. Which affect your work, tax, real estate errands, traveling, visa, daily shopping.
But they don't want you there.
Considering how they've treated those with mixed Japanese ancestry then I guess you're right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/global/23immigra...
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/global/23immigra...
> It’s a familiar story throughout East Asia
The same is happening in Europe.
Hungary just published the result of a census ten years after the last one: turns out there's 300k less people than they expected (total population is 9.6M), and the country population is back to the size of ~1950.
The same is happening in Europe.
Hungary just published the result of a census ten years after the last one: turns out there's 300k less people than they expected (total population is 9.6M), and the country population is back to the size of ~1950.
Hungary and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe, and even Southern Europe for that matter, have the added problem of EU-wide migration - lots of people, especially young people, choose to go live in a more developed country in the Western EU (usually France and Germany).
"more developed country" = country that isn't run by a sycophant of Putin. Small wonder so many young people are fleeing Hungary.
I often hear people saying say they're ok with not getting married and having children because they have their (also not married, childless) friends, pets or other sources of comfort/distraction. Just kick away these other supports to make people feel isolated and fearful and they will act accordingly. Give up on financial perks for people with kids, shift to negative reinforcement.
Also, promote generation warfare in the form of painting the current generation of people in their 30s and 40s as feckless hedonists responsible for the economic troubles of the generation below. Probably half of older people would go along with it so this can become a political wedge. Make it clear to young people that their careers will ultimately be crushed by the dying economy unless their generation has children.
All that's needed is a Trump-like figure who isn't scared to sow discord
Also, promote generation warfare in the form of painting the current generation of people in their 30s and 40s as feckless hedonists responsible for the economic troubles of the generation below. Probably half of older people would go along with it so this can become a political wedge. Make it clear to young people that their careers will ultimately be crushed by the dying economy unless their generation has children.
All that's needed is a Trump-like figure who isn't scared to sow discord
More seriously, just today there has been some suggestion of lowering university debt repayments for people with children. Some Japanese people on twitter are displaying real anger complaining it's discriminatory towards people without children and backward for placing expectations on women to give birth.
What else can you do but divide society along political lines like it is in the US and let the side that wants to die out do as they wish. Why should the people who want to have a sustainable society so their kids aren't forced to flee a collapsing nation have to include those who are aggrieved by that?
To understand the situation you have to come here and see it for yourselves. Meet guys who never outgrew their high school friendship group and are still spending the same amount of time on video games at 30 as when they were 20, while complaining online that the government is to blame for their wages not going up. Listen to the young women blather on about their career aspirations but point-blank say they don't give a shit about other people and that they just want money for luxuries and status. Work next to the 60-year old guy who coasted along in life, never saw the need for kids and doesn't see any irony in being addicted to 18-year old prostitutes. These people beyond the influence of traditional government levers are not fringe groups!
I can only imagine how insane things are in Korea... probably get murdered for suggesting people spend more on family and less on Louis Vuitton.
What else can you do but divide society along political lines like it is in the US and let the side that wants to die out do as they wish. Why should the people who want to have a sustainable society so their kids aren't forced to flee a collapsing nation have to include those who are aggrieved by that?
To understand the situation you have to come here and see it for yourselves. Meet guys who never outgrew their high school friendship group and are still spending the same amount of time on video games at 30 as when they were 20, while complaining online that the government is to blame for their wages not going up. Listen to the young women blather on about their career aspirations but point-blank say they don't give a shit about other people and that they just want money for luxuries and status. Work next to the 60-year old guy who coasted along in life, never saw the need for kids and doesn't see any irony in being addicted to 18-year old prostitutes. These people beyond the influence of traditional government levers are not fringe groups!
I can only imagine how insane things are in Korea... probably get murdered for suggesting people spend more on family and less on Louis Vuitton.
[deleted]
Japan 1950: ~84 million people
Japan 2023: ~123 million data from: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population-g...
How is this a crisis?
Japan 2023: ~123 million data from: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population-g...
How is this a crisis?
You making jam with those cherries you picked?
Is it a bad thing for populations to fluctuate? Should populations only grow?
Wildly varying rates of birth and an irregularly shaped population pyramid can result in economic and political instability as the majority becomes retirees who are not contributing to the economy but retain much of the political power.
Silver Democracy: Youth Representation in an Aging Japan - https://escholarship.org/uc/item/54d3f8bz
Japan’s Silver Democracy : The Costs of Letting the Elderly Rule Politics - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2013-07-18/jap... ( https://archive.is/hlAya )
Silver Democracy: Youth Representation in an Aging Japan - https://escholarship.org/uc/item/54d3f8bz
Japan’s Silver Democracy : The Costs of Letting the Elderly Rule Politics - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2013-07-18/jap... ( https://archive.is/hlAya )
Environmentally, it's a fantastic thing considering the frightening rate of deforestation, species going extinct, carbon emissions, and ocean pollution.
Economically, it puts pressure on a smaller cohort of working age people to pay more taxes to support a bigger cohort of elderly people.
Economically, it puts pressure on a smaller cohort of working age people to pay more taxes to support a bigger cohort of elderly people.
>Environmentally, it's a fantastic thing considering the frightening rate of deforestation, species going extinct, carbon emissions, and ocean pollution.
This assumes that the amount of resources consumed per person is relatively constant. That's not a good assumption. Fewer people can easily hog more resources, especially energy. People spreading out and buying more and bigger cars and living in bigger homes means more energy and pollution, whereas if more people concentrate into a dense metropolis with public transit and tiny apartments, their energy needs are lower per capita.
This assumes that the amount of resources consumed per person is relatively constant. That's not a good assumption. Fewer people can easily hog more resources, especially energy. People spreading out and buying more and bigger cars and living in bigger homes means more energy and pollution, whereas if more people concentrate into a dense metropolis with public transit and tiny apartments, their energy needs are lower per capita.
[deleted]
While I won't be around, really curious as to what the world will look like in 100 years time. Fertility rates are below replacement levels in virtually all developed areas (and even some less developed areas as well), except for the giant exception of Africa, to a lesser extent some Middle Eastern countries, and some poorer South/Central American countries.
I think vast migration will be inevitable, especially with the added affects of climate change, and I think great strife will be a part of that migration.
I think vast migration will be inevitable, especially with the added affects of climate change, and I think great strife will be a part of that migration.
It's no wonder it's in decline.
We are considering having our second (we live in Japan) but the lack of daycare places is really hurting us. Even private daycares are fully subscribed. Moreover, if my wife gives birth, our child will have to come out of any public daycare she gets into.
Here we are, in our mid 30s, with a good household income and have ruled out a third already. We are not far from ruling out a second as well.
We are considering having our second (we live in Japan) but the lack of daycare places is really hurting us. Even private daycares are fully subscribed. Moreover, if my wife gives birth, our child will have to come out of any public daycare she gets into.
Here we are, in our mid 30s, with a good household income and have ruled out a third already. We are not far from ruling out a second as well.
Declining human population is a good thing.
Only if spread out. Less Japanese vs who
Who is swimming to Japan? Joking of course, but you have to consider that unless there are land adjacencies, it’s unlikely invasion is a concern as population declines.
Less Japanese means more open space and less land contention from remaining Japanese. Less people overall means less resource contention overall.
Less Japanese means more open space and less land contention from remaining Japanese. Less people overall means less resource contention overall.
People will be boating to Japan as countries in East Asia plus Russia are destabilized in the next couple decades due to rising energy and food prices.
East Asia is also depopulating.
But countries next to Japan (china, south Korea, Russia) are also depopulating.
[deleted]
Apparently Russian
https://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/14424010#:~:text=SHIBE....
We are talking about Japan here. Clearly having to cross an ocean does not rule out an invasion. Not that I think that's relevant.
They tried to spread out, but Americans put a stop to it in WW2.
give women voting rights and education and see birthrates plummet. if you call them out on it, you're a misogynist but if you phrase it in a positive way, they will cheer for it.
Well, if the only thing that keeps populations stable is uneducated and subservient women, then we deserve to decline as a species. Besides, there are many other factors involved. First one being the stupidly high cost of housing and childcare.
I do think that women's independence is probably a contributing factor to lower birth rates but it's not the only one. More importantly, it's almost pointless to just state that because it seems to suggest that the simple solution is to remove that independence to hopefully increase the birthrate. That obviously won't be done. So what do you propose can be done with the wisdom you've given?
Give humans the buying power and free time to raise kids and see families raise natality rates to a healthy substitution rate. If you call them out on it, you're a socialist but if you phrase it in a positive way, they will cheer for it.
[deleted]
Is there any (non) government org there to promote building a family?
Unfortunately, the people here in the comments attributing this phenomenon to feminism tend not to go deep enough. Yes, feminism is cancerous, but most of these teenage-level critiques just play into the hands of enemies by arguing on the same terms of liberals, utilitarians and socialists. I invite you not to dialogue with these people, who are largely unaware of the occult roots of their own belief systems, and instead look to logical conclusions of feminism being an historical error.
If you follow the trail long enough I think you will find that the only thing like a "solution" to this "problem" lies in catechizing youth in a consistent doctrine of sex before they grow too old, proud and familiar with justifying their own passions with pre-packaged ideology like many of us have throughout our lives. This doctrine of sex is as an ordering toward procreative ends (impregnation in the case of males, gestation in the case of females), and the conjugal act as having the intrinsic, divinely-ordained primary end of conception, rather than viewing conception as merely a natural consequence relating only to design in the case of humans actively attempted to conceive.
If you follow the trail long enough I think you will find that the only thing like a "solution" to this "problem" lies in catechizing youth in a consistent doctrine of sex before they grow too old, proud and familiar with justifying their own passions with pre-packaged ideology like many of us have throughout our lives. This doctrine of sex is as an ordering toward procreative ends (impregnation in the case of males, gestation in the case of females), and the conjugal act as having the intrinsic, divinely-ordained primary end of conception, rather than viewing conception as merely a natural consequence relating only to design in the case of humans actively attempted to conceive.
> Japan births fall to record low as population crisis deepens
So it is not a good time for Japan to become militaristic again. /s.
The solution is simple: do as the (catholic) church does: ban abortion and condoms.
So it is not a good time for Japan to become militaristic again. /s.
The solution is simple: do as the (catholic) church does: ban abortion and condoms.
50 years ago, a dwelling was around 3-4x annual salary, now it’s 15-20x salary. You aren’t paying that off early and growing the family, even with both parents working. To even get both parents working, you need child care, which for many people costs more than one parent just staying home. Your family lives in the more established suburbs because they bought when it was affordable, so you’re miles away from them and they can’t just come around and mind the grandkids, so you’re a bit stuck.
Some serious consideration needs to be made about the growing trend of wealth percolating towards the older and established parts of society in a way that didn’t used to happen, personally I believe the financialisation of housing (and basically everything else, have you seen the prices of used games lately…) is a major contributor.
Nonetheless, this will all slowly grind to a halt as our major cities die out due to lack of young people when they're forced out. Sydney is already becoming a retirement village, give it a few years to really set in and maybe then there will be the impetus to start fixing it.