One somewhat divergent opinion I read once (wish I could find the article again) expressed the idea that in the modern world, governments are free-riding on parents.<p>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.<p>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.<p>In countries without social safety nets, younger generations are expected to directly support older famility members.<p>Having kids used to be something with pretty direct economic benefits, it's now expected to be a somewhat more altruistic enterprise.
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.<p>Why bother getting married when you'll functionally <i>never see</i> 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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Provide tax breaks, additional compensation benefits, mandatory time off work etc.<p>Edit:
After doing some searching, learned more about what they get.
<a href="https://www.ipmu.jp/en/page/dbbb4775-1008-4deb-8d7d-8766e5d8c9f8#:~:text=Duration%20of%20maternity%20leave,approval%20by%20a%20medical%20doctor" rel="nofollow">https://www.ipmu.jp/en/page/dbbb4775-1008-4deb-8d7d-8766e5d8...</a>.<p>Overall I think the benefits are decent, however I don't think they fully support fathers.<p>Fathers can take 7 days while mom is on mat leave at same time.<p>Then later you can have nursing time, 30 min breaks from work? Can show up 30 mins late??<p>How about some actual time off so you can help out at early stages of life and not too be financially worried.<p>Canada we get 12-18 months shared between spouses, other countries get better
> 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.<p>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.
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"<p>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.
Speaking to the comments here:<p>What would it take for <i>you</i> to have two more children starting today?<p>Not just one more child, but two. Not the Japanese, but you. Not sometime, but today.<p>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.<p>Making the problem bigger, immediate, and personal may give better insights.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>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.[..]<p>Population of Japan in 1800 was 30 million. Japan in 1950 was 90 million.<p><a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066956/population-japan-historical/" rel="nofollow">https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066956/population-japan...</a><p>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.[..]<p>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.<p>To blast us continually about the environment crisis and a 'population crisis' at the same time is contradictory (or bad faith).
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.
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: <a href="https://lvenneri.com/blog/sexratioed" rel="nofollow">https://lvenneri.com/blog/sexratioed</a>
<a href="https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2020/" rel="nofollow">https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2020/</a><p>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.<p>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?<p>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)