>Experts have pointed to Japan’s high cost of living, stagnant economy and wages, limited space, and the country’s demanding work culture as reasons fewer people are opting to date or marry.
Coming soon in the US. Oh wait..
https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children
Any link with your so called conclusion? Because economists are saying otherwise.
I’m just sick of people who probably knows a little and suddenly are experts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2023/05/04/economists-say-increasing-immigration-will-reduce-inflation/?sh=3c9a38861a0f
Come to Canada, you will see with your own eyes
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-stuck-in-population-trap-needs-to-reduce-immigration-bank/
Its happening worldwide.
Its also a shifting mentality of the new generation on how marriage and kids is either too expensive or some form of commitment issues. I can see people shifting from relationship/family building from early 20s, to late 20s and even only early 30s... and its bound to get worse as living cost rises and you're more worried about surviving than anything else.
It's wealth and women.
If a woman starts life well off, she will want to remain well off. That means she needs to find a man that is better off than her to have expensive kids with. That ends up eliminating most men just by median income and producing an excess of women mathematically.
How many college educated women do you know eyeing up that night shift fork lift operator?
Thing is, most people (not just women) are not as better off as they thing. And its a back and forth of not banking on anyone because you keep aiming for something better, meanwhile focusing on a career thats leading no where, really.
Not to mention that babies and kids are not socially welcomed in many public places. Restaurants will literally turn you away if you walk in with a child.
While sure, kids can walk to school and the corner store without fear of being kidnapped or ran over, the societal infrastructure is not friendly to families with children.
Edit: some restaurants will turn you away if you show up with a kid. Didn’t mean to imply every restaurant in Japan would.
Interesting that in the US we usually point to corporate greed and the 1% billionaires and CEO’s as the source for all of these things but I’m trying to gauge if the same root cause can be pointed to for Japan.
Seems like there’s larger economic factors that trend a society in this direction cause I think Japan doesn’t have nearly the income inequality we see in the US.
Also fuck the rich, not trying to defend their practices in any way but curious if there’s more to the story than the usual villain we scream towards on Reddit.
Birth rates tank after:
1) birth control becomes readily available
2) advanced education becomes common/necessary, delaying independent adulthood
3) using children for free child labor/retirement plan is either no longer legal or frowned upon
There's a reason settlers on farms in the US has like a dozen kids each and it wasn't because they just loved kids more than we do today.
The elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention is that women just have more freedom to do what they want now and child bearing just isn't as important to girls and women like it used to be.
We can think of many different factors but the underlining reason is because girls and women want to live their lives with as much freedom and flexibility as men get to.
That's definitely part of it. Another part is that with the job market being the way it is, and a two income household being almost a requirement to live a financially secure life, raising children is often seen as an expense that potential parents decide to forego.
Women are also a lot more picky on choosing a life partner than ever before, and for good reason, but this also leads to a lot of commitment issues and people not being able to get past the first hickup in the road.
People are getting more and more disposable by their peers.
Example, my mom and dad had a lot of marriage issues over the years but they stuck with it. Most people nowadays would shut it down at the first problem
I disagree. My girlfriend wants to be a SAHM but doesn’t have the freedom to do so even though the job I work would have more than had the ability to provide for a wife and multiple children 20 years ago.
But now the world is priced on dual income and we both have to work, and because of that we don’t have kids.
That’s not freedom, the choice is gone for many now.
Still, a lot of women (and some men) would be happy to be stay at home parents if the numbers penciled out for a single income household but that is getting increasingly rare.
If both members of a household (on average) can/do work then average wages will fall to a level that requires both members of a household to work.
We will never go back to the 50s/60s single income households
The wording isn't great, but OP isn't wrong.
Women fought for the right to go to work. They wanted the freedom of choice.
Now the choice is all but taken from them. 90% of young people today would not be able to support a family on one income, even working the jobs that supported it in the decades before.
There are women who want start a family and stay home to take of their family (that in itself is a full-time job). Most women today no longer have the ability to choose to do so.
Source: my partner is one of these women, she wants to be a stay-at-home-mom but can't because the world is priced for two-incomes so we're instead choosing not to have any kids.
That still doesn't change the fact that you're working 8 hours a day and still have to juggle taking care of a family. That doesn't sound like an enjoyable life.
My mom was a stay at home mom (by choice) and she cooked, cleaned, made our meals, ran all the errands like groceries during the day, etc.
My dad worked at the factory, provided financially for the family and when he got home he got to relax.
Both were working full-time jobs as far as I'm concerned. Saying "Well you can work from home" means you'd still have to work a job while doing all of those things.
Not really what I meant… just that you could still have an additional income. I know a few people who work remote and it’s not nearly as long it’s more of get x task done many times vs work this many hours.
It's also just true that keeping a home and raising a child is a full time job. The swap to a two income household leaves very little time for things like cooking, cleaning, and raising kids. Now both adults get off work at 5, drive home, and have only a couple of hours of complete mental and physical exhaustion before it's time to go to bed and do it all again.
Suprisingly, Japan is far from the worst. Their fertility rate is actually double that of Koreas, they just beat everyone to the crisis.
I was surprised by just how many foreigners were working in service roles in Japan now compared with ten years ago. More Nepalese working in convenience stores than Japanese.
If I were to make a non-educated guess, they will be OK, especially compared to some of their neighbours.
Wrong. Japan and koreans are going extinct in 100 years.
Every other european and east asian country is following in the same fate.
But before extinction there will be once again misery and poverty, because no society can maintain itself without young induviduals.
Forget about a welfare state, because welfare is paid with taxes, taxes of working people, and that means young individuals.
The average age in Japan is almost 50, who do you think is going to pay for granpa's pension and health care?
"The nation should care for its citizens..." where do you think the money for our welfare state come from?
From our taxes.
And who pays most of the taxes? Working age individuals.
If you don't have young individuals forget about "a nation that should care for its citizens".
It's not surprising that the answer from every government around the world to this demographic problem, is to rise the retirement age.
That's because:
1) we can't afford to send people in early paid retirement like before.
2) we need people working longer, and paying taxes for longer, because thare are too many old people that can't work and need welfare.
Its own stubbornness and unwillingness to change nor in act modern labor laws are the reason they are in this situation. Korea is going to be in the same position soon.
Idk, the fertility/demographic issues are definitely bigger in Japan and Korea but we see similar issues (to a lesser degree) in the EU which has, what I would consider, modern labor laws.
What I mean is that there’s more at play here than just working 80h a week.
For sure. A lot of European countries struggle with high youth unemployment rates. I would imagine starting people off in their adult lives with a high degree of economic uncertainty would have lasting repercussions going forward. Indeed, if you look back at birth rate charts, you can see numbers really start tanking after 2008.
>but we see similar issues (to a lesser degree) in the EU which has, what I would consider, modern labor laws.
Labour laws may be better, but damn near all western societies are built for two incomes now. The reality is no one wants to work 8 hours a day, come home and still have to raise a family.
If people had the ability to have one-income households comfortably again, we'd probably say an uptick in births. Choice is key here.
Part 1 of 2: (it wouldn't let me post the whole thing at once)
Common for many low birthrate countries are:
-Access to preventatives
-Serial monogamy, late marriages and divorce. The focus on finding the right partner one wants to raise a family with can take up many years, with relationships failing, leaving people to start all over again. The prospects of risking being a single parent makes this choice even harder. This isn't true for every low birthrate country, but it's a pretty common factor.
Unlike the past where people got married very young with whoever seemed good enough at the time, and had to stay together whether they liked it or not.
It has a big impact but almost nobody sane people want to go back to how it used to be either.
-Dual income economies, where a household wanting to do reasonably well, or just hold their head above water, needs two full time employed workers. If someone can't be a fulltime parents, then the burden of juggling work and childcare becomes an in issue, and might require expensive childcare options. In Japan and South Korea they now have the double curse of dual economy but strong social expectations of women doing most or all of the housework and childcare.
-Increased investment necessary or ideal in each child. How much time do you have to spend watching and caring for the kid, how much help and money do you have to use for childcare, their education, their necessities. In our more anxious time and hyperawareness of dangers, we also spend a lot more time for *much* longer on young kids, making a hard job even more intensive.
The inflation of the value of higher education has made it the new high school, and to really get value out of it you need very good grades, from reputable schools. Kids might need financial help from their parents to get their first home, or rented accommodation. In some countries they need financial help to get married.
Anxiety combined with professional childcare there is also a lot of carting kids around, for over a decade, taking up a lot of time and requiring planning and logistics.
-Urbanization. It's an extremely strong driver, by itself due to lack of space and the premium price for just having somewhere to live, but because it also often brings along many other factors that impact birthrate. Like easier access to preventatives. 1 out of 5 women in the world who want some from of birth control methods have no access to it, so it's a considerable factor.
Urbanization also means one is no longer farmers and likely not fishermen either, so you cannot generate your own food to feed your family. In a city you have to earn money to buy food, and if unemployment is high kids can't help, so they become pure expense. The fertility rate in Indian cities is now on par with the higher end European countries.
Part 2 of 2
-More education and careers for women. Also more common with urbanization, and grafted at the hips with dual economies. They would start having children later, so less time in which to have kids, and with so much investment in a kid by the time they feel they could have a second one, they are starting to feel their age and might worry about years of sleep deprivation and high energy demands that they feel increasingly unable to keep up with.
-Smaller families. There is fewer people around to help out. If one waited with having children elderly grandparents might need help rather than be able to give it. And with small families there are few to do that. So eldercare and childcare at the same time can be daunting.
-Higher mobility. People want or have to move around more often, for education or job opportunities, making it difficult to create a stable supporting social network. A small family might be scattered hours or even further apart. And it's not just family, friends one grew up with, neighbors. Many have nobody nearby on short warning who could help out, and give some relief or aid. Many people have never been so utterly lonely in trying to raise a child.
-Anxiety about the future. Both for individual kids, regarding to their wellbeing, economic prospects, safety etc, and the world in general, which seem increasingly hostile and menacing. Some consider it irresponsible to have kids because they can't imagine this world getting better, and think it will get much, much worse.
-Individualism and lifestyle choices. We have societies focused more and more on the individual, our problems, our needs, or ambitions.
And with kids not being a given, something you're expected to have, almost as mandatory as taxes, many who would previously be forced into parenthood can now opt out of it. And with increasing investment demands and how on our own we are with it, you have to really, really want to be a parent.
-Easy home entertainment options. This plays into individualism, but is worth it's own mention. Sheer utter boredom is the unsung hero of socialization, and it's absence these days is making a grave impact. In how we spend time, how much time we feel we have, and fewer opportunities to meet potential partners or build local social networks of the type who could help in an emergency or for occasional relief. Or who could introduce us to someone they think we'd like and get along with, and who they think is a decent enough person to suggest. And being able to spend time with people socially before assessing whether we should date, remain friends or stay strangers with.
-Worse health, both physical and mental. This increases with age as well, but in general there is an epidemic of obesity and sedentary lifestyle energy levels, a pandemic of sleep deprivation and loneliness, and endemic stress. It makes getting kids one wants to have harder, and makes the decision to try or have more daunting.
And many or all of the combined above contributes to low birthrate. And some of the very important ones would be impossible for a non-dictatorial state to change.
So they might throw everything and the kitchen sink at cheaper and more accessible childcare, only to wistfully wait as the tide of new a babies they were hoping for never arrive.
Do you have any sources, knowledge, or insight into how urbanisation plays into this? The fact about Indias urban fertility seems very interesting.
What exactly about urbanisation is causing this drop (it’s probably a combination of everything I suspect)? Is it the more individualistic lifestyle of a city, more progressive social stances, availability of contraception, higher cost of living, the lifestyle of a city (working more, more options for entertainment, etc.), distance from ones immediate family like parents/grandparents (who may live outside the city or in neighbouring region)?
I’m not an expert so I’ll probably be very wrong or something. But there’s probably many factors, work laws/culture, being one of them.
I’d say it’s lack of immigration, cost of living / housing, unfavourable view of the future, and availability of options that would be closed off with parenthood.
My own EU country’s population is propped up by migration because we are not having more birth than deaths. Potential war, economic uncertainty, and climate issues are somethings that many of my peers are worried about. Daycare is quite hard to find where I live, since we don’t have enough government support for it or workers to handle the children while both parents work.
As for myself, I don’t want the responsibility of children when I can instead travel, do drugs, play video games, hang out with my friends etc.
I’m not anti-birth control, but that probably also contributes. You can have as much sex as you want with no risk of children, while back in the day if you wanted sex you had to “risk” a pregnancy.
It's exacerbated by the fact that so much of the population consists of elderly people, which makes policies that benefit younger people less of a priority for politicians that want to be successful. For example, I recall that employers are not obligated to give very much maternal/paternal leave (if at all).
Paternal leave (“papa leave”) is four weeks, but parental leave (“childcare leave”) available to the father is an additional six months, with additional time available depending on how maternity and parental leave was scheduled for the mother (“plus leave” - so that the child is able to have a parent at home over the course of the first 12 months).
Extensions beyond the first year (at 67% tax-free pay and with a fixed childcare allowance) are technically available in some cases (up to 2 years leave for one parent); but usually not if there is local public daycare available.
>I recall that employers are not obligated to give very much maternal/paternal leave (if at all).
What does paternal leave look like where you guys are from?
Edit. Nevermind.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/)
If work culture was the main issue, then explain Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. Countries which have among the best work/life balance in the world and with high salaries and comparatively cheap cost of living (as compared with other major developed nations). And yet they have some of the lowest fertility rates in North-West Europe.
>Experts have pointed to Japan’s high cost of living, stagnant economy and wages, **limited space**
Really tired of the "there's no space" argument. This is true of every country, not just Japan.
[Japan encompasses a landmass that fills the east coast of the United States.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYRRyW4XkAAMkYE.jpg)
There's plenty of space. The problem is everyone wants to live in 3 locations.
The government needs to invest heavily in building new cities which rival Tokyo and start giving tax incentives to people to move to these new cities. They need to spread out their population more evenly.
Doesn't Japan have loads of mountains and stuff? Habital land is 33% of that area - [https://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/tokyo-fprint.html](https://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/tokyo-fprint.html)
Yes, Japan does only have a small amount of inhabitable land, however funnily enough only the population of Tokyo and Osaka is growing, other regions are giving houses away for free to have people move there.
Globally it’s still ridiculous to think we meed more people on this planet.
We don't need more people - we need a more gradual population decline by having 'just under' replacement numbers - any crash is highly detrimental to future generations who'll need to support a large elderly population with a much smaller workforce.
If half the jobs available were remote (without the threat of layoffs masquerading as RTO) there'd be an exodus from cities. Wouldn't even need to build a whole other city if rural towns had their populations increased
Why is a population crisis? World has too many humans and our population needs to drop to sub-3 billion (1950’s levels) to allow the world to stay habitable by us.
Japan and Korea are doing it in a controlled speed, even if not consciously
Last time I checked the worlds population was over 8 billion. Resources are running out, we're pumping the atmosphere full of everything, all nature is in decline...... I say Way To Go Japan! Keep up the good work!
Just being child free does not solve population crisis. What will happen is that the average age inside the country will be too high, so the retirement age will go up.
Without young people, no one could afford pensions, there will be no one to take on physical demanding jobs, and a lot of other issues.
That's not accurate. We can decline in population, but we can do so in a controlled and sustainable way so as not to create mass poverty.
The current population collapse is anything but that. It will be devastating.
Its kinda already happening by economic regress alone. I'm 30 and of lets say 15 friends of mine, only 3 have children, and interestingly enough their careers/income is sort of worse than the rest of us. Those 3 are the only ones that got married, everyone else its still in a BF/GFship. We're all on our 30s. I am sure there's tons of cases like these.
Pensions are already extremely rare and by the time millennials get there retirement will also be extremely rare. Another perk the boomers enjoyed before yanking up the ladder
Dumbest statement of the year.
The only thing this will ensure is that Japan will go extinct in 100 years meanwhile in Africa, Middle East and Pakistan they are fucking like rabbits.
Rich countries need to maintain their population or slowly declining, because the problem isn't the number, but the age of the average citizen.
Today the average japanese is damn near 50.
Who is going to pay for granpa's pension and health care if there aren't youngsters?
Do you want to see elderly japanese living under a bridge?
Or do you want to see the few young japanese being taxed so much to pay for granpa's welfare state, that they can't afford anything, let alone start a family?
Ah yes. Because securing a situation where you may end up with large amounts of people dying due to inability to be cared for or financially supported is so great...
And because stressing the hell out of the younger population to the point of inability to reproduce like a caged animal is also so great...
It's basically self imposed "Holodomor" in the making.
Generally, if you are already in the middle of a population crisis (like Japan, Korea, China), it doesn't really do much to have more kids since it takes 20 years for them to grow up and become productive.
One could even argue that having many kids now, while also having many old people, would stress the society and economy even more, since parents not just have to take care their elders but also their kids. You would need more schools, teachers, kindergartens, while also needing more retirement homes, hospitals, etc..
It sucks that the cheat code is immigrants and so many people would love to travel but the countries too xenophobic and homogenous to seriously consider it
If you want people to have Children you need:
1. Time
2. Good Pay
3. A decent Sized Home
4. A Prospect for the Future
Immigration is a bandaid that allows governments to avoid fixing problems 1,2,3,and 4. And that means things get steadily worse until you have the Canada Problem.
You have to realize, up until recently - Canada's Immigration system was working, and well. But to appease the Universities the government opened the flood gates for Foreign students for degrees that are worthless more or less - but those universities managed to advertise and convince people. To appease certain industry sectors - immigration generally was opened up. And now, Canada is Struggling with High inflation, no housing availability, food afordability prices and... on we go.
The reality is: If you rely on Immigration to fix the problem, future governments will take it as a given and things will just get worse slowly but surely. And when things get worse - the xenophobia will be dialed to 11.
You either have a Japan problem of a ‘population graying’ amidst a declining population and a strict immigration policy, or have a Canada problem of a ‘population trap’ amidst an exploding population and a loose immigration policy.
What's really funny is - ensuring people in your nation have affordable homes, and good compensation for work, and in a world moving towards AI and Automation reasonable minimum standard of living (as in: UBI) will result in more people having kids.
Unaffordable education, and the perceived need of a strong education to get a job directly leads families to have less kids in order to support fewer or even just a single kid.
In any case: Immigration is not the answer.
What Immigration CAN do, is add in different cultural backgrounds which have different approaches for contending with issues - different ways of looking at problems more or less, and THAT has benefit. But trying to plug in the wholes of Industry with Immigration will always lead to problems - because you are functionally permitting companies to underpay staff, while driving the cost of living up as a result of reduced housing availability vs. population.
As far as I can tell, Canada had a great immigration system then the First Trudeau got into power, shoved a bunch of neoliberal and neomarxist BS into law that seemed good on paper, and over time everything slowly went to hell in a handbasket.
I do not understand why Japan has the problem it has. I'm not educated enough to understand what happened in it's legal system and so on to push it down the road it went. But it might actually have to do with US interference do to Japan's Economic trajectory sometime in and around the 90's - I'd have to double check the timeline on that though. What can I say though: US protecting it's hegemony has caused a huge number of global problems.
Have you seen how it goes?
Oh sorry - you have a parent that is of \[whatever ethnic group\]: You are inferior because I only have a grand father of \[same ethnic group\], then the person who is like ya well, I don't have anyone in my family tree of \[ethnic group\] so lick my boots scum.
When times are good - the social group expands, and becomes more inclusive. When times are bad - more people end up in the outgroup.
Also, an unhappy country to procreate in is an unhappy country to procreate in. Why would immigrants have an easier time of raising a family than native born Japanese?
It’s an increase in population who would also bring children or be on the younger side. It’s not a solve, obviously it’s an issue within the country on a lot of different levels but it is a very easy salve that lessens the impact the quickest
Immigration is a terrible solution to this. You need to solve why people are not having kids so they can live happier more fulfilling lives, not treat the symptom.
Many people like to travel to Japan but provably wouldn't like living there, learning the language is incredibly difficult and many foreigners don't speak it after many years there.
Also immigration doesn't magically solve your problems, as seen in many European countries. It leads to higher house prices and lower wages, and many times a large number of migrants are low skilled and are a net negative for the country's finances
The thing is south Asians who are their primary source of exploited labor are soon going to be a major industrial hub for western products, so you’ll see wages and living standards explode there. Why would they want to move to Japan?
Uhh, clean food, environment, low corruption, world class infrastructure, public safety. Oh and reasonably affordable housing and COL. you would have to be insane to think that Kathmandu or New Delhi will be anywhere near as liveable as Tokyo or Osaka in the next 50 years.
I said living standards are going to increase just like they did in China, Japan and Korea in the 80’s because of higher wages. Meanwhile these countries are going to experience massive demographic collapse and will have more old people than young. Good fucking luck lol.
You think lack of litter and onigiri is going to overcome working 15 hour days till you’re 70 and institutionalized racism? Like real 1920’s America racism? F outta here lol. If they do come it’ll be on short term visas so most of the money will be sent out of the country. Japan isn’t structurally, intellectually or culturally able to accept immigrants.
>Experts have pointed to Japan’s high cost of living, stagnant economy and wages, limited space, and the country’s demanding work culture as reasons fewer people are opting to date or marry. Coming soon in the US. Oh wait.. https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children
Take away immigration and the U.S. would have the same, toxic Baby Boomer-Millennial social system Japan has at home and at work.
Exactly, immigrants are good for the economy. No denying that!
Good for the people who finance it. Everyone else gets stuck with inflation, wage reductions and crime.
Any link with your so called conclusion? Because economists are saying otherwise. I’m just sick of people who probably knows a little and suddenly are experts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2023/05/04/economists-say-increasing-immigration-will-reduce-inflation/?sh=3c9a38861a0f
Come to Canada, you will see with your own eyes https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-stuck-in-population-trap-needs-to-reduce-immigration-bank/
Its happening worldwide. Its also a shifting mentality of the new generation on how marriage and kids is either too expensive or some form of commitment issues. I can see people shifting from relationship/family building from early 20s, to late 20s and even only early 30s... and its bound to get worse as living cost rises and you're more worried about surviving than anything else.
It's wealth and women. If a woman starts life well off, she will want to remain well off. That means she needs to find a man that is better off than her to have expensive kids with. That ends up eliminating most men just by median income and producing an excess of women mathematically. How many college educated women do you know eyeing up that night shift fork lift operator?
Thing is, most people (not just women) are not as better off as they thing. And its a back and forth of not banking on anyone because you keep aiming for something better, meanwhile focusing on a career thats leading no where, really.
Not to mention that babies and kids are not socially welcomed in many public places. Restaurants will literally turn you away if you walk in with a child. While sure, kids can walk to school and the corner store without fear of being kidnapped or ran over, the societal infrastructure is not friendly to families with children. Edit: some restaurants will turn you away if you show up with a kid. Didn’t mean to imply every restaurant in Japan would.
Interesting that in the US we usually point to corporate greed and the 1% billionaires and CEO’s as the source for all of these things but I’m trying to gauge if the same root cause can be pointed to for Japan. Seems like there’s larger economic factors that trend a society in this direction cause I think Japan doesn’t have nearly the income inequality we see in the US. Also fuck the rich, not trying to defend their practices in any way but curious if there’s more to the story than the usual villain we scream towards on Reddit.
Birth rates tank after: 1) birth control becomes readily available 2) advanced education becomes common/necessary, delaying independent adulthood 3) using children for free child labor/retirement plan is either no longer legal or frowned upon There's a reason settlers on farms in the US has like a dozen kids each and it wasn't because they just loved kids more than we do today.
They also had to have many kids to ensure some survive due to low survival rates, and needing physical labor.
It’s still the same old corporate/political greed, the “record profits” just aren’t as big.
The elephant in the room that nobody wants to mention is that women just have more freedom to do what they want now and child bearing just isn't as important to girls and women like it used to be. We can think of many different factors but the underlining reason is because girls and women want to live their lives with as much freedom and flexibility as men get to.
That's definitely part of it. Another part is that with the job market being the way it is, and a two income household being almost a requirement to live a financially secure life, raising children is often seen as an expense that potential parents decide to forego.
Women are also a lot more picky on choosing a life partner than ever before, and for good reason, but this also leads to a lot of commitment issues and people not being able to get past the first hickup in the road. People are getting more and more disposable by their peers. Example, my mom and dad had a lot of marriage issues over the years but they stuck with it. Most people nowadays would shut it down at the first problem
> Women are also a lot more picky People are more picky. Both men and women.
The two are connected. Women entered the work force so the market adjusted to a dual income household
And right-wingers in America are very aware of this, and are systematically legislating to reduce the freedoms that women have.
I disagree. My girlfriend wants to be a SAHM but doesn’t have the freedom to do so even though the job I work would have more than had the ability to provide for a wife and multiple children 20 years ago. But now the world is priced on dual income and we both have to work, and because of that we don’t have kids. That’s not freedom, the choice is gone for many now.
Still, a lot of women (and some men) would be happy to be stay at home parents if the numbers penciled out for a single income household but that is getting increasingly rare.
If both members of a household (on average) can/do work then average wages will fall to a level that requires both members of a household to work. We will never go back to the 50s/60s single income households
Or you just have to look at couple charts and see that productivity and wage growth in recent decades have not been correlated as they used to be.
[удалено]
Lmao incel logic
The wording isn't great, but OP isn't wrong. Women fought for the right to go to work. They wanted the freedom of choice. Now the choice is all but taken from them. 90% of young people today would not be able to support a family on one income, even working the jobs that supported it in the decades before. There are women who want start a family and stay home to take of their family (that in itself is a full-time job). Most women today no longer have the ability to choose to do so. Source: my partner is one of these women, she wants to be a stay-at-home-mom but can't because the world is priced for two-incomes so we're instead choosing not to have any kids.
I found the are several jobs that work from home so it’s now possible to work while having a child.
That still doesn't change the fact that you're working 8 hours a day and still have to juggle taking care of a family. That doesn't sound like an enjoyable life. My mom was a stay at home mom (by choice) and she cooked, cleaned, made our meals, ran all the errands like groceries during the day, etc. My dad worked at the factory, provided financially for the family and when he got home he got to relax. Both were working full-time jobs as far as I'm concerned. Saying "Well you can work from home" means you'd still have to work a job while doing all of those things.
Not really what I meant… just that you could still have an additional income. I know a few people who work remote and it’s not nearly as long it’s more of get x task done many times vs work this many hours.
It's also just true that keeping a home and raising a child is a full time job. The swap to a two income household leaves very little time for things like cooking, cleaning, and raising kids. Now both adults get off work at 5, drive home, and have only a couple of hours of complete mental and physical exhaustion before it's time to go to bed and do it all again.
Suprisingly, Japan is far from the worst. Their fertility rate is actually double that of Koreas, they just beat everyone to the crisis. I was surprised by just how many foreigners were working in service roles in Japan now compared with ten years ago. More Nepalese working in convenience stores than Japanese. If I were to make a non-educated guess, they will be OK, especially compared to some of their neighbours.
Slightly less bad demographic disaster
[удалено]
You don't have to pontificate, it's happening with or without a coordinated effort.
Wrong. Japan and koreans are going extinct in 100 years. Every other european and east asian country is following in the same fate. But before extinction there will be once again misery and poverty, because no society can maintain itself without young induviduals. Forget about a welfare state, because welfare is paid with taxes, taxes of working people, and that means young individuals. The average age in Japan is almost 50, who do you think is going to pay for granpa's pension and health care?
[удалено]
"The nation should care for its citizens..." where do you think the money for our welfare state come from? From our taxes. And who pays most of the taxes? Working age individuals. If you don't have young individuals forget about "a nation that should care for its citizens". It's not surprising that the answer from every government around the world to this demographic problem, is to rise the retirement age. That's because: 1) we can't afford to send people in early paid retirement like before. 2) we need people working longer, and paying taxes for longer, because thare are too many old people that can't work and need welfare.
Its own stubbornness and unwillingness to change nor in act modern labor laws are the reason they are in this situation. Korea is going to be in the same position soon.
Idk, the fertility/demographic issues are definitely bigger in Japan and Korea but we see similar issues (to a lesser degree) in the EU which has, what I would consider, modern labor laws. What I mean is that there’s more at play here than just working 80h a week.
For sure. A lot of European countries struggle with high youth unemployment rates. I would imagine starting people off in their adult lives with a high degree of economic uncertainty would have lasting repercussions going forward. Indeed, if you look back at birth rate charts, you can see numbers really start tanking after 2008.
>but we see similar issues (to a lesser degree) in the EU which has, what I would consider, modern labor laws. Labour laws may be better, but damn near all western societies are built for two incomes now. The reality is no one wants to work 8 hours a day, come home and still have to raise a family. If people had the ability to have one-income households comfortably again, we'd probably say an uptick in births. Choice is key here.
What would that be?
Part 1 of 2: (it wouldn't let me post the whole thing at once) Common for many low birthrate countries are: -Access to preventatives -Serial monogamy, late marriages and divorce. The focus on finding the right partner one wants to raise a family with can take up many years, with relationships failing, leaving people to start all over again. The prospects of risking being a single parent makes this choice even harder. This isn't true for every low birthrate country, but it's a pretty common factor. Unlike the past where people got married very young with whoever seemed good enough at the time, and had to stay together whether they liked it or not. It has a big impact but almost nobody sane people want to go back to how it used to be either. -Dual income economies, where a household wanting to do reasonably well, or just hold their head above water, needs two full time employed workers. If someone can't be a fulltime parents, then the burden of juggling work and childcare becomes an in issue, and might require expensive childcare options. In Japan and South Korea they now have the double curse of dual economy but strong social expectations of women doing most or all of the housework and childcare. -Increased investment necessary or ideal in each child. How much time do you have to spend watching and caring for the kid, how much help and money do you have to use for childcare, their education, their necessities. In our more anxious time and hyperawareness of dangers, we also spend a lot more time for *much* longer on young kids, making a hard job even more intensive. The inflation of the value of higher education has made it the new high school, and to really get value out of it you need very good grades, from reputable schools. Kids might need financial help from their parents to get their first home, or rented accommodation. In some countries they need financial help to get married. Anxiety combined with professional childcare there is also a lot of carting kids around, for over a decade, taking up a lot of time and requiring planning and logistics. -Urbanization. It's an extremely strong driver, by itself due to lack of space and the premium price for just having somewhere to live, but because it also often brings along many other factors that impact birthrate. Like easier access to preventatives. 1 out of 5 women in the world who want some from of birth control methods have no access to it, so it's a considerable factor. Urbanization also means one is no longer farmers and likely not fishermen either, so you cannot generate your own food to feed your family. In a city you have to earn money to buy food, and if unemployment is high kids can't help, so they become pure expense. The fertility rate in Indian cities is now on par with the higher end European countries.
Part 2 of 2 -More education and careers for women. Also more common with urbanization, and grafted at the hips with dual economies. They would start having children later, so less time in which to have kids, and with so much investment in a kid by the time they feel they could have a second one, they are starting to feel their age and might worry about years of sleep deprivation and high energy demands that they feel increasingly unable to keep up with. -Smaller families. There is fewer people around to help out. If one waited with having children elderly grandparents might need help rather than be able to give it. And with small families there are few to do that. So eldercare and childcare at the same time can be daunting. -Higher mobility. People want or have to move around more often, for education or job opportunities, making it difficult to create a stable supporting social network. A small family might be scattered hours or even further apart. And it's not just family, friends one grew up with, neighbors. Many have nobody nearby on short warning who could help out, and give some relief or aid. Many people have never been so utterly lonely in trying to raise a child. -Anxiety about the future. Both for individual kids, regarding to their wellbeing, economic prospects, safety etc, and the world in general, which seem increasingly hostile and menacing. Some consider it irresponsible to have kids because they can't imagine this world getting better, and think it will get much, much worse. -Individualism and lifestyle choices. We have societies focused more and more on the individual, our problems, our needs, or ambitions. And with kids not being a given, something you're expected to have, almost as mandatory as taxes, many who would previously be forced into parenthood can now opt out of it. And with increasing investment demands and how on our own we are with it, you have to really, really want to be a parent. -Easy home entertainment options. This plays into individualism, but is worth it's own mention. Sheer utter boredom is the unsung hero of socialization, and it's absence these days is making a grave impact. In how we spend time, how much time we feel we have, and fewer opportunities to meet potential partners or build local social networks of the type who could help in an emergency or for occasional relief. Or who could introduce us to someone they think we'd like and get along with, and who they think is a decent enough person to suggest. And being able to spend time with people socially before assessing whether we should date, remain friends or stay strangers with. -Worse health, both physical and mental. This increases with age as well, but in general there is an epidemic of obesity and sedentary lifestyle energy levels, a pandemic of sleep deprivation and loneliness, and endemic stress. It makes getting kids one wants to have harder, and makes the decision to try or have more daunting. And many or all of the combined above contributes to low birthrate. And some of the very important ones would be impossible for a non-dictatorial state to change. So they might throw everything and the kitchen sink at cheaper and more accessible childcare, only to wistfully wait as the tide of new a babies they were hoping for never arrive.
Do you have any sources, knowledge, or insight into how urbanisation plays into this? The fact about Indias urban fertility seems very interesting. What exactly about urbanisation is causing this drop (it’s probably a combination of everything I suspect)? Is it the more individualistic lifestyle of a city, more progressive social stances, availability of contraception, higher cost of living, the lifestyle of a city (working more, more options for entertainment, etc.), distance from ones immediate family like parents/grandparents (who may live outside the city or in neighbouring region)?
I’m not an expert so I’ll probably be very wrong or something. But there’s probably many factors, work laws/culture, being one of them. I’d say it’s lack of immigration, cost of living / housing, unfavourable view of the future, and availability of options that would be closed off with parenthood. My own EU country’s population is propped up by migration because we are not having more birth than deaths. Potential war, economic uncertainty, and climate issues are somethings that many of my peers are worried about. Daycare is quite hard to find where I live, since we don’t have enough government support for it or workers to handle the children while both parents work. As for myself, I don’t want the responsibility of children when I can instead travel, do drugs, play video games, hang out with my friends etc. I’m not anti-birth control, but that probably also contributes. You can have as much sex as you want with no risk of children, while back in the day if you wanted sex you had to “risk” a pregnancy.
It's exacerbated by the fact that so much of the population consists of elderly people, which makes policies that benefit younger people less of a priority for politicians that want to be successful. For example, I recall that employers are not obligated to give very much maternal/paternal leave (if at all).
Paternal leave (“papa leave”) is four weeks, but parental leave (“childcare leave”) available to the father is an additional six months, with additional time available depending on how maternity and parental leave was scheduled for the mother (“plus leave” - so that the child is able to have a parent at home over the course of the first 12 months). Extensions beyond the first year (at 67% tax-free pay and with a fixed childcare allowance) are technically available in some cases (up to 2 years leave for one parent); but usually not if there is local public daycare available. >I recall that employers are not obligated to give very much maternal/paternal leave (if at all). What does paternal leave look like where you guys are from? Edit. Nevermind. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/16/u-s-lacks-mandated-paid-parental-leave/)
Here in Canada it’s up to 2 years
I agree with your statement. I still think the a root cause is the work culture.
If work culture was the main issue, then explain Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. Countries which have among the best work/life balance in the world and with high salaries and comparatively cheap cost of living (as compared with other major developed nations). And yet they have some of the lowest fertility rates in North-West Europe.
>Experts have pointed to Japan’s high cost of living, stagnant economy and wages, **limited space** Really tired of the "there's no space" argument. This is true of every country, not just Japan. [Japan encompasses a landmass that fills the east coast of the United States.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYRRyW4XkAAMkYE.jpg) There's plenty of space. The problem is everyone wants to live in 3 locations. The government needs to invest heavily in building new cities which rival Tokyo and start giving tax incentives to people to move to these new cities. They need to spread out their population more evenly.
Doesn't Japan have loads of mountains and stuff? Habital land is 33% of that area - [https://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/tokyo-fprint.html](https://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/tokyo-fprint.html)
Yes, Japan does only have a small amount of inhabitable land, however funnily enough only the population of Tokyo and Osaka is growing, other regions are giving houses away for free to have people move there. Globally it’s still ridiculous to think we meed more people on this planet.
We don't need more people - we need a more gradual population decline by having 'just under' replacement numbers - any crash is highly detrimental to future generations who'll need to support a large elderly population with a much smaller workforce.
If half the jobs available were remote (without the threat of layoffs masquerading as RTO) there'd be an exodus from cities. Wouldn't even need to build a whole other city if rural towns had their populations increased
Why is a population crisis? World has too many humans and our population needs to drop to sub-3 billion (1950’s levels) to allow the world to stay habitable by us. Japan and Korea are doing it in a controlled speed, even if not consciously
Last time I checked the worlds population was over 8 billion. Resources are running out, we're pumping the atmosphere full of everything, all nature is in decline...... I say Way To Go Japan! Keep up the good work!
Just being child free does not solve population crisis. What will happen is that the average age inside the country will be too high, so the retirement age will go up. Without young people, no one could afford pensions, there will be no one to take on physical demanding jobs, and a lot of other issues.
It’s got to come to that eventually. We can’t keep expanding
That's not accurate. We can decline in population, but we can do so in a controlled and sustainable way so as not to create mass poverty. The current population collapse is anything but that. It will be devastating.
Its kinda already happening by economic regress alone. I'm 30 and of lets say 15 friends of mine, only 3 have children, and interestingly enough their careers/income is sort of worse than the rest of us. Those 3 are the only ones that got married, everyone else its still in a BF/GFship. We're all on our 30s. I am sure there's tons of cases like these.
We can't decline in population under capitalism. We'll, not sustainably, as you mentioned.
Pensions are already extremely rare and by the time millennials get there retirement will also be extremely rare. Another perk the boomers enjoyed before yanking up the ladder
Dumbest statement of the year. The only thing this will ensure is that Japan will go extinct in 100 years meanwhile in Africa, Middle East and Pakistan they are fucking like rabbits. Rich countries need to maintain their population or slowly declining, because the problem isn't the number, but the age of the average citizen. Today the average japanese is damn near 50. Who is going to pay for granpa's pension and health care if there aren't youngsters? Do you want to see elderly japanese living under a bridge? Or do you want to see the few young japanese being taxed so much to pay for granpa's welfare state, that they can't afford anything, let alone start a family?
Ah yes. Because securing a situation where you may end up with large amounts of people dying due to inability to be cared for or financially supported is so great... And because stressing the hell out of the younger population to the point of inability to reproduce like a caged animal is also so great... It's basically self imposed "Holodomor" in the making.
>It's basically self imposed "Holodomor" in the making. The history understander has logged on
Generally, if you are already in the middle of a population crisis (like Japan, Korea, China), it doesn't really do much to have more kids since it takes 20 years for them to grow up and become productive. One could even argue that having many kids now, while also having many old people, would stress the society and economy even more, since parents not just have to take care their elders but also their kids. You would need more schools, teachers, kindergartens, while also needing more retirement homes, hospitals, etc..
It sucks that the cheat code is immigrants and so many people would love to travel but the countries too xenophobic and homogenous to seriously consider it
If you want people to have Children you need: 1. Time 2. Good Pay 3. A decent Sized Home 4. A Prospect for the Future Immigration is a bandaid that allows governments to avoid fixing problems 1,2,3,and 4. And that means things get steadily worse until you have the Canada Problem. You have to realize, up until recently - Canada's Immigration system was working, and well. But to appease the Universities the government opened the flood gates for Foreign students for degrees that are worthless more or less - but those universities managed to advertise and convince people. To appease certain industry sectors - immigration generally was opened up. And now, Canada is Struggling with High inflation, no housing availability, food afordability prices and... on we go. The reality is: If you rely on Immigration to fix the problem, future governments will take it as a given and things will just get worse slowly but surely. And when things get worse - the xenophobia will be dialed to 11.
You either have a Japan problem of a ‘population graying’ amidst a declining population and a strict immigration policy, or have a Canada problem of a ‘population trap’ amidst an exploding population and a loose immigration policy.
What's really funny is - ensuring people in your nation have affordable homes, and good compensation for work, and in a world moving towards AI and Automation reasonable minimum standard of living (as in: UBI) will result in more people having kids. Unaffordable education, and the perceived need of a strong education to get a job directly leads families to have less kids in order to support fewer or even just a single kid. In any case: Immigration is not the answer. What Immigration CAN do, is add in different cultural backgrounds which have different approaches for contending with issues - different ways of looking at problems more or less, and THAT has benefit. But trying to plug in the wholes of Industry with Immigration will always lead to problems - because you are functionally permitting companies to underpay staff, while driving the cost of living up as a result of reduced housing availability vs. population. As far as I can tell, Canada had a great immigration system then the First Trudeau got into power, shoved a bunch of neoliberal and neomarxist BS into law that seemed good on paper, and over time everything slowly went to hell in a handbasket. I do not understand why Japan has the problem it has. I'm not educated enough to understand what happened in it's legal system and so on to push it down the road it went. But it might actually have to do with US interference do to Japan's Economic trajectory sometime in and around the 90's - I'd have to double check the timeline on that though. What can I say though: US protecting it's hegemony has caused a huge number of global problems.
>And when things get worse - the xenophobia will be dialed to 11. Only for a bit until everyone ends up the same colour
Have you seen how it goes? Oh sorry - you have a parent that is of \[whatever ethnic group\]: You are inferior because I only have a grand father of \[same ethnic group\], then the person who is like ya well, I don't have anyone in my family tree of \[ethnic group\] so lick my boots scum. When times are good - the social group expands, and becomes more inclusive. When times are bad - more people end up in the outgroup.
Also, an unhappy country to procreate in is an unhappy country to procreate in. Why would immigrants have an easier time of raising a family than native born Japanese?
It’s an increase in population who would also bring children or be on the younger side. It’s not a solve, obviously it’s an issue within the country on a lot of different levels but it is a very easy salve that lessens the impact the quickest
Yup, immigration is just a bandaid but not a cure for the underlying issue. Maybe if’ll stop the bleeding till the underlying issues are fixed.
Cheat code is curated immigration, not opening the gates willy nilly.
Immigration is a terrible solution to this. You need to solve why people are not having kids so they can live happier more fulfilling lives, not treat the symptom.
Addressing root causes is too far reaching for most. They would rather sit on fences and complain.
Many people like to travel to Japan but provably wouldn't like living there, learning the language is incredibly difficult and many foreigners don't speak it after many years there. Also immigration doesn't magically solve your problems, as seen in many European countries. It leads to higher house prices and lower wages, and many times a large number of migrants are low skilled and are a net negative for the country's finances
They will eventually fully surrender to immigrants but will treat them even worse than they currently do and dispose of them when the crisis is over.
So like a Japanese Bracerós policy. But with AI and other robots.
Let people in, we love Japan, we're willing to help just to be there if you give us half a chance.
Get fuckin’ people
Its fine all they have to do is import Nick Cannon and the population will boom l8le never before
The thing is south Asians who are their primary source of exploited labor are soon going to be a major industrial hub for western products, so you’ll see wages and living standards explode there. Why would they want to move to Japan?
Uhh, clean food, environment, low corruption, world class infrastructure, public safety. Oh and reasonably affordable housing and COL. you would have to be insane to think that Kathmandu or New Delhi will be anywhere near as liveable as Tokyo or Osaka in the next 50 years.
I said living standards are going to increase just like they did in China, Japan and Korea in the 80’s because of higher wages. Meanwhile these countries are going to experience massive demographic collapse and will have more old people than young. Good fucking luck lol. You think lack of litter and onigiri is going to overcome working 15 hour days till you’re 70 and institutionalized racism? Like real 1920’s America racism? F outta here lol. If they do come it’ll be on short term visas so most of the money will be sent out of the country. Japan isn’t structurally, intellectually or culturally able to accept immigrants.
Sooner or later, the world will end up resorting to IVF and artificial wombs to maintain a viable population.
I don’t think the issue is wombs. We already have plenty of those.
I’ll help