The biggest issue that no one ever wants to talk about is …
… it’s isn’t about the QUANTITY of life
… it’s about the QUALITY of life.
If people are able to have a comfortable, stable and prosperous life, with plenty of their own free time to enjoy without worrying about losing everything then they’ll make time and an effort to have a family and children.
If all our wealthy overlords ever want to do is squeeze every penny out of us all the time, then people will be less likely to want to have children.
It also strongly correlates to women’s rights and access to education. The more educated women are, the less likely they are to have a lot of kids.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data
It’s why you see a renewed attack on women in some developed countries, especially in the US.
Here’s what happened in America.
In the 1960s the “Women’s Lib” movement started. They got a lot of press coverage because it was a good stroy, but didn’t actually change things a lot.
In 1973 the Oil Embargo hit and suddenly one job wasn’t enough for the family to survive. Lots of wives had to go out and look for work to keep paying the bills.
The Right has been lying that women getting jobs is what destroyed the one income family.
It’s either developed countries or the US, you can’t have both
deleted by creator
“It’s so expensive to have children in Japan that birthrate is further declining.”
I swear to God these people couldn’t connect the dots with a GPS.
I’m not sure how true this statement is. I go to Japan every year and the child care infrastructure there is incredible.
The healthcare is icredible - you can literally summon healthcare assistant if youe kid is sick at any point for free to your home
Then there’s incredible public transporatiob system, parks, everything is equipped with child support and even culture heavily respects kids so they can do most things independently.
I think they mean expensive time and desire wise and Japanese still work incredible hours many of which seem to actually negatively impact productivity. People don’t feel like such investment is worth it and tbh that could easily shift around with cultural changes but Japan is very allergic to those.
This is an interesting point. So apparently the problems of having that terrible working culture are solved for (ish) to promote procreation, but it’s not helping. Gee, I wonder if possibly creating a society of miserable people and making it easier for them to create more people they presume will be miserable doesn’t work because they just don’t want to do that.
But what about housing? If you live in a shoebox with no hope of getting a larger place, it’s unlikely that you’re gonna have kids.
Housing is pretty good in Japan outside of Tokyo, especially if you don’t mind a bit of a train ride
Removed by mod
It’s not that there don’t care as much as they don’t believe it will affect them personally. They believe they their wealth will protect them.
I think plenty of them also think it’s far enough in the future that it won’t affect them (spoiler alert: it’s not)
They don’t care about it getting worse. because global warming is their answer to every goal they have.
It’s the classic “we don’t care if the valley floods, we live on the hill” mentality. They think that if/when the world devolves into chaos that they’ll be safe because they’re well off.
Removed by mod
Except climate change is a flood that won’t go away for 10,000 years. There is no ‘after’ for the rich to benefit from.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they’re trying to assign a single point of blame to a complete systemic failure. The feeling is that if we can simply find out who is doing this and boil it down to one person or one group we can then simply attack that group and solve all our problems. That’s exactly the ox that fascism has yolked on its ride to power in every single generation.
countries have mostly abandoned climate action change,
Elysium but in New Zealand
We’re already slaves. They are just making it more obvious.
It was the government doing window guidance that caused their mess, how do you blame the people who made successful companies that gave Japan its first world living standard?
Removed by mod
pretty much the same in korea, i think korea is slightly worst off, china is beginning to see its effects too, they already trying to change that by “encouraging more sex”, but they arnt solving the underlying issue, which is the one-child policy that devastated the female to male ratio and HCOL. and they also have harsh work ethic.
slightly worst off
worse* off
My first two kids were born in Japan, and they were actually pretty cheap. The local city gives you some money (a few thousand) when your child is born, and day care was good and super cheap, like $10 per day because it was subsidized.
It really wasn’t very expensive.
Well it does get a lot more expensive when almost everybody wants to live in the same tiny square of the country Tokyo’s population will decline in 2035 according to some estimates
With Japan, they only have so much inhabitable land anyway. It’s a mountainous island where all viable land is already pretty much taken.
You can tell capitalism is super efficient and sustainable by how it totally collapses without fresh babies to sacrifice.
Lets see how China handles it down the road before we mark this one a problem of one specific system, rather than just humans seemingly sucking in sustainable long term planning on large scales in general.
China is also capitalist though, and they’re also starting to suffer from the same issue.
Any system would collapse without newer generations.
Except only one of those systems depends on the exploitation of the working class, ya know, your breeding live stock. Only one of those system destroys a work life balance. Only one leaves the population with little free time and shrinking resources with which to have and raise a kid. Japan is past, and the US is passing, the tipping point. Society may deem it necessary but the potential parents recognize it as untenable.
What happens when the orphan crushing machine has no orphans?Olympic level goalpost mover right here.
True, but no other system disincentives children like capitalism.
Progressives have made kids useless. In the distant past they could help carry firewood or gay bales around the homestead.
Industrial revolution fucked it up. Sure for a while you could send them down into the mines or get them sweeping chimneys but over time that got outlawed due to the increased danger these jobs involved.
Now, why bother having kids? You can’t do anything with them. Even worse, they play games like Minecraft. You are literally spending your money for them to virtually work in the mines where they don’t bring in any money at all!
Wait, you you’re saying the solution is… being back child labor? We truly are living in some times when that isn’t considered a unique statement.
The children yearn for the mines.
I’m interested in the gay bales, where do I find out more about those?
I would hope it is obviously not a serious suggestion. But it does show a clear difference in modern society that might go some way to explaining current trends.
Apologies if you were being facetious, these days are times both difficult to discern, and filled with those who would proudly proclaim things like this.
Now, why bother having kids? You can’t do anything with them.
You mean you can’t do anything profitable with them. Maybe people should be able to have a family for other reasons than profit
Even without capitalism you need production, and children used to be part of that. Back then you would have as many kids as you could so that they could run your farm.
I’m not defending the current system, but profit isn’t the only reason the birthrate is declining in so many countries.
And the farm would largely be to feed your own family. Not profit.
Fertility rates say “maybe not”
Fertility rates are this low because people don’t have enough time to raise kids they’re too busy working 80 hours a week
I mean, any system collapses if you don’t have the people to actively participate in it.
I’m not saying that as a defense of capitalism, more so as pointing out how dumb your comment is.
Thing is, we don’t really know what’s the reason for the current worldwide trend in much, much lower natality rate. We’ve observed in rich countries and poor countries, religious and atheist countries, capitalist and communist countries (both USSR and PRC, who have had very different economic systems), in countries with no safety nets but also in countries with large social programs, in western countries, but also in eastern countries.
The only thing I can think of these days is education level. Is it possible that education is inversely correlated with natality rates? Or maybe women in the workforce. I’m not arguing for either point, I’m just thinking about what the cause of a world-wide issue might be, because it’s happening everywhere and seemingly without any clear common cause.
There’s plenty of research out there that shows educating women leads to reduced rates of teenage pregnancy and total number of children. Like its pretty damn solid evidence that educating women helps them make informed family planning decisions.
I think a bigger problem is increasing infertility rates and how many people need to use IVF to conceive in the first place. Something worldwide is disrupting our hormones and affecting our ability to reproduce. Even if someone had everything they needed and wanted to support a child, they might not physically be able to create one or carry a pregnancy to term.
Nothing to do with the plastics and their additives building up in our bodies that act on the endocrine system, no sir.
The national pyramid scheme
Well, if you prioritize shareholder growth, before Support of children and make sure people have to work super hard to be able to sustain themselves and can’t afford to have a family… Then you should not be supervised that you don’t have any babies in the country
But I bet they will continue to work people to the bone as a point of pride…like I wonder what could be contributing to this problem.
This right here. It’s not that people don’t want kids. It’s that they’re at their breaking point already.
Oh, you mean like Karoshi? The term that translates to “overwork death”? Good times. Good times.
Yeah, and in a city with no greenery for kids to play in and afraid to let the kids out of their sight for 1 minute.
In Japan they let kids go outside without supervision starting a really young age.
The reasons for the low birth rate are purely due to government policy.
In Japan they let kids go outside without supervision starting a really young age.
Yeah I live in Japan and my daughter started going on errands (“go get some milk/eggs”) alone at age 5. All kids are then expected to walk themselves to elementary school starting from the first week, there is no room for drop-offs from a car.
There’s a surprising amount of green for major cities that otherwise look like concrete jungles. There’s usually plenty of parks and kids are in general very safe. Maybe this is just my comparison from originally living in the states, but it is super safe for children and the amount of expected unsupervised travel kids do in Japan is astonishing.
Dude, Japan is so safe the cops are largely overglorified tourist and traffic guides. The kids run around alone all the time.
That’s an American point of view
This problem is not isolated to Japan. Countries all across the world are facing the same issue and have been for a number of years.
Create a shitty, miserable, society with no rights or support, and people do not want to bring children into it… who’d guess?
The flannel has been wrung dry to the detriment of the working class; there is no where to go, no more water to squeeze from them. This is global society / capitalism falling apart.
Exactly its not some mysterious problem no matter how much the government and media try to frame it as one, people of the age to have kids have no time for kids and no money for kids so no wonder they have no desire for kids.
Even if they did want children, without the support systems, it may not be feasible for them to have kids. Having them might mean choosing to starve or go without a house.
Even if you’re in a country with a public health care system, a sick/young child means having to take time off work to care for them.
Countries all across the world
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
Isn’t it interesting that the more “developed” countries have the lowest birth rates.
It’s what follows education. It’s the largely uneducated areas of the world that still raw dog like there’s no tomorrow.
Solid racism. Even if your correlation is “accurate” (according to imperial definitions/measurements of “education”), that’s not causation.
People also tend to have more kids when the life expectancy of their kids if very low. Colonized people have low life expectancy because their labor and resources are exploited by the privileged.
Pointing out an objective fact isn’t racism, it just is.
My understanding is that lower fertility follows higher female education for several reasons, including that women in school - and with access to birth control - prefer to wait until finishing school and starting a career before having children. Countries where women have fewer educational and fewer career opportunities, people often start having babies sooner, and more babies overall.
Another oft-mentioned factor is social safety nets such as social security (as much as that can count as a safety net). Areas with no or weak elder support outside of the family tend to have bigger families. Shockingly, this was also the case in the “developed” world back before they developed. Ask older adults in the USA how many brothers and sisters their grandparents had and it is probably a lot more than the next generation had, and the next, etc.
Do colonized people have lower life expectancy or do their children? Or both? Certainly, exploited people may also be living in (and unable to escape from) a society with poor elder care and insufficient safety nets such as social security or other retirement options. Which, of course, makes having lots of kids a totally rational decision. And also limits the ability of many women to participate in the economy outside of the home, which can also slow the development of the country / area’s economy.
This is just fucking dumb
So apparently under Sharia law, Muslim men can have anal sex with a girl under 8, and vaginal with a girl over 8.
And Muslims can openly lie about what is and isn’t true under Sharia law???
No, Muslims cannot openly lie about what is and isn’t true under sharia law. Islamic jurisprudence is a thing. It’s pretty important to Muslims to know what they can or can’t do.
There are different traditions (remember - there are Sunnis and Shias as the largest groups, some more obscure splinters, and splinters off of Sunni and Shia). Not everyone accepts the same Hadith, and there are, ya know, like more than thirteen centuries of interpretations and various schools. (Like, people get Islamic law degrees - that’s kinda why the medieval Muslim world was pretty well known for education, you needed the madrassas to be teaching people this stuff)
I have never heard the idea that anal sex was permissible in Islam. The Hadith cited in my link I think are direct enough that basically all traditions would accept them outright.
I don’t understand the 8 years old distinction bit (maybe something to do with the heinous child rape involved in bacha bazi - but that would not be considered permissible by Islamic scholars)
Capitalism is the best we’ve got. Even North Korea has acknowledged this. With other systems people starve en masse. My hope is that we get over the taboo of regulation. Capitalism fucks up real-estate and wealth distribution. And health-care should 100% be government funded.
Seems super likely that capitalism is going to be a major factor in our extinction. Maybe we could have a bit less of it and actually survive as a species
The major shareholders have voted down your proposal.
I actually agree with this. Capitalism presumes infinite resources.
It seems like you already understand some of the limitations of capitalism. Look into why regulation has gradually been rolled back in the US since the 70s. Why did politicians start to agree with corporate execs demands for lower regulation. Keywords to look up - regulatory capture.
On a separate point, there’s plenty of famines that have occurred in capitalist economies due to capitalist exploitation - that is make more money, at the cost of of creating a famine. Some estimates put the deaths due to famines under capitalism higher than those under socialism. I used to simply know only of the famines under socialism and not know of the famines under capitalism.
Finally the capitalism we live in since the Great Depression is significantly different than the capitalism before it. Socialists, actual Marxists in western counties, yes the US included, were actively involved in the policies that created the welfare states across the west along with the regulatory regime. Some of FDR’s economic advisors were Marxian economists.
That was the compromise to save capitalism from imminent worker revolution. The unregulated, no-safety-net version of the system had lead to the conditions for such revolution. The socialist policies that averted the revolution in have slowly been dismantled over time and the system is reverting to the pre-Great Depression state. Faster in some countries than others.
If you want to reform capitalism to the point where it can no longer revert to economic liberalism (free market fundamentalism), you’d have to almost completely eliminate wealth accumulation. You could only do that by changing the ownership of the means of production. E.g. all employees in all corporations become equal owners (or controllers) of the machines and therefore the decisions on sharing the wealth those machines produce, instead of those decisions being made by a tiny number of major shareholders. You’d also have to significantly expand the industries operated by the government. At that point you end up with socialism. And yes socialism doesn’t mean central planning and no markets. Capitalism doesn’t mean no central planning and just markets. We do plenty of central planning in capitalist economies across governments and large corporations.
I’m not asking you to change your mind today. Just pointing out a few things to look into in case you haven’t.
Japan will literally collapse into fire before they allow immigration
Well, that’s why Western right wingers look to Japan. But the difference is that, Western right wingers are looking to regress back into the olden days when women were baby-churners, whereas I don’t hear from Japan wanting the same (there are some but they are not significant enough to sway public opinion).
I’d like to take the part of the baby churning plan where a homemaker is part of each household. Like, subtract the misogyny where it’s automatically assumed it would be the woman but households with children take a lot of work.
I’d love to be a stay-at-home parent, but I make more money because I have the outside genitalia whereas my partner has the inside genitalia plus chest ornaments, so she’d be the smart choice. That’s literally the biggest difference (beyond her being a much harder worker and my having a disability), yet I make 1.5x her salary. Humans are fucking stupid.
We only make it because of our two incomes, so no one gets to stay home or have kids. Yeah America!
It’s easier to immigrate to Japan than the United States. There are lots of work visas and long term residency can be pretty quick with a professional position. Many of the clerks you see in Japan for ordinary jobs are immigrants from South Asia.
Yeah, I can think of people of many different colors and varieties who would jump at the chance to go over there and help with whatever work they need doing for a decent wage.
Huge amount of japanese descent people in Brazil (including me), but I have the feeling the japanese would rather have their country implode than give us nationality
I guess it’s not limited to Brazil or black people. Any change in their routine seems very complicated.
Who mentioned black people?
Internet don’t know the ethnic diversity of Brazil. They think the German descent community living here comes from a few nazi leaders who fled to Brazil. When in reality they came in droves in 19th century and still speak an old German dialect no longe spoke in German. We have huge communities of Italians, germans, spaniards, portuguese, chinese, japanese, Koreans, syrians, lebanese, nigerians, angolans, haitians, colombians, peruans, bolivians. Brazil is not a ethnic homogeneous country. There are white people, brown people, asians, black people. The term “latino” don’t make sense in Brazil. Brazilians don’t use much less identify with it. Brazilian is just a nationality, don’t mean anything ethnic. Brazilians can be anything.
While we do have black people its such a weird ‘guess’ to make, I still have no idea what the point he was trying to make by mentioning black people. Did he really think the majority of brazillians are black? Cant he even grasp that there thousands if not millions of asians living in Brazil
Japanese don’t. Unless it’s one of them in blackface.
Seriously, the racism there is painful.
alot of asian countries, china, korea are very similar. china only allows less than 20k/year to become citizens, thier stipulation is you giving up your citizenship of other countries.
That is still miles better than japan, I could actually work towards that. To get japanese citizenship I would need to be born again
No one has time for family in Japan
When I watch yt videos about people leaving the workplace at 10pm, I wonder how suicide rate isn’t way higher
There’s a reason so much anime these days is a salaryman dying on the job and reincarnating into a fantasy world.
deleted by creator
In the context of Capitalism, sure, Japan is in trouble.
But then again, any system that demands infinite growth within a finite system has a biological parallel… in cancer. Yes, capitalism is economic cancer.
Japan has a bright future in front of it, if it can successfully pioneer an effective degrowth system that prioritizes the lives of people over Paraiste-Class profits.
Outside of capitalism it is hard to function below replacement level because the young people have to take care of the elderly
Young people would have time to take care of the elderly if they weren’t forced to work 60+ hour weeks consistently
Kind of adjacent when the person is tying infinite economic growth with population “degrowth”
Oh no, having to spend time with my family oh nooo /s
If rent weren’t so damn high and you didn’t have such a squeeze on every moment of your life to make as much money too survive, spending time and supporting each other efficiently maybe wouldn’t be a problem.
Values are defined by our parents? Is it a caste system? Is extended family more or less efficient? What is the goal: sustainability, B R E E D I N G, vacations, wealth compared to others, power over others, power over ourselves? Etc…
Inside capitalism, people aren’t having children because captialism isn’t giving them the economic capability to do so.
The west’s population boom in the 50s to 80s only occurred because a single wage earner could, with a high school education and a wage just a little over minimum wage, be able to own a decent home, have a non-working SAH spouse, several kids, two cars in the driveway, and still have enough left over for a decent holiday once a year as well as save generously for retirement.
This all got stolen from these latest generations. What 90+% of the population was once capable of achieving is now only (largely) available to less than 20% of GenZ. A large proportion have given up on retirement, home ownership, or children. And this is WITH degrees and extensive career experience.
If you want to solve population crashes, start with income inequality: start taxing the wealthy and bring back a 90+% top tax rate. Get this money back into the hands of people who actually generate that wealth, and families will follow.
No they don’t. They just have to adopt a culture of euthanasia. I don’t say that to be cruel or indifferent. I assume state assisted programs are in a lot of countries’ futures assuming they can stomach it. It’s not something I’m advocating for. I just think the rich are cold enough to push it to try to fix the problem.
Japans GDP has been almost flat since the mid 90s, they are not following the west’s “”“infinite”“” growth. Not that I’m saying capitalism isn’t part of the problem, it absolutely is, just saying it isn’t the entire story.
It can, but will it?
Is cancer really cancer if the rest of the body can adapt and grow faster than it? You describe capitalism as a finite system and then heavily imply that we’re near the outer boundary of that system or that all current and future resources are almost depleted.
The fact that our planet’s resources are finite is a matter of physics. Capitalism may come up with some innovation or another that adds more lifespan to it, the way that digital spaces and the financial industry have done, or it may have another global war that creates room for a new period of traditional growth at the cost of countless lives, but it will inevitably hit an insurmountable wall.
You describe capitalism as a finite system
No, I did not. Capitalism demands infinite growth. This planet is a finite system
and then heavily imply that we’re near the outer boundary of that system or that all current and future resources are almost depleted.
I don’t imply. I simply state a known fact. Anyone with even a passing exposure to economics and resource extraction would be very familiar with this fact.
For example, 100 years ago, the energy within a barrel of oil could extract an additional 300 barrels of oil from the ground. These days, despite technology that has made the process massively more efficient, we get barely 10 barrels of oil out of the ground for that same amount of energy expended.
These days same goes for almost every other resource you could possibly shake a stick at, from minerals such as steel and copper, over harvested materials such as fish and wood, and all the way down to agriculture, where the topsoil that almost all of our crops depend on will be completely depleted within the next 60 years, and will be depleted in most agricultural regions within the next 20-40.
Capitalism is a cancer, and it’s killing the planet.
I live and work in Japan, and it definitely is not a very condusive environment for younger Japanese people to have children. My wife and I are both foreigners, and we are in out late 30’s and just had our first. The country has some really great benefits and support services for having children, but we definitely would not be able to do this if we worked for Japanese companies, and with the Japanese work mentality.
While it IS getting better, work being the central pillar of life and the expectations from the older generations are still very much a thing. The long hours of paper pushing, the culture of promotion based on age and time served rather than innovation and hard work takes a toll on people. If you are not living in the office in your 20s to show your dedication, you are looked down upon, at least accoridng to my Japanese friends.
Immigration could help fix some of this. Japan is a desireable, largely affordable country, that is safe when it comes to raising children. Living here as a foreigner though has specific challenges, and your job prospects are pretty poor unless you are lucky, and access to housing and just general living can be challenging, even if you can speak Japanese.
I just got a new job in Kyoto, and I currently live in Tokyo. I would say around 40% of the houses we applied to look at would not even let us see the properties because we are foreigners. That’s 100% legal and totally ok to say here, and I take that in stride. In Australia (where I am from), they would either just tell you to piss off, or show you the property knowing you don’t have a chance, so at least they are upfront about it here I guess. Getting a credit card is a massive ordeal, which you kinda need here because debit cards are increasingly hard to find, and they don’t even work for all bills and systems, and getting a bank account … it all just snowballs.
Also anything outside of the major cities is kinda dead. I love it, but living and thriving there in places that have more space that would probably promote having big families, is nearly impossible, or at least impossibly boring. This is not unique to Japan, Australia is largely the same outside of the main cities.
Not sure what the fix is. But annecdotally I see these articles all the time, and yet there are kids and younger families always around, so not sure if it is as serious as they are saying, or more media hype?
Lived in Japan for many years, came back to the USA for many of the reasons you touch on. I knew a few foreigners who had non-English-teacher type jobs, but mostly, it was English teacher or English juku owner. The systemic issues, for young Japanese and for foreigners, in Japan really need to be dealt with if they have any hope of slowing their population decline. So, not going to happen.
Japan is never going to have enough immigration to significantly impact the population decline. Even back in the early 2000s, it would have taken millions of immigrants a year. Now, forget about it.
Living in inaka is not bad but not great either, for most people. So, tiny apartments in or near big cities or large houses in the middle of nowhere are pretty much the choices. Jobs in inaka? Fisherman, elderly care, sakaya, maybe some other generic retail for the eldest sons who couldn’t escape. And, of course, government jobs.
Re: media hype, yes there are still young people. But not enough. Societies need 2.1(-ish) children per couple to maintain population equilibrium. Japan, South Korea, Italy, and several other wealthy nations are way below that. Add in the Japanese propensity to live for a long time, and Logan’s Run becomes more and more thinkable each year. When the population pyramid becomes whatever shape parallel lines || are, the economics of a modern, wealthy society break down.
I gave a PD session for Japanese teachers back in like 2004 or so about why learning English would be helpful, because they might end up with a lot of immigrant children in their classes. (Or, I didn’t say, because you could use your English skills to look for jobs outside of Japan.) Of course, immigration barely happened, and many of those teachers are probably close to retirement age by now. So, my bad, I guess. Someone should do that PD today, because the situation is even worse now.
I am lucky enough to not have an English teaching job, and never have. But unless you are highly specialized, or somehow manage to start your own thing here, there seems to be limite scope as a foreigner to really have a strong career.
I am actually moving to Shiga Prefecture in a few days. It’s going to be a big change from living on the outskirts of Tokyo for the past six years. Excited to see how my perception of life in Japan changes from the move.
I’ve always had this silly dream of running a large, wealthy tech company, and attempting a startup in Japan, not reliant on business with other Japanese companies, that promotes a healthier work culture, and then stuffs the high productivity results in the faces of other companies. As a stretch goal, it could even locate out in the burbs, with an investment in better infrastructure access.
Japan has so many great things about it, but the major points around banking, sexism, and seniority really twist the image.
Its hyped by FT and more economy driven outlets because it makes them nervous. The replacement rate of births was always enough to support retirement pension plans. Now it’s not.
Japan is way ahead of the curve on this inevitable trend than other countries so it will be really interesting see how it adjusts and what markets are affected by this.
In terms of buying a house, is remote work really not a thing in Japan? Living in a remote village sounds lime a dream. Otherwise, are there no towns/villages where foreigners sort of band together and are allowed to buy property? Just curious about how Japan functions
Part of my YouTube diet is English-speaking expat YouTubers who live in Japan (UK, US, Canada, Australia), and just based on what they have shared there are some firms that specialize in property searches by foreigners. Not like “buy up a Japanese town and make it Australian”, just networking with more open-to-foreigner Japanese, and being an interface with foreigners to help them learn to integrate.
Like everywhere in the world, remote villages in Japan lack services. From restaurants to health care to home supplies, it’s more time consuming and expensive to get some things, and others are just not available. From the YouTubers I watch, the community connections enabled by the great mass transit and walkable urban areas in much of Japan (though not all - some parts ate the car-centric pill) are what keep them there, and the friction to maintaining friendships from a rural area has pushed several to move to Tokyo.
As far as “how is Japan adjusting” to population decline, elder care sucks. A lot of people die alone unnoticed (kodokushi). Markets adjust to lower supply of workers (Japan is at the cutting edge of automation), but quality of life for seniors can’t be automated.
I still don’t understand the obsession. Not everything has to be a ponzi scheme where line go up. Things can shrink, it’s ok. Not everything lasts forever. At some point you can abandon areas and let them decay.
I fully agree, but also, the whole concept of a pension plan only works if the next generation pays it forwards. Meaning this generation is paying for the current retired group, and no one will pay for them.
I mean, the way things are now we’ll be living 3-4 generations in a household anyway.
Thats not necessarily true. Pension just needs the economy to grow and even with less people the economy can be stimulated through technology. If 1 japanese with technology can produce product equivalent of 1950s 3 Japanese than that’s growth.
You make the mistake of assuming that pension plans have to be paid by the next generation. Why not use a wealth tax instead?
deleted by creator
This is just like a stock crashing because the quarterly profits did not exceed the very high growth expectations more than a lot, they only exceeded a little.
And also, new technology is still being developed
So it’s not even that all progress has stopped, things are still moving forwards
Theres a difference between going down, falling down and crashing down
Not everything has to be a ponzi scheme where line go up.
Yeah sure my personal cup of coffee is not a ponzi scheme AFAIK.
But global capitalism? Definitely a ponzi scheme 100%. Literally destroying the planet to prop it up.
Isn’t there a protection where there may not be any new Japanese births by 2050? That they’ll essentially cease to be (pure Japanese)?
If the Japanese want people to work 80 hour weeks (and go drinking with their boss every night) maybe they should make polyamorous marriage a thing. Kids are a lot easier to deal with if you have help.
From what i heard from people and read online, i really don’t understand how people even do that. Japanese work etiquette is bananas. But that aside, my job is somewhat high demand, but i draw the line at work hours. I work 42 hours a week and not a second longer. That opens up enough times for some hobbies, enough free time and everything. But if i had kids, most of that would be gone. So if you’re a work horse, you’re expected to give up everything, except work and raising kids.
That’s certainly a take on “family business”.
this story comes out every so often about japan, rarely if ever mentions (slightly) lower births per woman in italy, china, spain, or the same 1.3 as e.g. poland, finland, canada
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=false
those are 2022 figures but i doubt there’s been significant change
there’s basically no first world country above the 2.1 replacement rate
I’d say all those EU (and Canada) countries aren’t striving to be the economic powerhouse that Japan is and China already has 1.5 billion people compared to Japan’s 125 million. Plus most countries rely on immigration to make up the difference while I’ve heard (but maybe not true) that Japan is hard to immigrate to due to the disapproving culture toward foreigners.
The weird thing is that once you get a foot in the door, Japanese immigration policies actually aren’t that strict. You just need a guarantor (company) to be willing to hire you.
The language barrier and hesitancy of companies to hire non-Japanese is the actual barrier, not so much the immigration policies themselves. The government could ofcourse encourage companies to hire foreigners…but Japan changes at a glacial pace.
I’m sure they’ll be ready to deal with the new world under trump by 2035-40
fair enough. i picked those out as sort of ‘mainstream’ countries that this kind of article doesn’t get published about, while i’ve seen them about japan a few times now. be interesting to contrast immigration rates to countries with similarly difficult language and cultural barriers but that’s a bigger job i haven’t the time for now
to this article’s credit it does end with a couple of paragraphs on the korean government attempts to support “work-family balance, childcare and housing”
They actually have quite a bunch of programmes to bring foreigners in. That’s not to say that the cultural issues aren’t there but that’s a separate problem regarding integration rather than immigration.
Sure, but they often aren’t terribly appealing, outside of those that target highly qualified professionals. Japan also needs manpower to make up for shortages in areas like their agricultural and fishing industries, and the terms just kind of suck. Like, I could qualify right now to move there based on my work experience in seafood, but it would be on a 5 year, non-renewable visa, which doesn’t count at all towards establishing permanent residency and doesn’t allow me to bring my family with me.
Those sorts of programs really only appeal to people from nearby developing nations that want to go to Japan for a few years, send a ton of money back home, and then go back to live in Malaysia or the Philippines once they finish building their new house, or paying for their kid to attend a good school, or whatever. It doesn’t do much more than kick the problems of a shrinking tax base and labor pool down the line a bit, nor does it really encourage those participating in such schemes to make serious efforts at integration with the local culture.
Sooner or later, Japan needs to implement a proper immigration reform to offset low domestic birth rates, or they’ll have an elderly population that can’t fund the government and public services, because they aren’t working and the younger generation is too small to carry the load all on their own, and they also won’t have the people to care for them and provide them goods and services in their old age.
In comparison, Italy and Spain have roughly 4x the immigrant population of Japan, and Canada’s number of immigrants is nearly 10x as large.
Europe has strong immigration policies and can easily correct if needed. Italy is already outsourcing most of elderly care to other Europeans - who’s caring for Japan’s elderly?
Most likely themselves…
Yup and that’s how we get headlines like Elderly people in Japan are getting arrested on purpose because they want to go to prison
i heard alot of them get"abandoned" because theres no one left, or they commit crimes to get taken care of in prison.
Good. We need to depopulate by 50%. The earth can’t have 8 billion people. There are less than 30,000 polar bears in the whole world.
Another insane figure: wild mammals make up only 4% of all mammal biomass in the world, the other 96% is humans and our livestock. That 4% includes all whales, elephants, bears, etc.
Sorry, can’t do that under capitalism perpetual growth
line must go up forever
I know the left really (and rightfully) hates capitalism, but this isn’t a capitalism problem; it’s a society problem. You’ll always need a certain amount of labor to sustain non-working portions of the populations. Thanks to advances in technology the necessary working person percentage is decreasing but you still can’t have the majority of the population be elderly people who will never again be productive.
Other system are more stable, Egypt lasted for thousands of years, the Ottoman Empire was fairly stable without growth for a 1000. Capitalism is the the system were part of the profit is reinvested into new machinery ‘for efficiency’ to undercut competition. Once we do not have competition because there are only 2 or 3 companies (Coke and Pepsi), they fix prices and work to corrupt government to become an Oligarchy. This is why people make the state that we are entering a ‘post capital’ world.
Egypt lasted for thousands of years,
It’s called “ancient Egypt” for convenience’s sake, but it’s not just one continuous state; it’s many states that either succeeded or competed with each other as the country went through cycles of rise, decline, fragmentation and reunification. For a more familiar example think of it as another, much smaller China.
the Ottoman Empire was fairly stable without growth for a 1000.
Uh… No?
The boundaries changed, plagues came through. But politically it was mostly stable-ish of sorts ¯_(ツ)_/¯ as an economic system
I think it’s entirely possible if we reduce waste and redistribute wealth. The US pays farmers to NOT grow food to keep the price up. Total insanity.
If wage growth went up at the same rate as GDP, one part time worker could support multiple elderly people.
If wage growth went up at the same rate as GDP, one part time worker could support multiple elderly people
Then prices would have to go up at the same rate, and one part time worker would not be able to support multiple elderly people at a reasonable quality of life. It’s not about money; under capitalism money is a shorthand for how much power one has in and over society and isn’t directly convertible into useful goods at a constant rate. What you need to be looking at is total productivity, because that’s the bottleneck here. If X working people can only make Y things a day and X+Z people need 2Y things a day to survive then a society with X working people and Z non-working people can’t survive.
I get what you’re saying, but I feel like you are ignoring how much automation has allowed one person to do the work of many in the recent past. If allowed, this should continue to improve.
Edit: by recent past I mean the last 50-80 years.
Warning: swear language ahead
Da fuck “productive” is, for fuck’s sake. Anyone thought of not running human intelligence into fucking ground over a period of… what? Roughly 60 - 20 = 40 years?
Or what, humans can’t think after retirement age because <insert some bullshit>?
You absolutely can have any percentage of <insert random age group>, provided human wellbeing is being taken care of, constantly and in all aspects
Be productive as in literally just that: produce the goods society uses to sustain itself. Intelligence is only one part of the equation here (the rest of it being energy, physical wellness, etc), and even that deteriorates shortly after retirement age when people enter their 70s.
Also I have no issue with swear words, but just spamming them doesn’t substitute for an actual basis for your argument. Unless you want 70 YO people to work factory production lines, they are for all societal purposes unproductive.
I’ve got flash news then: unless I want 70 years old people to work production lines, my job (a developer) can be done by a seventy years old person. Or a job of an artist. Or <insert bunch of professions here>. Physical strength does naturally deteriorate, and that is the only thing that actually
isdoes.Now, to the more important: producing goods? Really? Since when has it become the only thing you look at? And since when producing goods is something only people-under-random-age-limit can do?
Carrying capacity of the earth is something like 15 billion with current technology, our wastefulness and overconsumption (of the rich, globally speaking) is the problem. Which reduction in population can mitigate, but not fix
But do we want to keep heading to capacity? We could have artificial scarcity eliminated with wealth redistribution and waste reduction (cars, fast fashion, food waste, many many etc). The more humans on the earth, the less possible this becomes.
World population is projected to peak out at about 10 billion, likely less because of climate change, so we won’t be getting much closer to the 15 bil limit anyway.
I don’t think climate change will prevent reaching that number, but it will increase the suffering. If we don’t start reversing climate change I believe we will try to adapt to it until we reach the limit of our ability to adapt before we perish. If we are lucky, a small fraction of the species will survive long enough for something to be able to change, but I’m talking a really long time.
It certainly can, if properly managed. But that’s not profitable, so we don’t do it.
Thats mainly indians and countries around and africans. Why people ignore this small little fact?
A lot of countries are headed there. America isn’t keeping their population growth in the replacement category either. Why do you think abortion and immigration are such an issue in America? They want the white people reproducing, not the immigrants. Wherever there is a super strict, racist or almost racist, immigration policy, look at their population growth.
