5 ms·

What I find really fascinating about this is that even in the depths of the birth rate crisis Japan cannot find the political will to take any of the "obvious"

What I find really fascinating about this is that even in the depths of the birth rate crisis Japan cannot find the political will to take any of the "obvious" drastic measures. Begin covering childcare costs, subsidize housing for families, etc.

peanuty1 4y ago
The current PM has said he'd like to double govt spending on child benefits. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-kishida-its-now-or-never-stop-shrinking-population-2023-01-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-kishida-...
- labster 4y ago
  They need an order of magnitude more spending. Child care is expensive and hard to find, and so is housing.
- grugagag 4y ago
  It’ll take some time for the effects to materialize. Second, many possible future parents realize how burdened their children would be in the population pyramid which is inverted beyond hope at this point.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  If child related policies don't cover a fraction of childcare then doubling that fraction won't move the needle.
- majikaja 4y ago
  Didn't they later say that 'double' was a figure of speech, and that they would increase it /after/ birth rates increase?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Aerroon 4y ago
But it probably won't work. The highest birthrates are in poor countries. Every country that became rich(er) ended up with a drastic reduction in birth rates. Piling on more money doesn't seem like it would help the issue. It sounds like you would just enter into an ever-increasing spiral of more spending to try to increase birth rates.
MrVandemar 4y ago
> birth rate crisis There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping. It might be bad for the economy (gasp!), but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse. Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off. (... and there's the downvote. The truth is not just inconvenient, it's unpalateable).
- sofixa 4y ago
  > There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping. Which is a crisis, but I'll get back to that. > but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse. > Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off. True, less people means less pollution, simplistically looked. However things aren't that simple. A person in a developed country today pollutes far more (and some like the US are even bigger outliers) than a developing one. Population growth in developing countries is huge though, with massive amounts of young people (was it Nigeria where more than 50% of the population are younger than 20?). So the population crisis in some countries won't have that much of an impact on pollution and climate change, because globally they're being replaced by multiple youngsters in developing countries, who will only pollute more as their countries develop more and more. Meanwhile, where the crisis hits hard is in social services - for instance pensions, which Japan has, are based on the idea that there will be a young working population to pay for the older non-working one, otherwise the system crumbles. It absolutely is a problem because insanely complicated problems will arrise and tough choices will have to be made - with an older, dying population, some places will simply not have enough people remaining to make it worthwhile to maintain scarce services such as healthcare, fire fighting, etc. There are already problems about companies having to close in rural places because there's nobody to pass the mantle to. Learning how to do that, and also the changes needed around evaluating everything around economic life (there will be no more growth, probably deflation, spending will have to be cut and Japan is already in massive debts, all things which are considered "bad") absolutely deserve calling it a crisis. Crisis that might have some mid-term benefits, but crisis nonetheless.
majikaja 4y ago
Leading isn't the job of a Japanese politician nowadays, staying in power is.

peanuty1 4y ago

The current PM has said he'd like to double govt spending on child benefits. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-kishida-its-now-or-never-stop-shrinking-population-2023-01-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-kishida-...

labster 4y ago
They need an order of magnitude more spending. Child care is expensive and hard to find, and so is housing.
grugagag 4y ago
It’ll take some time for the effects to materialize. Second, many possible future parents realize how burdened their children would be in the population pyramid which is inverted beyond hope at this point.
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
If child related policies don't cover a fraction of childcare then doubling that fraction won't move the needle.
majikaja 4y ago
Didn't they later say that 'double' was a figure of speech, and that they would increase it /after/ birth rates increase?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Aerroon 4y ago

But it probably won't work. The highest birthrates are in poor countries. Every country that became rich(er) ended up with a drastic reduction in birth rates. Piling on more money doesn't seem like it would help the issue. It sounds like you would just enter into an ever-increasing spiral of more spending to try to increase birth rates.

MrVandemar 4y ago

> birth rate crisis There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping. It might be bad for the economy (gasp!), but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse. Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off. (... and there's the downvote. The truth is not just inconvenient, it's unpalateable).

sofixa 4y ago
> There is no crisis. There is the fact that birth-rates are dropping. Which is a crisis, but I'll get back to that. > but it's great if you're worried (and you should be) about climate change and environmental collapse. > Population is a major driver of those things, and reducing the population takes some pressure off. True, less people means less pollution, simplistically looked. However things aren't that simple. A person in a developed country today pollutes far more (and some like the US are even bigger outliers) than a developing one. Population growth in developing countries is huge though, with massive amounts of young people (was it Nigeria where more than 50% of the population are younger than 20?). So the population crisis in some countries won't have that much of an impact on pollution and climate change, because globally they're being replaced by multiple youngsters in developing countries, who will only pollute more as their countries develop more and more. Meanwhile, where the crisis hits hard is in social services - for instance pensions, which Japan has, are based on the idea that there will be a young working population to pay for the older non-working one, otherwise the system crumbles. It absolutely is a problem because insanely complicated problems will arrise and tough choices will have to be made - with an older, dying population, some places will simply not have enough people remaining to make it worthwhile to maintain scarce services such as healthcare, fire fighting, etc. There are already problems about companies having to close in rural places because there's nobody to pass the mantle to. Learning how to do that, and also the changes needed around evaluating everything around economic life (there will be no more growth, probably deflation, spending will have to be cut and Japan is already in massive debts, all things which are considered "bad") absolutely deserve calling it a crisis. Crisis that might have some mid-term benefits, but crisis nonetheless.

majikaja 4y ago

Leading isn't the job of a Japanese politician nowadays, staying in power is.