3 ms·

So just on the "lack of money" argument trope that gets rolled out in Japan whenever this topic comes up. Firstly, to get this out of the way, it's complete no

So just on the "lack of money" argument trope that gets rolled out in Japan whenever this topic comes up. Firstly, to get this out of the way, it's complete nonsense. You only need a quick glace at global fertility and income statistics to know that lower incomes mean more kids. But the psychology behind this statement indicates the true problem. They're picking this false argument because it's an easy way to say the problem is too difficult and slow to fix, so they can leave the debate at that. Because the truth is simple: they don't really want kids that much. My two cents on the solution is that it's quite simple: Japan once had far higher birth rates, and people from back then are still alive. So just ask them: "why did people want to have lots of kids back then?". The solutions would lie in those answers. But the reason it's not being approached that way is because they don't really want more kids. They want to enjoy what little spare time and freedom and money they have for themselves instead.

bamboozled 3y ago
Weren’t they asked by the ruling class to have more children? Besides it meant more farm hands, more soldiers. People have been mostly replaced with machines and bombs.
grotorea 3y ago
IIRC in Western societies fertility does go up at very high income, so I think there's some truth in that common argument. "Lack of money to raise kids in the way I wish my kids to be raised" may be closer to the truth. I think the large majority of Japanese has enough money to feed and clothe a lot of kids to an 18th century standard. edit with some links from a quick search : Here an article about this starting to happen in Sweden : https://www.niussp.org/fertility-and-reproduction/income-and-fertility-a-positive-relationship/ https://www.niussp.org/fertility-and-reproduction/income-and... A counter example from the US with fertility going down by income with no upturn at the top: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam... And a study about Japan showing richer men having more children in the past: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045600/
- jalapenos 3y ago
  They have the money to provide for them to a standard higher than modern western countries, not just to an 18th c subsistence level. Also those money examples are minor details against the backdrop of poorer countries having more kids, and poorer generations in Japan having more kids (in the 4x region). What they lack is the will. That's not a judgement: if everyone's privately ok with the situation, e.g. letting the population steadily decline in hope a natural equilibrium point will be reached, that's one thing. But collectively lying about the situation and its causes is another. Otherwise, prioritisation (e.g. having hours of unnecessary meetings versus just go home) would fix the problem automatically steadily over time.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  > I think the large majority of Japanese has enough money to feed and clothe a lot of kids to an 18th century standard. Is that true? People still needed to cook and buy (or make) clothes in the 18th century. Are 18th century standards of clothing and food lower than they are today, or did it just take a whole hell of a lot more effort for a similar outcome?
Const-me 3y ago
> why did people want to have lots of kids back then? One reason is child labor. Kids started to work as soon as they could, from ages 7-10. Modern kids are useless until adulthood. Another reason is lack of social security, childfree people would die of hunger once unable to work and people knew it. Finally, people who had kids back then didn’t necessarily want them. Reliable birth control is a modern invention. > The solutions would lie in those answers. I’m not sure how these answers gonna lead to solutions.
- jalapenos 3y ago
  Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? I wonder if any historians have studied this. As opposed to just their labor defraying part of the costs of their rearing. I've heard the argument made that no-one has kids just to exploit them, but sadly I've repeatedly witnessed otherwise, so unsure what the fraction is on this. I'd say the childfree argument is an exaggeration given the timeframe we're talking about. Japan had fertility rates of 4 as recent as the 1950s. It doesn't sound realistic at that time they expected to starve to death in old age once they couldn't work. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-japan-1800-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-j... Cheap birth control is definitely a factor everywhere, but it poses an interesting question: does it mean all these surplus kids has always just been about a lack of restraint? This seems unlikely. The "original birth control" has been around (and still widely used) since where-babies-come-from was first understood.
  - Const-me 3y ago
    > Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? Modern 10 year olds are only useless due to culture and laws. Technically they’re rather capable already, both physically and mentally. > fertility rates of 4 If you wonder why so many kids, it’s mostly due to their mortality. Infant mortality rate plummeted by more than 2 orders of magnitude since 1950: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-mortality-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-morta... I’m not sure they should solve depopulation by re-introducing high mortality.
bsder 3y ago
> So just on the "lack of money" argument trope that gets rolled out in Japan whenever this topic comes up. It's not complete nonsense, but for the wrong edge case. Japan still discriminates against women quite strongly. This means that the woman is expected to quit working and handle the entire household for the husband. That means both sets of elderly parents. ALL the major countries are grappling with the fact that elder care is making people--especially women--VERY unhappy. If a woman puts off children until her 30s, she's basically a caretaker for the rest of her life (children until 50s--parents after that). To top it off, medical caretaking is far more draining than child-rearing and has no defined end date. A whole lotta women are simply going NOPE when faced with those prospects.
- jalapenos 3y ago
  Given the raw deal most Japanese salarymen get, you could just as soon argue that the discrimination goes the other way on that arrangement. If there's any oppression in Japan, it's the old oppressing the young.
  - bsder 3y ago
    > If there's any oppression in Japan, it's the old oppressing the young. This is everywhere, not just Japan.
joemazerino 3y ago
Agreed. The financial aspect trope of raising kids is completely invalidated by comparing current financial models to the ones from early 20th century: everyone was way worse off and yet had more children. The issue is more likely related to over-use of the internet, pornography and the decline in family values.
chaosmonger7 3y ago
[dead]

bamboozled 3y ago

Weren’t they asked by the ruling class to have more children? Besides it meant more farm hands, more soldiers. People have been mostly replaced with machines and bombs.

grotorea 3y ago

IIRC in Western societies fertility does go up at very high income, so I think there's some truth in that common argument. "Lack of money to raise kids in the way I wish my kids to be raised" may be closer to the truth. I think the large majority of Japanese has enough money to feed and clothe a lot of kids to an 18th century standard. edit with some links from a quick search : Here an article about this starting to happen in Sweden : https://www.niussp.org/fertility-and-reproduction/income-and-fertility-a-positive-relationship/ https://www.niussp.org/fertility-and-reproduction/income-and... A counter example from the US with fertility going down by income with no upturn at the top: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam... And a study about Japan showing richer men having more children in the past: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045600/

jalapenos 3y ago
They have the money to provide for them to a standard higher than modern western countries, not just to an 18th c subsistence level. Also those money examples are minor details against the backdrop of poorer countries having more kids, and poorer generations in Japan having more kids (in the 4x region). What they lack is the will. That's not a judgement: if everyone's privately ok with the situation, e.g. letting the population steadily decline in hope a natural equilibrium point will be reached, that's one thing. But collectively lying about the situation and its causes is another. Otherwise, prioritisation (e.g. having hours of unnecessary meetings versus just go home) would fix the problem automatically steadily over time.
nerdponx 3y ago
> I think the large majority of Japanese has enough money to feed and clothe a lot of kids to an 18th century standard. Is that true? People still needed to cook and buy (or make) clothes in the 18th century. Are 18th century standards of clothing and food lower than they are today, or did it just take a whole hell of a lot more effort for a similar outcome?

Const-me 3y ago

> why did people want to have lots of kids back then? One reason is child labor. Kids started to work as soon as they could, from ages 7-10. Modern kids are useless until adulthood. Another reason is lack of social security, childfree people would die of hunger once unable to work and people knew it. Finally, people who had kids back then didn’t necessarily want them. Reliable birth control is a modern invention. > The solutions would lie in those answers. I’m not sure how these answers gonna lead to solutions.

jalapenos 3y ago
Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? I wonder if any historians have studied this. As opposed to just their labor defraying part of the costs of their rearing. I've heard the argument made that no-one has kids just to exploit them, but sadly I've repeatedly witnessed otherwise, so unsure what the fraction is on this. I'd say the childfree argument is an exaggeration given the timeframe we're talking about. Japan had fertility rates of 4 as recent as the 1950s. It doesn't sound realistic at that time they expected to starve to death in old age once they couldn't work. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-japan-1800-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033777/fertility-rate-j... Cheap birth control is definitely a factor everywhere, but it poses an interesting question: does it mean all these surplus kids has always just been about a lack of restraint? This seems unlikely. The "original birth control" has been around (and still widely used) since where-babies-come-from was first understood.
- Const-me 3y ago
  > Would the labor value of a 10 year old be greater than their rearing costs though? Modern 10 year olds are only useless due to culture and laws. Technically they’re rather capable already, both physically and mentally. > fertility rates of 4 If you wonder why so many kids, it’s mostly due to their mortality. Infant mortality rate plummeted by more than 2 orders of magnitude since 1950: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-mortality-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/infant-morta... I’m not sure they should solve depopulation by re-introducing high mortality.

bsder 3y ago

> So just on the "lack of money" argument trope that gets rolled out in Japan whenever this topic comes up. It's not complete nonsense, but for the wrong edge case. Japan still discriminates against women quite strongly. This means that the woman is expected to quit working and handle the entire household for the husband. That means both sets of elderly parents. ALL the major countries are grappling with the fact that elder care is making people--especially women--VERY unhappy. If a woman puts off children until her 30s, she's basically a caretaker for the rest of her life (children until 50s--parents after that). To top it off, medical caretaking is far more draining than child-rearing and has no defined end date. A whole lotta women are simply going NOPE when faced with those prospects.

jalapenos 3y ago
Given the raw deal most Japanese salarymen get, you could just as soon argue that the discrimination goes the other way on that arrangement. If there's any oppression in Japan, it's the old oppressing the young.
- bsder 3y ago
  > If there's any oppression in Japan, it's the old oppressing the young. This is everywhere, not just Japan.

joemazerino 3y ago

Agreed. The financial aspect trope of raising kids is completely invalidated by comparing current financial models to the ones from early 20th century: everyone was way worse off and yet had more children. The issue is more likely related to over-use of the internet, pornography and the decline in family values.

chaosmonger7 3y ago

[dead]