5 ms·

Miyazaki Might Be Right: Cases of a Town, a City, a Province, & a Country

more_corn 2y ago
Making our towns and cities a safe and supportive place for children is a great way to promote having children. A primary reason people choose not to have children (when they get the chance to choose) is not wanting to bring children into an inhospitable place/world/life
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  And MSM helpfully fuels hysteria about problems.
ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago
Yes we need to make things better for humans. Not for some capitalistic non human overlord system.
dudinax 2y ago
Might be right? He's obviously right.
kleene_op 2y ago
Family-friendly policies are investments that bear fruit 20 years from now, far too long a commitment for our short-sighted governments.
carpdiem 2y ago
I'm all for innovative ideas in supporting families and children, but the examples from the article hardly count as "successfully reversing fertility declines". - Nagi, Japan. TFR: 2.95 (replacement rate is ~2.1). Astonishing. This is the only true success in the article. - Nagareyama, Japan. TFR: 1.5. At this rate, the population will drop by ~25% every generation. - South Tyrol, Italy. TFR: 1.64. Marginally better than Nagareyama. Noticeably better than the rest of Italy (TFR: 1.2), but still a population in strong decline. - Czechia. TFR: 1.6 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=CZ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...). Better than the European median, but not exceptional. Roughly on a par with Lithuania (1.63), Belgium (1.59), and the UK (1.57). Noticeably behind France (1.79). None of these countries at such TFRs are even capable of maintaining their population at a stable level, and should all be regarded as undergoing some level of population collapse.
- RetiredRichard 2y ago
  "successfully reversed declining fertility rates by consistently improving and working on family policy" not "successfully reversing fertility declines" It's kinda sus that you leave the whole "rates" part out - Japan (1.2) and Tokyo (.99) vs Nagareyama (1.5 considering it's in Chiba and Tokyo) & Nagi (2.95) - Considering the Italian Birth Rate is in freefall whole South Tyrol is holding steady and above not just Italy's but also the UK. - Czecha had a 1.8 until a drop to 1.6 during 2021 to 2022 according towards your dataset with Belgium, Lit. and the UK are now below Considinder Czecha had a 1.1 in 2000, its only just makes it more impressive https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=CZ-GB-BE-LT https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
  - throwAGIway 2y ago
    It's influenced by the population wave caused by a communist president in early 1970s. The results are subpar if you normalize for that. There are a lot more adults in the age to have children right now than before, but it's going to drop hard very soon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hus%C3%A1k%27s_Children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hus%C3%A1k%27s_Children
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Exactly, the article is fluff. One thing that perplexes me about this topic is that people don't just pull up a historical birth rate chart, find the bit not that long ago when fertility rates were around 4, and then ask "why was it 4 then?". Followed by asking "how can we restore those things?". I really doubt it was because any of the popular reasons trotted out whenever this topic comes up, which usually blame money, despite us having much more money now than in days past when birthrates were way higher. I wonder why it's so hard for people just to say simple things like "it's because everyone carefully uses contraception now, and treats sex as a consumption good, because they want it but not its result - a scenario most of them treat as on par with catching malaria". Funny world we live in
  - RetiredRichard 2y ago
SomeoneFromCA 2y ago
"Free healthcare for children?". I thought Japan has universal healthcare....
mensetmanusman 2y ago
These locations required many decades of thoughtful planning to almost reach 2.0 TFR (sans the first example, which is over 2). The wealthier a country is, the more $ required to break the opportunity cost calculus. E.g. the US would require over $200k in subsidies per child to reach native fertility rates over 2.1 amongst the non-orthodox religious subset. Likelihood that this happens amongst the boomer class that still thinks like Malthus on average? Zero. They have all the political power, but no incentive.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  In the US, the cost to raise a child 0-18 per the Brookings Institute (2022), is $310k. This does not include day care or college. Children are a luxury good in the current economic system config, plain and simple, and there is no will whatsoever to invest materially in moving the needle towards support for parents. And so, the TFR marches ever downward. Future political reps might have the will to course correct, but the current folks will have to age out first.
redleader55 2y ago
Tax cuts for parents. When 50-60% of what I make goes to the state, which provides "universal"(ie. subpar) services, 20-30% of the rest goes to a landlord because home ownership is no longer afforable, it's pretty hard to have more than 1 child.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  It would be nice if the services didn't suck
  - throwAGIway 2y ago
    Is there a single place anywhere on Earth where it doesn't suck for somebody there?
    - alan-hn 2y ago
      Austria has some great public housing Public services seem to get destroyed when capitalists get involved and privatize
      - throwAGIway 2y ago
        Austria has some excessive taxes that take money away from those who can't reach the public housing because they're not deemed poor enough. People seem to get destroyed when socialists get involved and take more than half of everything they have even though they should be getting support instead. I'm not against public housing but Austria is an especially bad answer to my question. Not sure if you have ever visited but it really isn't any utopia. The public housing is still too expensive anyways.
        alan-hn 2y ago
        It is often argued that high taxes are detrimental, especially when they seem to disproportionately affect the middle class. However, in a system like Austria's, progressive taxation is designed to finance public goods and services, ensuring a high standard of living for all citizens. Austria's tax system, though progressive, provides a robust social safety net that includes healthcare, education, and housing. These services contribute to social stability and economic mobility, which are critical for the overall health of society. Contrary to the claim that public housing in Austria is "still too expensive," Austria is renowned for its effective public housing policy. In Vienna, for example, about 60% of residents live in municipally built, owned, or managed housing, which is heavily subsidized to keep it affordable. These housing policies ensure that a broad range of income groups has access to affordable living spaces, not just the poorest. This inclusivity helps prevent the social segregation seen in many cities where housing is left entirely to the market. The proof is in the outcomes. Austria enjoys a high Human Development Index and low income inequality compared to many countries with less robust social safety systems. These outcomes are not despite Austria's socialist policies but largely because of them. The systems in place ensure that wealth generated by the economy is distributed in a way that benefits a wide segment of the population, supporting overall economic stability and growth.
nottorp 2y ago
> The town began offering free medical services for children until junior high school ... Over the years, those policies have expanded to include free medical care for children through high school ... I don't understand. Japanese health care is US like by default?
- RetiredRichard 2y ago
  Japanese have a national insurance scheme, but you still have to pay copays
  - nottorp 2y ago
    For children ?!?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
epoxia 2y ago
I wonder how much of this is a selection bias of people already set on having a family choosing to settle in such a place. E.g. Tokyo population increases, Japan population decreases. Aside from the Czech example it doesn't seem like much was accomplished.

Making our towns and cities a safe and supportive place for children is a great way to promote having children. A primary reason people choose not to have children (when they get the chance to choose) is not wanting to bring children into an inhospitable place/world/life

GoblinSlayer 2y ago
And MSM helpfully fuels hysteria about problems.

ilrwbwrkhv 2y ago

Yes we need to make things better for humans. Not for some capitalistic non human overlord system.

dudinax 2y ago

Might be right? He's obviously right.

kleene_op 2y ago

Family-friendly policies are investments that bear fruit 20 years from now, far too long a commitment for our short-sighted governments.

carpdiem 2y ago

I'm all for innovative ideas in supporting families and children, but the examples from the article hardly count as "successfully reversing fertility declines". - Nagi, Japan. TFR: 2.95 (replacement rate is ~2.1). Astonishing. This is the only true success in the article. - Nagareyama, Japan. TFR: 1.5. At this rate, the population will drop by ~25% every generation. - South Tyrol, Italy. TFR: 1.64. Marginally better than Nagareyama. Noticeably better than the rest of Italy (TFR: 1.2), but still a population in strong decline. - Czechia. TFR: 1.6 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=CZ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...). Better than the European median, but not exceptional. Roughly on a par with Lithuania (1.63), Belgium (1.59), and the UK (1.57). Noticeably behind France (1.79). None of these countries at such TFRs are even capable of maintaining their population at a stable level, and should all be regarded as undergoing some level of population collapse.

RetiredRichard 2y ago
"successfully reversed declining fertility rates by consistently improving and working on family policy" not "successfully reversing fertility declines" It's kinda sus that you leave the whole "rates" part out - Japan (1.2) and Tokyo (.99) vs Nagareyama (1.5 considering it's in Chiba and Tokyo) & Nagi (2.95) - Considering the Italian Birth Rate is in freefall whole South Tyrol is holding steady and above not just Italy's but also the UK. - Czecha had a 1.8 until a drop to 1.6 during 2021 to 2022 according towards your dataset with Belgium, Lit. and the UK are now below Considinder Czecha had a 1.1 in 2000, its only just makes it more impressive https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=CZ-GB-BE-LT https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
- throwAGIway 2y ago
  It's influenced by the population wave caused by a communist president in early 1970s. The results are subpar if you normalize for that. There are a lot more adults in the age to have children right now than before, but it's going to drop hard very soon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hus%C3%A1k%27s_Children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hus%C3%A1k%27s_Children
jalapenos 2y ago
Exactly, the article is fluff. One thing that perplexes me about this topic is that people don't just pull up a historical birth rate chart, find the bit not that long ago when fertility rates were around 4, and then ask "why was it 4 then?". Followed by asking "how can we restore those things?". I really doubt it was because any of the popular reasons trotted out whenever this topic comes up, which usually blame money, despite us having much more money now than in days past when birthrates were way higher. I wonder why it's so hard for people just to say simple things like "it's because everyone carefully uses contraception now, and treats sex as a consumption good, because they want it but not its result - a scenario most of them treat as on par with catching malaria". Funny world we live in
- RetiredRichard 2y ago

SomeoneFromCA 2y ago

"Free healthcare for children?". I thought Japan has universal healthcare....

mensetmanusman 2y ago

These locations required many decades of thoughtful planning to almost reach 2.0 TFR (sans the first example, which is over 2). The wealthier a country is, the more $ required to break the opportunity cost calculus. E.g. the US would require over $200k in subsidies per child to reach native fertility rates over 2.1 amongst the non-orthodox religious subset. Likelihood that this happens amongst the boomer class that still thinks like Malthus on average? Zero. They have all the political power, but no incentive.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
In the US, the cost to raise a child 0-18 per the Brookings Institute (2022), is $310k. This does not include day care or college. Children are a luxury good in the current economic system config, plain and simple, and there is no will whatsoever to invest materially in moving the needle towards support for parents. And so, the TFR marches ever downward. Future political reps might have the will to course correct, but the current folks will have to age out first.

redleader55 2y ago

Tax cuts for parents. When 50-60% of what I make goes to the state, which provides "universal"(ie. subpar) services, 20-30% of the rest goes to a landlord because home ownership is no longer afforable, it's pretty hard to have more than 1 child.

alan-hn 2y ago
It would be nice if the services didn't suck
- throwAGIway 2y ago
  Is there a single place anywhere on Earth where it doesn't suck for somebody there?
  - alan-hn 2y ago
    Austria has some great public housing Public services seem to get destroyed when capitalists get involved and privatize
    - throwAGIway 2y ago
      Austria has some excessive taxes that take money away from those who can't reach the public housing because they're not deemed poor enough. People seem to get destroyed when socialists get involved and take more than half of everything they have even though they should be getting support instead. I'm not against public housing but Austria is an especially bad answer to my question. Not sure if you have ever visited but it really isn't any utopia. The public housing is still too expensive anyways.
      - alan-hn 2y ago
        It is often argued that high taxes are detrimental, especially when they seem to disproportionately affect the middle class. However, in a system like Austria's, progressive taxation is designed to finance public goods and services, ensuring a high standard of living for all citizens. Austria's tax system, though progressive, provides a robust social safety net that includes healthcare, education, and housing. These services contribute to social stability and economic mobility, which are critical for the overall health of society. Contrary to the claim that public housing in Austria is "still too expensive," Austria is renowned for its effective public housing policy. In Vienna, for example, about 60% of residents live in municipally built, owned, or managed housing, which is heavily subsidized to keep it affordable. These housing policies ensure that a broad range of income groups has access to affordable living spaces, not just the poorest. This inclusivity helps prevent the social segregation seen in many cities where housing is left entirely to the market. The proof is in the outcomes. Austria enjoys a high Human Development Index and low income inequality compared to many countries with less robust social safety systems. These outcomes are not despite Austria's socialist policies but largely because of them. The systems in place ensure that wealth generated by the economy is distributed in a way that benefits a wide segment of the population, supporting overall economic stability and growth.

nottorp 2y ago

> The town began offering free medical services for children until junior high school ... Over the years, those policies have expanded to include free medical care for children through high school ... I don't understand. Japanese health care is US like by default?

RetiredRichard 2y ago
Japanese have a national insurance scheme, but you still have to pay copays
- nottorp 2y ago
  For children ?!?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

epoxia 2y ago

I wonder how much of this is a selection bias of people already set on having a family choosing to settle in such a place. E.g. Tokyo population increases, Japan population decreases. Aside from the Czech example it doesn't seem like much was accomplished.