5 ms·

Are there any Japanese people here that can shed any light as to why government interventions aren't helping?

elric 2y ago
Not Japanese myself, but have some Japanese friends. From what I understand, the cost of living is very high, and women are typically expected to stop working after marriage or childbirth, meaning the men have to bring in a fair amount of money in order to support a family, especially a family with multiple children. Given the price of larger dwellings in larger cities, this is not easily accomplished. For obvious reasons, the countryside is far cheaper, but very few young couples want to start a family out in the middle of nowhere.
- schmidtleonard 2y ago
  Market Imposed Labor Quota is so high that people aren't allowed to raise their own children. Amazing.
  - lumost 2y ago
    It's not different in the US - talk to any tech couple and you'll either hear about nannies and babysitters or a stay at home partner. Housing prices are high enough that you either must choose a very long commute with a stay at home partner, or the nanny/babysitter route. Stay at home partnership is very unappealing as Millennials were majority raised by divorced parents. Often by the parent who was stay at home and found themselves in perilous economic circumstances. Anecdotally, I'm not seeing many babies in my extended high school network. I have a daughter, but honestly could not afford more children despite both my partner and I working at top-tier tech firms. Barring a major change in circumstance, which reduced costs/competition - I would expect the birthrate in the US to follow that of Asian and European economies.
    - schmidtleonard 2y ago
      Yep, 100%.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  also, working hours remain unofficially very long with things like after-work activities, so it has the double whammy of making it nearly impossible for women to balance career with housework and also making it hard for men to contribute to housework at all.
- unscaled 2y ago
  Not Japanese either, but I have lived and worked in Japan long enough. > From what I understand, the cost of living is very high The cost of living in Japan is not as high as it used to be and lower than many other countries. There is relatively high inflation now, but that's due to a weak Yen and relatively low interest rates. If anything, Japan's cost of living has hit rock bottom in absolute terms. >Women are typically expected to stop working after marriage or childbirth That's also quite outdated. This is called "kotobuki taisha" (can be roughly translated as "Congratulatory quitting") and it used to be the norm, but nowadays most of the women return to work, usually after taking a maternity leave and childcare leave, which are guaranteed by law[1]. There is still an issue of old (or old-fashioned) bosses and colleagues who either push women to quit after childbirth or passive-aggressively hint them that they should be taking better care of their children by being full-time moms. That behavior is called "matahara" (maternity harassment) and its frowned upon, but unfortunately still quite common[2]. > men have to bring in a fair amount of money in order to support a family The cost of raising a child is high and probably a factor in choosing to have fewer children, but I don't think Japan is different from most other developed countries here. Public education is quite comprehensive in Japan, and private spending on education is lower than OECD average[3]. > Given the price of larger dwellings in larger cities Large dwellings in Tokyo and other central metropolitan areas are expensive, but you have to keep in mind modern Japanese houses are quite small by international standards, even in rural areas where land is cheap. Old Japanese houses were larger, but this is just the standard for new Japanese houses. The norm is probably somewhere around 70-120 square of meters of floor space (i.e. all floors combined). I've yet to see any Japanese person complain about the size of Japanese houses, this doesn't seem to be a concern for anyone (except for us foreigners, who got used to a different standard of living). If you're fine with a not-too-large house, you could get a house in the suburban area around Tokyo with a 2 hour commute, with mortgage for a while. But land prices rose quite a bit recently (not sure if this is true for all areas), and with the recent interest rate hikes, Japanese mortgages are not quite the nearly-free money they used to be. In short, I think most of the factors above are outdated. High cost of living for single-income families and workplace hostility towards double-income families were probably strong factor in the previous decades, but not now. I don't know if there is any accepted conclusion on the most relevant factors that affect Japan, but for me the following factors ring true: 1. Lack of daycare facilities (hoikuen): Japan has two types of pre-primary education: preschools (youchien) and daycare centers (hoikuen). Youchien end too early for working parents, and they traditionally structured around the assumption of having a full-time housewife. The mother is expected to do a lot of busywork like making bento (lunchboxes), sewing uniforms, attending various events, handling regular feedback the teacher, etc. Hoikuen is a better fit for working moms, but there seems to be a shortage, and there are long waiting lists for daycare centers in some areas. The situation seemed to have improved significantly over the last couple of years, but this was a big issue in previous year. If you can't find a daycare center, it's kinda hard for a mom to return to employment after childbirth. 2. Nomikai Culture: Japanese companies tend to constantly have Noimaki (drinking parties) after work. Depending on the company and role, these can range from once a month to 3-4 times a week, and from optional fun to implicitly mandatory. In many companies, they could be optional in theory, but schmoozing during these parties is important for promotion and relationship with your customer. This culture took a strong hit during COVID-19, and seems to have never fully recovered since. So this is another factor that may be improving, but still affected birthrates over the last 10 years. 3. Matahara: As I've mentioned above, women who choose both career and child-rearing might still suffer some harassment at work. Women who don't need to rely solely on their husband's income. Naturally, stay-at-home-dads are barely a thing in Japan. 4. Limited unskilled labor immigration: Most western countries have accepted a large number of unskilled immigrants who by definition tend to be less educated. Women education is widely accepted to be the number one factor in determining birth rate, so having high unskilled labor immigration artificially pumps up your country's birth rate as long as that immigration trend continues (the original immigrants would typically get closer the country's birthrate within a generation or two). Until recently, Japan severely restricted immigration of unskilled employees, but that has been changing too over the last few years. There are still many limitations that keep education levels higher than "completely unskilled", such as requiring Japanese language proficiency and professional exams and training, and visa recipients cannot bring their family to Japan until 5 years later (and even then with some restrictions). So I don't expect seeing big shifts in that direction for the next 10 years. [1] https://archive.is/yPcOF#selection-1581.143-1581.149 https://archive.is/yPcOF#selection-1581.143-1581.149 https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ [2] https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ [3] https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/private-spending-on-education.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/private-spending-on-...
idunnoman1222 2y ago
Sorry, which country with declining birth rates has government interventions that are working?
- Iulioh 2y ago
  France, and not even by much
  - tokinonagare 2y ago
    No. In France birth rate is sustained by immigration, and its higher fertility rate. The birth rate of the native population is well below replacement rate. So technically there is population growth, but it's not the same as before. I highly doubt Japanese are willing to go this route.
  - gruez 2y ago
    Indeed. Paying for babies works very poorly in practice. >France spent heavily on family policies (see chart 3). Since the turn of the millennium it has disbursed 3.5-4% of GDP a year on a mixture of handouts, services and tax breaks, meaning it has the highest pro-natalist spend in the OECD club of mostly rich countries. But in 2022 fewer children were born in the country than at any point since the second world war. >[...] In France each extra child over the past decade has cost [$2 million]. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/21/can-the-rich-world-escape-its-baby-crisis https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/21/c... https://archive.is/0139y https://archive.is/0139y
- endtime 2y ago
  None, by definition, right? Because the ones where policy works don't have declining birth rates.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
kelipso 2y ago
There is a theory that urban living and culture results in lower fertility, and Japan is very urban. It's happening everywhere, so probably not something easily fixable without some kind of revolutionary changes.
- WorkerBee28474 2y ago
  Just wait a few centuries and evolution will have fixed this.
bell-cot 2y ago
Here's a story (from the same web site) about a small Japanese town which is enjoying success on this front: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14730746 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14730746 My (non-Japanese) take: With a few local exceptions, the Japanese governments' interventions are all politicians eager to be seen "doing something"...without having to do anything particularly difficult. For deep, complex socioeconomic problems, "do something" interventions almost never succeed.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Problem is that it is hard to measure if a person is raising a future productive member of society, so a government cannot simply pay for one. The government can pay for babies, but incentivizing the production of just babies while not being able to incentivize the raising of the babies such that they become productive members of societies is going to be very counter productive.
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  I don't think that's the problem. It's the same issue insurance faces when setting prices. The government knows how to price insurance and hire actuaries.
conjecTech 2y ago
Most of this decline isn't driven by a change in current fertility rates, but instead by a persistent trend downward in number of reproductive-aged adults. That was locked in by the fertility rates 20-40 years ago. These things move in the timescale of decades. Even if policy were reasonably successful, it would be a quarter of a century before things stabilized.

Not Japanese myself, but have some Japanese friends. From what I understand, the cost of living is very high, and women are typically expected to stop working after marriage or childbirth, meaning the men have to bring in a fair amount of money in order to support a family, especially a family with multiple children. Given the price of larger dwellings in larger cities, this is not easily accomplished. For obvious reasons, the countryside is far cheaper, but very few young couples want to start a family out in the middle of nowhere.

schmidtleonard 2y ago
Market Imposed Labor Quota is so high that people aren't allowed to raise their own children. Amazing.
- lumost 2y ago
  It's not different in the US - talk to any tech couple and you'll either hear about nannies and babysitters or a stay at home partner. Housing prices are high enough that you either must choose a very long commute with a stay at home partner, or the nanny/babysitter route. Stay at home partnership is very unappealing as Millennials were majority raised by divorced parents. Often by the parent who was stay at home and found themselves in perilous economic circumstances. Anecdotally, I'm not seeing many babies in my extended high school network. I have a daughter, but honestly could not afford more children despite both my partner and I working at top-tier tech firms. Barring a major change in circumstance, which reduced costs/competition - I would expect the birthrate in the US to follow that of Asian and European economies.
  - schmidtleonard 2y ago
    Yep, 100%.
bobthepanda 2y ago
also, working hours remain unofficially very long with things like after-work activities, so it has the double whammy of making it nearly impossible for women to balance career with housework and also making it hard for men to contribute to housework at all.
unscaled 2y ago
Not Japanese either, but I have lived and worked in Japan long enough. > From what I understand, the cost of living is very high The cost of living in Japan is not as high as it used to be and lower than many other countries. There is relatively high inflation now, but that's due to a weak Yen and relatively low interest rates. If anything, Japan's cost of living has hit rock bottom in absolute terms. >Women are typically expected to stop working after marriage or childbirth That's also quite outdated. This is called "kotobuki taisha" (can be roughly translated as "Congratulatory quitting") and it used to be the norm, but nowadays most of the women return to work, usually after taking a maternity leave and childcare leave, which are guaranteed by law[1]. There is still an issue of old (or old-fashioned) bosses and colleagues who either push women to quit after childbirth or passive-aggressively hint them that they should be taking better care of their children by being full-time moms. That behavior is called "matahara" (maternity harassment) and its frowned upon, but unfortunately still quite common[2]. > men have to bring in a fair amount of money in order to support a family The cost of raising a child is high and probably a factor in choosing to have fewer children, but I don't think Japan is different from most other developed countries here. Public education is quite comprehensive in Japan, and private spending on education is lower than OECD average[3]. > Given the price of larger dwellings in larger cities Large dwellings in Tokyo and other central metropolitan areas are expensive, but you have to keep in mind modern Japanese houses are quite small by international standards, even in rural areas where land is cheap. Old Japanese houses were larger, but this is just the standard for new Japanese houses. The norm is probably somewhere around 70-120 square of meters of floor space (i.e. all floors combined). I've yet to see any Japanese person complain about the size of Japanese houses, this doesn't seem to be a concern for anyone (except for us foreigners, who got used to a different standard of living). If you're fine with a not-too-large house, you could get a house in the suburban area around Tokyo with a 2 hour commute, with mortgage for a while. But land prices rose quite a bit recently (not sure if this is true for all areas), and with the recent interest rate hikes, Japanese mortgages are not quite the nearly-free money they used to be. In short, I think most of the factors above are outdated. High cost of living for single-income families and workplace hostility towards double-income families were probably strong factor in the previous decades, but not now. I don't know if there is any accepted conclusion on the most relevant factors that affect Japan, but for me the following factors ring true: 1. Lack of daycare facilities (hoikuen): Japan has two types of pre-primary education: preschools (youchien) and daycare centers (hoikuen). Youchien end too early for working parents, and they traditionally structured around the assumption of having a full-time housewife. The mother is expected to do a lot of busywork like making bento (lunchboxes), sewing uniforms, attending various events, handling regular feedback the teacher, etc. Hoikuen is a better fit for working moms, but there seems to be a shortage, and there are long waiting lists for daycare centers in some areas. The situation seemed to have improved significantly over the last couple of years, but this was a big issue in previous year. If you can't find a daycare center, it's kinda hard for a mom to return to employment after childbirth. 2. Nomikai Culture: Japanese companies tend to constantly have Noimaki (drinking parties) after work. Depending on the company and role, these can range from once a month to 3-4 times a week, and from optional fun to implicitly mandatory. In many companies, they could be optional in theory, but schmoozing during these parties is important for promotion and relationship with your customer. This culture took a strong hit during COVID-19, and seems to have never fully recovered since. So this is another factor that may be improving, but still affected birthrates over the last 10 years. 3. Matahara: As I've mentioned above, women who choose both career and child-rearing might still suffer some harassment at work. Women who don't need to rely solely on their husband's income. Naturally, stay-at-home-dads are barely a thing in Japan. 4. Limited unskilled labor immigration: Most western countries have accepted a large number of unskilled immigrants who by definition tend to be less educated. Women education is widely accepted to be the number one factor in determining birth rate, so having high unskilled labor immigration artificially pumps up your country's birth rate as long as that immigration trend continues (the original immigrants would typically get closer the country's birthrate within a generation or two). Until recently, Japan severely restricted immigration of unskilled employees, but that has been changing too over the last few years. There are still many limitations that keep education levels higher than "completely unskilled", such as requiring Japanese language proficiency and professional exams and training, and visa recipients cannot bring their family to Japan until 5 years later (and even then with some restrictions). So I don't expect seeing big shifts in that direction for the next 10 years. [1] https://archive.is/yPcOF#selection-1581.143-1581.149 https://archive.is/yPcOF#selection-1581.143-1581.149 https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ [2] https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ https://mataharanet.org/en/what-is-matahara/ [3] https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/private-spending-on-education.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/private-spending-on-...

idunnoman1222 2y ago

Sorry, which country with declining birth rates has government interventions that are working?

Iulioh 2y ago
France, and not even by much
- tokinonagare 2y ago
  No. In France birth rate is sustained by immigration, and its higher fertility rate. The birth rate of the native population is well below replacement rate. So technically there is population growth, but it's not the same as before. I highly doubt Japanese are willing to go this route.
- gruez 2y ago
  Indeed. Paying for babies works very poorly in practice. >France spent heavily on family policies (see chart 3). Since the turn of the millennium it has disbursed 3.5-4% of GDP a year on a mixture of handouts, services and tax breaks, meaning it has the highest pro-natalist spend in the OECD club of mostly rich countries. But in 2022 fewer children were born in the country than at any point since the second world war. >[...] In France each extra child over the past decade has cost [$2 million]. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/21/can-the-rich-world-escape-its-baby-crisis https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/21/c... https://archive.is/0139y https://archive.is/0139y
endtime 2y ago
None, by definition, right? Because the ones where policy works don't have declining birth rates.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

kelipso 2y ago

There is a theory that urban living and culture results in lower fertility, and Japan is very urban. It's happening everywhere, so probably not something easily fixable without some kind of revolutionary changes.

WorkerBee28474 2y ago
Just wait a few centuries and evolution will have fixed this.

bell-cot 2y ago

Here's a story (from the same web site) about a small Japanese town which is enjoying success on this front: https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14730746 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14730746 My (non-Japanese) take: With a few local exceptions, the Japanese governments' interventions are all politicians eager to be seen "doing something"...without having to do anything particularly difficult. For deep, complex socioeconomic problems, "do something" interventions almost never succeed.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Problem is that it is hard to measure if a person is raising a future productive member of society, so a government cannot simply pay for one. The government can pay for babies, but incentivizing the production of just babies while not being able to incentivize the raising of the babies such that they become productive members of societies is going to be very counter productive.

AlotOfReading 2y ago
I don't think that's the problem. It's the same issue insurance faces when setting prices. The government knows how to price insurance and hire actuaries.

conjecTech 2y ago

Most of this decline isn't driven by a change in current fertility rates, but instead by a persistent trend downward in number of reproductive-aged adults. That was locked in by the fertility rates 20-40 years ago. These things move in the timescale of decades. Even if policy were reasonably successful, it would be a quarter of a century before things stabilized.