11 ms·

Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate

91 points by ethana 11y ago

kiba 11y ago
When population growth rate is negative, it makes immortality all the easier to contemplate.
- zodiakzz 11y ago
  Explain?
  - resonation 11y ago
    Space filler operations stuck in infinite loops trigger out of memory crashes.
  - everly 11y ago
    I think he/she might have meant that immortality isn't really sustainable because of overpopulation concerns unless population growth rate is negative.
    - SiVal 11y ago
      Even if population growth rate is negative, that only means that birth rate minus death rate is negative, not that birth rate itself is negative. If immortality makes the death rate zero, the growth rate can't be negative, and the birth rate would have to also be zero or growth rate would become positive again.
      - everly 11y ago
        True, and I wasn't necessarily advocating that point of view, only trying to clarify what the OP might have meant. However, I'd also add that immortality being an option doesn't necessarily mean that the death rate would become zero. Some people may opt to die or be unable to afford whatever the cost may be (not to mention homicide, accidental deaths, etc).
        SiVal 11y ago
        Also true. As you are saying, growth rate will remain non-zero birth rate minus non-zero death rate.
- philwelch 11y ago
  You are not ready for immortality.
jtzhou 11y ago
It is interesting how a country with a lot of seemingly positive aspects -- abundant natural resources and fresh water, temperate climate, stabile economy and low unemployment, and great infrastructure -- cannot convince its citizens to procreate, whereas a country like Yemen with little in development is exploding in population (doubling every 20 years). When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out of necessity than desirability.
- zxyzzxxx 11y ago
  Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.
  - xienze 11y ago
    > Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.
    - zxyzzxxx 11y ago
      I don't know what are you quoting me, and then talking about something I never wrote. ( rhetorical q. )
      - xienze 11y ago
        Well, to be honest I thought you meant "lower" birth rate. I've never heard of the concept of "lover birth" rate before.
        zxyzzxxx 11y ago
        Lower is what I meant, it was a typo. And that is not what I'm referring to in my parent comment, which is still valid.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
Birth rate is rarely the correct metric because it is affected by longevity. The metric most people are interested in is fertility rate, where Germany still has a long way to go to pass Singapore. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
- alkonaut 11y ago
  This. Birth rate has a lot of uncontrollable factors like demographics. A slump in people in ages 20-40 will inevitably leas to falling birth rate at the same fertility. And that will repeat in 20-40 years. The factor to focus on is the fertility and the fraction of working adults. Germany has a very traditional view of the labour market and women often have to stop working for years when having children. This means that a large group of women don't work, or (equally bad for the economy), a large group of women chose not to have kids. The only proven solution is subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, individual taxation.
  - tokenadult 11y ago
    The only proven solution is subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, individual taxation. This is an interesting comment to me, because I'm trying to think of example country pairs in which a country with subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, and individual taxation has a higher fertility rate than an otherwise similar country that lacks those things. The United States continues to have a higher fertility rate than many countries in Europe that have more subsidized childcare and longer mandated parental leave than the United States, for example, so I'm not sure that these public policy factors outdo the effect of other cultural and economic factors in either raising or lowering the country-wide fertility rate.
    - digitalzombie 11y ago
      US also have large immigration. I've noticed countries that have huge immigration can offset any birthrate. Japan is in trouble cause they don't have any immigration laws.
pvaldes 11y ago
Is a normal consequence on the poverty fuelled by the policies of those last years, probably. You can not expect that people think too much about having babies whereas struggling to live on microjobs. No real jobs, lots of cats and dogs. No real new babies.
- k__ 11y ago
  But aren't the poorest those who get most of the children?
  - ajmurmann 11y ago
    Yes, typically they are, even in Germany. That being said, very rich people who don't have to compromise and have others raise their children also tend to have more than average children I believe.
    - mafribe 11y ago
      There are very few of the latter, so it's at best a drop in the statistical ocean.
- jarek-foksa 11y ago
  Are they worried about being killed by famine (after having eaten their own cats and dogs), war or pandemic soon? If not, then they are not "struggling to live", which in turn means there is no need to reproduce that much. From the biological perspective, excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
  - pvaldes 11y ago
    Probably not but I can't see why "to be killed by famine" is a relevant point here (A lot of alive germans had experienced the fear to be killed by famine in their past, that's for sure, as many other people that was children in the wars and postwars). Today 7 millions of germans live with minijobs and for most of them is its only source of income. I don't really see those people reproducting like bunnies, but well... I can be wrong. Is a different kind of poverty, not the classic one. > Excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species I guess that you don't encourage the reproduction of this people?. Again, this is not the point here. We are trying to understant why germans have a low natality, not if this is convenient or not for the rest of the planet.
mg1982 11y ago
It's difficult not to see to the word 'slumped' as an editorial judgement, and I find it quite strange. The world is grotesquely overpopulated and at some point it needs to stop.
- pekk 11y ago
  There are, for example, economic ramifications of an unusually aged populace which cause modern societies like Japan's to see it as a problem.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.
  - arjn 11y ago
    You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more people, but it is unlikely to be a world worth living in.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      > You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? I have traveled all over the place, so your lousy ad hominem is unnecessary. "Crowded" is not the same as "overpopulated." > If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. Ah, so now we've moved from a factual question ("Is the world overpopulated?") to a subjective one ("At what level below the carrying capacity should human population be maintained?") which comes with a number of ethical questions ("Who are we going to forcibly sterilize to maintain that level?" for one). > If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. Undoubtedly. That is not the same thing as overpopulation, by the way, because we humans have been driving other species to extinction throughout our entire history. > The world may be able to "support" more people, but it is unlikely to be a world worth living in. This is nice and subjective, and also not the same thing as overpopulation. In the future, please try to avoid slinging around buzzwords.
Xixi 11y ago
Note that Japan fertility rate is not the worst out there: for instance Hong Kong (1.1), Singapore (1.2) and South Korea (1.2) are all bellow Japan (1.4).
- resonation 11y ago
  So you're drawing distinguishment between birth rate and fertility rate?
  - Xixi 11y ago
    Birth rate and fertility rate are not the same, so of course I distinguish. Though to be fair I think the correct term is total fertility rate, as sometimes fertility rate is defined as birth rate. Birth rate (technically, births/population rate) is the total number of live births per 1,000 of a population in a year. It is abysmal in Japan because the population is very old, so not many people are in age of making children. Total fertility rate represents the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and bear children in accordance with current age-specific fertility rates. This rate is going up as Japan is slowly making it easier for couples to have children: more day-care facilities, and most importantly Japanese society is (slowly) becoming more tolerant to mothers going back to work.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      > and most importantly Japanese society is (slowly) becoming more tolerant to mothers going back to work. Yup, but that won't prevent Japan from going right into the demography wall within a decade or two (with serious consequences on its economy, since current workers have to pay for retired ones, in a growing deficit and a climate of increasing taxes).
      - justincormack 11y ago
        Japan has a lot of overseas assets, so to some extent foreign workers will pay for Japanese retirees. It may not be enough though.
ajmurmann 11y ago
As a German who lives in the US since 8 years I am not surprised by this at all. By the time you finish university in Germany you are about 25 years old. They introduced the Bachelor/Master system, but at least when I studied, getting a Bachelor was more of a way to drop out gracefully. In addition there was a culture that expected you to stay at home until your child is at least 1 year old. Therefore there was very little support to take care of very young children. For well educated couples this leaves an extremely small window in which you can have children. That doesn't even account yet for people with other goals. Having a child means having time to try to bootstrap a startup parallel to your day job or doing extensive travel becomes extremely hard if not downright impossible. An additional factor is that most Germans aren't religious and even the ones who are are only on paper, but don't actually care very much. Religion often times plays a large role in people's desire to have children. That rarely happens in Germany.
- josteink 11y ago
  For the female part of a couple stability is important, and owning your own house/apartment plays a big role there. I've heard that getting into the house ownership market in Germany is extremely hard, with high requirements set on your own savings to be granted a loan, meaning most people don't until they are well into their 30s and maybe even their 40s. To me that certainly also sound like a contributing factor. Any comments or perspective on that?
  - justincormack 11y ago
    Most people rent, home ownership is 43%, so no I dont think people consider they need to own a home before having children. There is a stable long term rental market.
  - thoa 11y ago
    I don't think owning a house/apartment in Germany is important for most couple (to decide to have a baby). It is normal here (for my parents/grandparents/friends) to live in a rented flat and perhaps move sometime on to a own house/apartment.
  - 11y ago
arjn 11y ago
I'm skeptical of the Hans Rosling talk that many people will bring up. For one, there is no indication that the poorer countries with higher birthrates will be educated in time. Secondly, just because we can calculate the world can support more people doesn't mean that's a good thing to have. We're already losing our flora and fauna at an alarming rate. This is going to get worse with a higher population. I think sometimes people are blinded by TED talks and fail to question them.
ronald_dregan 11y ago
good. less nazis, lol.
adevine 11y ago
I'm not so sure I understand the point of view that labor shortages will be such a bad thing for the economy. If you are a worker, "high labor costs" is a very GOOD thing. For decades we've seen the value of labor fall behind the value of capital, and a more constrained labor supply might help change this.
- tiatia 11y ago
  Labor costs and salaries are declining at a staggering pace. Workers get squeezed between declining wages, asset price inflation (Germany has one of the lowest house ownership rates) and taxation. The the same time, hordes of young, male, aggressive and uneducated immigrants who believe that they have a superior religion, flood Germany. Run as long as you can.
  - lizarazucharlie 11y ago
    Uneducated you say, strange, I live and work in Germany as a software engineer in an IT company with 25 others immigrants, there isn't a SINGLE german there...
    - tiatia 11y ago
      And you came via a boat from Africa as an illegal immigrant. Congratulations. Impressive. You must be the exception. I am an immigrant for the second time. This time in Asia. But I did not come with a boat, did not clandestine cross the boarder, do not live on other peoples tax money and I have a valid work permit. I also don't harass the local population. If I did, they would throw me out faster than a rabbit gets fucked.
      - lizarazucharlie 11y ago
        My point is without educated immigrants who pays the pension of old people, Germany would face a hard time. "I also don't harass the local population". I am pretty sure they disagree, pushing people without saying "Entschuldigung" IS a harassment. How did the people on your city, on Asian, react to your more than 10 seconds out of blue stare? Didn't they think is is a harassment too?
sudeepj 11y ago
I am from India, which is second most populated country in the world. A generation ago, it was common for a couple having 3 to 4 kids. But now, even here most couples (in urban areas atleast) plan for atmost 1 kid. The sheer pace with which life moves has increased compared to one generation back. Couples (especially when both are working) simply do not have money, energy & time. India is not a developed country and still in last decade or so the birth rate is stabilising, but not decreasing.
- thanksgiving 11y ago
  According to Google, total fertility rate is at 2.50 as of 2012. This is good news. Apparently,according to The Hindu at least two populous states - UP and Bihar - have tfr above 3. Is this a matter of concern in terms of politics and public policy?
  - sudeepj 11y ago
    It is definitely a concern. Based on my experiences of meeting people from those states, things have start to change. But its slow.
- theandrewbailey 11y ago
  > A generation ago, it was common for a couple having 3 to 4 kids. But now, even here most couples (in urban areas atleast) plan for atmost 1 kid. So the birth rate is decreasing.
sitkack 11y ago
We all need birth rate below the replacement rate as well as an increase in the quality of the citizen (good education, safe environment, stimulating activities).
blux 11y ago
A diminishing population only has negative consequences for an economy in the short term, right? In the end, less people means less money needs to be made to sustain a certain standard of living.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It has a huge impact on long term quality of infrastructure and an immediate impact on social security (pensions especially). Infrastructure needs a certain population density in order to be maintained and since countries usually do not give up territory when their population drops the number of people available as a tax bas dictates that if the quantities of infrastructure remain the same that the quality should decrease. Canada would be lot more efficient for instance if it moved all of its population to the west coast but of course that's not an option for many practical reasons.
- jotm 11y ago
  It's not diminishing for Germany thanks to immigration...
philippnagel 11y ago
Well, time to automate everything then.
ExpiredLink 11y ago
That's the price of Germany's success. Force women into wage-slavery, increase immigration from all over the world. Brave new economic world.
jotm 11y ago
Can I just say that it is not a problem for Germany because they figured out they need to let immigrants in, unlike Japan. Germany has a very high number of immigrants, including (actually, mostly!) young adults who are eager to work. By all means, the country is more than safe in this regard, in stark contrast to Japan, which is trying to turn to robots for future workers (which is fine for the rest of the world, imo).
- alkonaut 11y ago
  Yes, Japan has managed to brew the deadly mix of aging population, extremely traditional values leading to very low fertility, and an extremely low acceptance of immigration. it feels almost dystopian to think about the demographics in a few decades: elderly and robots will far outnumber the rest.
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    I read posts like yours and it really saddens me. It's hard for me to respond without sounding insulting or condescending, but you are wrong on pretty much every word you write. Unfortunately, you are probably the victim of biased writing about Japan. For just one example, go here: http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/english/html/travel_and_visa/travel_and_visa_index.htm http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/english/html/travel_and_visa/t... Scroll down to the section about getting a working visa. Have a look at what is required to get such a visa and compare it to your own country. (Hint: you need a university degree and a job offer -- after that you're pretty much golden). In contrast I can't even take my Japanese wife home to Canada without paying $1500 and waiting 12-18 months to get health insurance and working privileges. I've lived in Canada, the US, the UK and Japan and Japan is by far the country with the laxest immigration policy. If you were to research the topic, you would discover that the low fertility rate is mostly due to the fact that the average age of marriage is 29.7. The average age of a first child is 30.3. Women in Japan live with their parents until they get married for the most part. Usually they work so they are both rich and free and not particularly interested in getting married (or having children). Have a look at this graph of the average age of women having their first child in the UK: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/20/article-2051374-0E757A8F00000578-84_634x422.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/20/article-2051374-0E... (source is the Daily Mail... sorry, but I'm sure you can find a similar graph from a reputable source if your are bothered to look harder than me). The west is catching on to a good thing and following Japan's lead. Just like Japan, as women take less traditional roles in society the fertility rates drop. It is practically the opposite of "extremely traditional values leading to very low fertility". I'm sure you've read plenty of pieces in the BBC or the Japan Times talking about how backward it is here. I'm sure you've heard many people talk about xenophobia in Japan because the immigrant population is very small. But in reality, like all stereotypes it is a small seed of truth covered up by a mountain of BS. It is true that the population is aging here. What young people there are seem to be flooding to big cities too, leaving a pretty big gap in the agricultural industry. There are definitely going to be problems. I often wonder if Japan will keep its position in the G8 (currently 3rd largest economy by GDP). I'm not sure that it matters all that much, though. Japan will be fine even if it is not a world economic super power. Life here is extremely good -- even for an immigrant like me. I don't think it will change that much.
jokoon 11y ago
isn't this why germany allows more immigration ?
- gahahaha 11y ago
  No - that has probably more to do with guilt after WWII than the low birth rate. A low birth rate (within limits) is obviously a good thing - the world is over populated as it is.
Zigurd 11y ago
Germany and Japan are densely populated. Except for the economic dislocations of population decline, nothing bad will happen to German or Japanese culture or society if their populations have peaked and are declining. China is also nearing zero population growth. That's when things will really start to change. On top of that, the consequences of missing population stability projections on the high side are much worse than missing them on the low side.
gizi 11y ago
And more women were needed in the workforce to avoid economic problems. Maybe there is a link between lots of women in the workforce and the low birth rate? Maybe if they stopped micromanaging these problems, they would spontaneously solve themselves? They always did.
known 11y ago
RACIALLY THE MOST TOLERANT COUNTRIES have the least birth rate; http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325502-19D0189E000005DC-313_634x274_popup.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325502-19... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Birth...

91 points by ethana 11y ago

kiba 11y ago

When population growth rate is negative, it makes immortality all the easier to contemplate.

zodiakzz 11y ago
Explain?
- resonation 11y ago
  Space filler operations stuck in infinite loops trigger out of memory crashes.
- everly 11y ago
  I think he/she might have meant that immortality isn't really sustainable because of overpopulation concerns unless population growth rate is negative.
  - SiVal 11y ago
    Even if population growth rate is negative, that only means that birth rate minus death rate is negative, not that birth rate itself is negative. If immortality makes the death rate zero, the growth rate can't be negative, and the birth rate would have to also be zero or growth rate would become positive again.
    - everly 11y ago
      True, and I wasn't necessarily advocating that point of view, only trying to clarify what the OP might have meant. However, I'd also add that immortality being an option doesn't necessarily mean that the death rate would become zero. Some people may opt to die or be unable to afford whatever the cost may be (not to mention homicide, accidental deaths, etc).
      - SiVal 11y ago
        Also true. As you are saying, growth rate will remain non-zero birth rate minus non-zero death rate.
philwelch 11y ago
You are not ready for immortality.

jtzhou 11y ago

It is interesting how a country with a lot of seemingly positive aspects -- abundant natural resources and fresh water, temperate climate, stabile economy and low unemployment, and great infrastructure -- cannot convince its citizens to procreate, whereas a country like Yemen with little in development is exploding in population (doubling every 20 years). When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out of necessity than desirability.

zxyzzxxx 11y ago
Developed countries offer alternative life goals. This, education and entertainment provide enough reasons not to have a family. Lower birth rate is a good thing in the long term, and getting non-developed countries into developed stage will accomplish that. See Gates' yearly letters.
- xienze 11y ago
  > Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.
  - zxyzzxxx 11y ago
    I don't know what are you quoting me, and then talking about something I never wrote. ( rhetorical q. )
    - xienze 11y ago
      Well, to be honest I thought you meant "lower" birth rate. I've never heard of the concept of "lover birth" rate before.
      - zxyzzxxx 11y ago
        Lower is what I meant, it was a typo. And that is not what I'm referring to in my parent comment, which is still valid.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

Birth rate is rarely the correct metric because it is affected by longevity. The metric most people are interested in is fertility rate, where Germany still has a long way to go to pass Singapore. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

alkonaut 11y ago
This. Birth rate has a lot of uncontrollable factors like demographics. A slump in people in ages 20-40 will inevitably leas to falling birth rate at the same fertility. And that will repeat in 20-40 years. The factor to focus on is the fertility and the fraction of working adults. Germany has a very traditional view of the labour market and women often have to stop working for years when having children. This means that a large group of women don't work, or (equally bad for the economy), a large group of women chose not to have kids. The only proven solution is subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, individual taxation.
- tokenadult 11y ago
  The only proven solution is subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, individual taxation. This is an interesting comment to me, because I'm trying to think of example country pairs in which a country with subsidized childcare, longer parental leave, and individual taxation has a higher fertility rate than an otherwise similar country that lacks those things. The United States continues to have a higher fertility rate than many countries in Europe that have more subsidized childcare and longer mandated parental leave than the United States, for example, so I'm not sure that these public policy factors outdo the effect of other cultural and economic factors in either raising or lowering the country-wide fertility rate.
  - digitalzombie 11y ago
    US also have large immigration. I've noticed countries that have huge immigration can offset any birthrate. Japan is in trouble cause they don't have any immigration laws.

pvaldes 11y ago

Is a normal consequence on the poverty fuelled by the policies of those last years, probably. You can not expect that people think too much about having babies whereas struggling to live on microjobs. No real jobs, lots of cats and dogs. No real new babies.

k__ 11y ago
But aren't the poorest those who get most of the children?
- ajmurmann 11y ago
  Yes, typically they are, even in Germany. That being said, very rich people who don't have to compromise and have others raise their children also tend to have more than average children I believe.
  - mafribe 11y ago
    There are very few of the latter, so it's at best a drop in the statistical ocean.
jarek-foksa 11y ago
Are they worried about being killed by famine (after having eaten their own cats and dogs), war or pandemic soon? If not, then they are not "struggling to live", which in turn means there is no need to reproduce that much. From the biological perspective, excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
- pvaldes 11y ago
  Probably not but I can't see why "to be killed by famine" is a relevant point here (A lot of alive germans had experienced the fear to be killed by famine in their past, that's for sure, as many other people that was children in the wars and postwars). Today 7 millions of germans live with minijobs and for most of them is its only source of income. I don't really see those people reproducting like bunnies, but well... I can be wrong. Is a different kind of poverty, not the classic one. > Excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species I guess that you don't encourage the reproduction of this people?. Again, this is not the point here. We are trying to understant why germans have a low natality, not if this is convenient or not for the rest of the planet.

mg1982 11y ago

It's difficult not to see to the word 'slumped' as an editorial judgement, and I find it quite strange. The world is grotesquely overpopulated and at some point it needs to stop.

pekk 11y ago
There are, for example, economic ramifications of an unusually aged populace which cause modern societies like Japan's to see it as a problem.
joshuapants 11y ago
The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.
- arjn 11y ago
  You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more people, but it is unlikely to be a world worth living in.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? I have traveled all over the place, so your lousy ad hominem is unnecessary. "Crowded" is not the same as "overpopulated." > If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. Ah, so now we've moved from a factual question ("Is the world overpopulated?") to a subjective one ("At what level below the carrying capacity should human population be maintained?") which comes with a number of ethical questions ("Who are we going to forcibly sterilize to maintain that level?" for one). > If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. Undoubtedly. That is not the same thing as overpopulation, by the way, because we humans have been driving other species to extinction throughout our entire history. > The world may be able to "support" more people, but it is unlikely to be a world worth living in. This is nice and subjective, and also not the same thing as overpopulation. In the future, please try to avoid slinging around buzzwords.

Xixi 11y ago

Note that Japan fertility rate is not the worst out there: for instance Hong Kong (1.1), Singapore (1.2) and South Korea (1.2) are all bellow Japan (1.4).

resonation 11y ago
So you're drawing distinguishment between birth rate and fertility rate?
- Xixi 11y ago
  Birth rate and fertility rate are not the same, so of course I distinguish. Though to be fair I think the correct term is total fertility rate, as sometimes fertility rate is defined as birth rate. Birth rate (technically, births/population rate) is the total number of live births per 1,000 of a population in a year. It is abysmal in Japan because the population is very old, so not many people are in age of making children. Total fertility rate represents the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and bear children in accordance with current age-specific fertility rates. This rate is going up as Japan is slowly making it easier for couples to have children: more day-care facilities, and most importantly Japanese society is (slowly) becoming more tolerant to mothers going back to work.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > and most importantly Japanese society is (slowly) becoming more tolerant to mothers going back to work. Yup, but that won't prevent Japan from going right into the demography wall within a decade or two (with serious consequences on its economy, since current workers have to pay for retired ones, in a growing deficit and a climate of increasing taxes).
    - justincormack 11y ago
      Japan has a lot of overseas assets, so to some extent foreign workers will pay for Japanese retirees. It may not be enough though.

ajmurmann 11y ago

As a German who lives in the US since 8 years I am not surprised by this at all. By the time you finish university in Germany you are about 25 years old. They introduced the Bachelor/Master system, but at least when I studied, getting a Bachelor was more of a way to drop out gracefully. In addition there was a culture that expected you to stay at home until your child is at least 1 year old. Therefore there was very little support to take care of very young children. For well educated couples this leaves an extremely small window in which you can have children. That doesn't even account yet for people with other goals. Having a child means having time to try to bootstrap a startup parallel to your day job or doing extensive travel becomes extremely hard if not downright impossible. An additional factor is that most Germans aren't religious and even the ones who are are only on paper, but don't actually care very much. Religion often times plays a large role in people's desire to have children. That rarely happens in Germany.

josteink 11y ago
For the female part of a couple stability is important, and owning your own house/apartment plays a big role there. I've heard that getting into the house ownership market in Germany is extremely hard, with high requirements set on your own savings to be granted a loan, meaning most people don't until they are well into their 30s and maybe even their 40s. To me that certainly also sound like a contributing factor. Any comments or perspective on that?
- justincormack 11y ago
  Most people rent, home ownership is 43%, so no I dont think people consider they need to own a home before having children. There is a stable long term rental market.
- thoa 11y ago
  I don't think owning a house/apartment in Germany is important for most couple (to decide to have a baby). It is normal here (for my parents/grandparents/friends) to live in a rented flat and perhaps move sometime on to a own house/apartment.
- 11y ago

arjn 11y ago

I'm skeptical of the Hans Rosling talk that many people will bring up. For one, there is no indication that the poorer countries with higher birthrates will be educated in time. Secondly, just because we can calculate the world can support more people doesn't mean that's a good thing to have. We're already losing our flora and fauna at an alarming rate. This is going to get worse with a higher population. I think sometimes people are blinded by TED talks and fail to question them.

ronald_dregan 11y ago

good. less nazis, lol.

adevine 11y ago

I'm not so sure I understand the point of view that labor shortages will be such a bad thing for the economy. If you are a worker, "high labor costs" is a very GOOD thing. For decades we've seen the value of labor fall behind the value of capital, and a more constrained labor supply might help change this.

tiatia 11y ago
Labor costs and salaries are declining at a staggering pace. Workers get squeezed between declining wages, asset price inflation (Germany has one of the lowest house ownership rates) and taxation. The the same time, hordes of young, male, aggressive and uneducated immigrants who believe that they have a superior religion, flood Germany. Run as long as you can.
- lizarazucharlie 11y ago
  Uneducated you say, strange, I live and work in Germany as a software engineer in an IT company with 25 others immigrants, there isn't a SINGLE german there...
  - tiatia 11y ago
    And you came via a boat from Africa as an illegal immigrant. Congratulations. Impressive. You must be the exception. I am an immigrant for the second time. This time in Asia. But I did not come with a boat, did not clandestine cross the boarder, do not live on other peoples tax money and I have a valid work permit. I also don't harass the local population. If I did, they would throw me out faster than a rabbit gets fucked.
    - lizarazucharlie 11y ago
      My point is without educated immigrants who pays the pension of old people, Germany would face a hard time. "I also don't harass the local population". I am pretty sure they disagree, pushing people without saying "Entschuldigung" IS a harassment. How did the people on your city, on Asian, react to your more than 10 seconds out of blue stare? Didn't they think is is a harassment too?

sudeepj 11y ago

I am from India, which is second most populated country in the world. A generation ago, it was common for a couple having 3 to 4 kids. But now, even here most couples (in urban areas atleast) plan for atmost 1 kid. The sheer pace with which life moves has increased compared to one generation back. Couples (especially when both are working) simply do not have money, energy & time. India is not a developed country and still in last decade or so the birth rate is stabilising, but not decreasing.

thanksgiving 11y ago
According to Google, total fertility rate is at 2.50 as of 2012. This is good news. Apparently,according to The Hindu at least two populous states - UP and Bihar - have tfr above 3. Is this a matter of concern in terms of politics and public policy?
- sudeepj 11y ago
  It is definitely a concern. Based on my experiences of meeting people from those states, things have start to change. But its slow.
theandrewbailey 11y ago
> A generation ago, it was common for a couple having 3 to 4 kids. But now, even here most couples (in urban areas atleast) plan for atmost 1 kid. So the birth rate is decreasing.

sitkack 11y ago

We all need birth rate below the replacement rate as well as an increase in the quality of the citizen (good education, safe environment, stimulating activities).

blux 11y ago

A diminishing population only has negative consequences for an economy in the short term, right? In the end, less people means less money needs to be made to sustain a certain standard of living.

jacquesm 11y ago
It has a huge impact on long term quality of infrastructure and an immediate impact on social security (pensions especially). Infrastructure needs a certain population density in order to be maintained and since countries usually do not give up territory when their population drops the number of people available as a tax bas dictates that if the quantities of infrastructure remain the same that the quality should decrease. Canada would be lot more efficient for instance if it moved all of its population to the west coast but of course that's not an option for many practical reasons.
jotm 11y ago
It's not diminishing for Germany thanks to immigration...

philippnagel 11y ago

Well, time to automate everything then.

ExpiredLink 11y ago

That's the price of Germany's success. Force women into wage-slavery, increase immigration from all over the world. Brave new economic world.

jotm 11y ago

Can I just say that it is not a problem for Germany because they figured out they need to let immigrants in, unlike Japan. Germany has a very high number of immigrants, including (actually, mostly!) young adults who are eager to work. By all means, the country is more than safe in this regard, in stark contrast to Japan, which is trying to turn to robots for future workers (which is fine for the rest of the world, imo).

alkonaut 11y ago
Yes, Japan has managed to brew the deadly mix of aging population, extremely traditional values leading to very low fertility, and an extremely low acceptance of immigration. it feels almost dystopian to think about the demographics in a few decades: elderly and robots will far outnumber the rest.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I read posts like yours and it really saddens me. It's hard for me to respond without sounding insulting or condescending, but you are wrong on pretty much every word you write. Unfortunately, you are probably the victim of biased writing about Japan. For just one example, go here: http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/english/html/travel_and_visa/travel_and_visa_index.htm http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/english/html/travel_and_visa/t... Scroll down to the section about getting a working visa. Have a look at what is required to get such a visa and compare it to your own country. (Hint: you need a university degree and a job offer -- after that you're pretty much golden). In contrast I can't even take my Japanese wife home to Canada without paying $1500 and waiting 12-18 months to get health insurance and working privileges. I've lived in Canada, the US, the UK and Japan and Japan is by far the country with the laxest immigration policy. If you were to research the topic, you would discover that the low fertility rate is mostly due to the fact that the average age of marriage is 29.7. The average age of a first child is 30.3. Women in Japan live with their parents until they get married for the most part. Usually they work so they are both rich and free and not particularly interested in getting married (or having children). Have a look at this graph of the average age of women having their first child in the UK: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/20/article-2051374-0E757A8F00000578-84_634x422.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/20/article-2051374-0E... (source is the Daily Mail... sorry, but I'm sure you can find a similar graph from a reputable source if your are bothered to look harder than me). The west is catching on to a good thing and following Japan's lead. Just like Japan, as women take less traditional roles in society the fertility rates drop. It is practically the opposite of "extremely traditional values leading to very low fertility". I'm sure you've read plenty of pieces in the BBC or the Japan Times talking about how backward it is here. I'm sure you've heard many people talk about xenophobia in Japan because the immigrant population is very small. But in reality, like all stereotypes it is a small seed of truth covered up by a mountain of BS. It is true that the population is aging here. What young people there are seem to be flooding to big cities too, leaving a pretty big gap in the agricultural industry. There are definitely going to be problems. I often wonder if Japan will keep its position in the G8 (currently 3rd largest economy by GDP). I'm not sure that it matters all that much, though. Japan will be fine even if it is not a world economic super power. Life here is extremely good -- even for an immigrant like me. I don't think it will change that much.

jokoon 11y ago

isn't this why germany allows more immigration ?

gahahaha 11y ago
No - that has probably more to do with guilt after WWII than the low birth rate. A low birth rate (within limits) is obviously a good thing - the world is over populated as it is.

Zigurd 11y ago

Germany and Japan are densely populated. Except for the economic dislocations of population decline, nothing bad will happen to German or Japanese culture or society if their populations have peaked and are declining. China is also nearing zero population growth. That's when things will really start to change. On top of that, the consequences of missing population stability projections on the high side are much worse than missing them on the low side.

gizi 11y ago

And more women were needed in the workforce to avoid economic problems. Maybe there is a link between lots of women in the workforce and the low birth rate? Maybe if they stopped micromanaging these problems, they would spontaneously solve themselves? They always did.

known 11y ago

RACIALLY THE MOST TOLERANT COUNTRIES have the least birth rate; http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325502-19D0189E000005DC-313_634x274_popup.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325502-19... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Birth...