Japan has been grappling with its demographic statistics with a sense of urgency, particularly regarding its declining birth rate. In 2023, the country...
  • Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1041·
    28 days ago

    Decent first step, but it’s going to take an actual investment in making parenthood desirable.

    • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
      6310·
      27 days ago

      Parenthood is already desirable. There’s a biological drive and social conditioning to desire it for most people. The disincentives have just become overwhelming. Children take a hell of a lot of resources. Every aspect of modern society has drained all the time, money, energy, emotional resiliance, social support, etc that people need.

      • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
        221·
        27 days ago

        I’m logically aware that’s the case for other people, but I find it perplexing why often times. I was sterilized in my mid 20s, and I haven’t ever regretted it.

        • misty@lemmy.world
          81·
          27 days ago

          Same. I suspect fomo. I experience that for other things but I never bought that kids thing.

      • lorty@lemmy.ml
        2·
        27 days ago

        There are many other social factors that make parenthood undesirable in Japan that this does not address.

  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    80·
    27 days ago

    Daycare/Kindergarten is already free across the country for all children starting at 3 years old.

    All child healthcare is also free after a prefecture-set monthly premium (usually about 1000 yen).

    This policy announcement is specifically about making the 0-3 year old gap free.

    Honestly I’d rather just see the government pay more into the shakai hoken (the national insurance that pays for mother/father leave) so people can take more time off from work early on in the kids’ lives.

    Making it easier for parents to go back to work instead of focusing what’s good for children and parents seems par for the course.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      123·
      27 days ago

      The only solution is to make childcare paid i.e. every single person that has a child gets a stipend worth a full time job.

      Because it is a full time job.

  • A_Filthy_Weeaboo@lemmy.world
    302·
    27 days ago

    Also…loosen immigration laws?

    I know it’s a very closed off nation with deep cultural roots that is very weary of outsiders…

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    231·
    27 days ago

    What governments and corporations never understand and will never want to understand is that …

    … it isn’t about the quantity of life … or even the quantity of people who are alive or are born

    … it’s about the quality of life

    If everyone lives a comfortable, safe and fulfilling life without risk of poverty or losing everything they have, then they are more likely to have children and raise them to become productive people who will contribute to society.

    Otherwise if you don’t take care of people, they will either have no children or a bunch of children that will all grow up to become a burden to society.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      31·
      27 days ago

      Maybe we should be less focused on making more people, and more focused on enabling living people to work together to meet each other’s needs?

      People will have children. But the only thing that pushes the nationalistic desires to have a positive birth rate is the zealotry around eternal 3%+ growth of financial product. That needs a growing consumer base.

      We could be achieving an economic degrowth while simultaneously increasing the standard of living. Instead we have tech billionaires, a venture capitalist class, and a war on women’s(as well everyone else’s) bodily autonomy.

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      55·
      27 days ago

      If everyone lives a comfortable, safe and fulfilling life without risk of poverty or losing everything they have, then they are more likely to have children and raise them to become productive people who will contribute to society.

      You would assume that, but is it really true? The countries with the safest and most comfortable lives, in Scandinavia, have the lowest birth rates. The countries with the least safe and comfortable lives, in Africa, have the highest birth rates.

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
        9·
        27 days ago

        Well, countries with higher birthrates have a third option that is essentially negligible in those with lower birthrates, which is not even making it to adulthood. Effectively still less children end up becoming productive members of society. And together with that, due to less available social services, often a goal of having children survive is so they can take care of the parent when they’re older.

        As soon as infant mortality becomes a non-factor, birthrates decline drastically as well. And since children are no longer largely seen as a “life assurance” for when parents are older, and the society’s demands for productive members is higher as well, the focus really does shift to the quality of the life and the two types of reasons to have kids are harder to compare. But even among developed nations you can see differences in fertility rates.

        PS. Scandinavia doesn’t have the lowest birth rates, they actually have fairly typical birth rates for more developed regions.

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        1·
        27 days ago

        Maybe I’m reading into this wrong, but I think the interpretation of fertility statistics may be underestimating/overlooking how much rape and sexual violence contributes to the high fertility rates we’re seeing in impoverished countries struggling with widespread violence.

        Countries like the ones in Scandinavia have lower rape statistics and access to abortion which could explain a lot about those numbers and why they are the way they are. Again, it’s a just hypothesis, but one worth mentioning I think.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      1·
      27 days ago

      Hmm sarcastic or not sarcastic… This is a hard one. I’m going to guess sarcastic.