The crisis the rich world is having is that it is no longer possible to raise a family with only a single working adult, and raising a child while both parents are working full time is simply not something that everyone wants to do. It is in effect too time expensive to raise children.
Ironically the solution here is to accept a drop in productivity and create a society in which people can stay at home. There is already evidence coming in that the shift to working from home has increased the birth rate in places where it has occurred. Japan needs to fix it's work culture in order to fix it's birthrate issue, end of story.
Chinese per capita income increased 8.76x between 1978 (last year before one-child policy) and 2019, when (since 2016) two babies were allowed for everyone (so few people want a 3rd one it barely bears any significance anymore). Birth rate has decreased from 2.72 to 1.5 - from far above acceptable maximum to well, far below acceptable minimum. It's absurd to compare living standards in China in 1978 and in 2019. These were two completely different countries - West didn't see so much progress in maybe 200+ years. And yet, birth rate fell. One can quote authoritarianism - but well, China was even more authoritarian in 1978. That same thing is true everywhere - there isn't a single country where birth rates were on the rise, while living standards are improving at a good rate in most of the world.
Yes, which is why I said RICH countries, not western countries. It would have been strange for me to focus on western countries, given that this thread is about Japan.
>and because there are no social or economic forces coercing them to have kids.
This is kind of implying that the primary reason people have children is for economic reasons, but in wealthy countries children have been more of an economic burden than benefit and yet most people still choose to have children, though usually just 1 or 2.
In fact, this research (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/chart-of-th...) by the pew research center shows that within a single country (in this case the united states) birth rates are often inversely correlated with economic strength. It actually shows the birth rate increasing between 1940 and 1960, despite the fact that children were an economic burden that entire time.
I think the idea of higher income leading to lower birthrates only really applies to countries leaving deep poverty where it is common for children to work for an income. While women might not want to have 8 children, there are a lot of women who would like to have 3 or 4 children, enough to keep the birth rate at or above parity. Among that population, many won't have as many children as they want because they can't afford either the time or the cost of raising them.
The fall in birthrates is caused by countries going from undeveloped to developed, but within developed countries the birthrate is higher when the economy is stronger.
So ... you're implying that the USofA saw peak economic strength in 1825 and it's been down hill ever since?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1037156/crude-birth-rate...
With respect to both the data above and cherry picking to best fit a specious argument, of course.
But in the context of birth rates, I would say the three factors that matter the most is the infant mortality rate, the state of retirement, and the existence of child labour laws.
High infant mortality increases birth rates because parents have more "backup" children in case some die. A good retirement system reduces the number of children because people are less likely to have children just to look after them in old age, and child labour laws reduce birth rates because it turns children from an economic benefit to an economic burden.
Alternatively you could consider a country "more developed" if it has better support for parents through parental leave and baby bonuses.
So ultimately more developed = less children is a bit of a simplification, but I think it's _less_ of a simplification than more money = less children which is what I was arguing against.
There is no way for a rich country to be above replacement level this days. Their success varies, but it all seems like that being rich is incompatible with having kids. Even in single countries, for which statistics like that is available, birth rates are higher in poorer income groups, like it is in USA. Households making over $200K have 1.5x fewer kids than the poorest households. Both between countries, and within countries, main drivers of reproduction are poverty and low educational attainment.
I wouldn't want to subject more children to that.
lets say i am given incentive to move to japan and start a family there, i would contribute to the workforce, the children would be "japanese" anyway because they would be born there (from non japanese parents) and the next generation would grow to be there only.
Also seriously, no foreigners understand Japan. I don't think this is a country someone from the outside can really integrate there.
To Chinese or Japanese, God said nothing, so they simply stopped having kids once they could stop and once they had nothing pressing them to.
Only difference in our (Western) perception of China and Japan in this sense is that we see this process in China positively and Japan, negatively... That's of course cynical but true.
On the other hand, China has concentration camps for its ethnic minorities. Yes Japan doesn’t have concentration camps for Ainu, so I guess they’re doing OK?
Source?
However, gp was about foreign minorities. There have been foreign-born (Caucasian) members of the diet, for example.
I guess the one thing weird about Japan is that there is some expectation of cultural erasure -- if you immigrate and you want to fully assimilate, you have to take a Japanese name.
I lived there for years and have known many people with mixed heritage, including my own children. Many choose to live in Japan because they feel comfortable there and that it is their home.
Modern Japan has millions of immigrants, and is thankfully free of the weird borderline eugenics stuff you’re proposing in your first comment.
Making babies isn’t an end goal. Children need to be raised in loving caring families in order to thrive.
Yes, there is some juvenile behaviour from people who are prejudiced against foreigners and even mixed descent residents, but that happens in many countries including my native Australia. As with those places, the vast majority of people are perfectly agreeable and will cause you no grief.
Culturally, as long as you aren’t going out of your way to be particularly individualistic, you can participate pretty much the same as everywhere else. Of course, like many older workplaces elsewhere, you’ll have a harder time if you want to be unique and stand out.
Blanket statements are not very helpful. There are certainly people who are against immigration but there is also a large number of people who are not against it as long as it's "controlled". Nobody want open borders with no control, unless you are completely out of your mind.
> I don't think this is a country someone from the outside can really integrate there.
Many foreigners have had no problems living and loving living in Japan for centuries by now.