Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
bbc.com
bbc.com
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.
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.
I've noticed countries that have huge immigration can offset any birthrate.
Japan is in trouble cause they don't have any immigration laws.
The fertility rate among founders in Silicon Valley is probably even lower, but that group of people is creating an immense amount of value for society in return for not creating as many kids.
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?
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.
The low birthrate is primarily driven by college-educated women having few or no children (over 30% of all German women who were born between 1964 and 1968 and had a college degree did not have any children). It has historically been difficult to be a working mother in Germany; it was both more challenging (school being out at lunchtime) and society frowned upon you being a working mother.
This has slowly been changing; reunification happened and East German women weren't having any of this nonsense; politicians realized that the net effect was that the fertility rate dropped; and the abortion debate and a subsequent judgement by the Constitutional Court forced legislation that made having children easier. As a result, it is now a whole lot easier to be a parent (single or married, male or female) than it used to be.
This did at least stabilize the fertility rate, which had been dropping before. While nominally, Germany's fertility rate is 1.4, this does not account for the fact that the great majority of German children are being born after their mothers reach the age of thirty; current estimates set the actual fertility rate -- i.e. the average number of children a woman has over her lifetime -- at 1.6. More importantly, this number did stabilize in the aughts and has actually been increasing since then for college-educated women.
Moreover, there are very few day cares that accept children after three months (which is pretty normal in The Netherlands and probably most other Western countries). This creates the perception of having to choose between a career and children (in some fields, leaving for a few years is a high-impact career choice). Luckily, things seem to be changing slowly:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/law-goes-into-ef...
There are tax incentives to have children (e.g. we wouldn't lose much income if my wife decided to stop working), unfortunately it seems that the conservative government (CDU/CSU) does not seem to be realize that most modern people don't want to live the 'man works, wife stays home with the children until they are 18'-lifestyle.
Another problem is that employers are not very flexible towards reducing the work week. Fortunately, our employer was flexible, allowing my wife to work four days. But I hear that it's hard in general for e.g. husband & wife to both work four days.
Doesn't the baby need milk in that period? Sounds like opposite of how it should be.
When given the choice, it seems humans have children more out of necessity than desirability.
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.
As for quantifying which births are "lover's" births, and which are not, well... good luck with that.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_y...
Edit: In the land I come from (south Italy) it was fairly common up to 50s and 60s for a couple to raise many children, as many as 7 or eight.
The reason is dead simple: being the economy largely based on agriculture and being schools not very common, more children meant more helping hands.
That need has basically disappeared.
In a nicer place with better finance and social security systems, you can pull it off without having a lot of children.
Japan had -and still have- a very similar issue.
The Greatest Generation were absolutely positive that the future was going to be very bright once they returned home from the war, hence the baby boom and baby boomers.
Once you account for access to contraceptives, etc. (i.e. once childbearing becomes a choice), I think this is largely what determines the birthrate, which is why most efforts to 'engineer' a higher birthrate have been so futile.
India is not a developed country and still in last decade or so the birth rate is stabilising, but not decreasing.
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?
So the birth rate is decreasing.
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.
"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?
Germany had immigrant waves from countries like Iran or Afghanistan some decades ago. But this were very highly educated people that fled due to the circumstances and were able AND WILLING to adapt.
The current African/Middle Eastern immigrants are not willing and probably not even able to adapt. "Harassment" was a polite correct way to speak of all the violence, rapes and sometimes murders that are committed.
Do you know the country with the highest cases of rapes? It is Sweden! Guess why? Yes, must be terrible people this tall blond Swedish Vikings raping their women....
Australia solved her immigration problem by just sending the people in the boats back home. Europe can not solve the problems of the world by accepting everyone that comes. In Germany, one of the most dense populated countries, alone 300.000-400.000 a year.
You can't have both. Free, unlimited immigration and social welfare. The people in Europe will have to make a decision about this.
Worse, this people are not solving their problems at home when they come but they import their problems into Europe.
One of the first google links:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
(I don't know this "Institute", so take the source with a grain of salt. But all the links will more or less report similar conclusions.)
Another link: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/muslim_sacra...
Don't forget that most of these people come from very tribal regions and backgrounds. In many places where they come from, a rape of, let's say a Christian women, that walks openly dressed and unaccompanied on the street would be considered not a big thing.
Many ideas the west has sound really absurd to these people.
Why does Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Emirates and so on not take these "refugees"? Based on their language, food requirements and religion this should be a much better fit. Yet, it would sound absurd to this countries letting them in and "feeding them for free'. Why? Because they are tribal systems as well.
That sounds like a wonderful thing. It means that the work gets done and we free up the workforce for other things. :3
Yes, a constrained labor supply will be problematic for everyone who is NOT a worker (most importantly, a large elderly population), but if you are a worker, it's almost always a good thing.
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.
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).
Yeah, and it's not a pretty way to go with solving the debt problem. This will result in higher prices for everyone, destroying savings and hurting in result the private sector. "Just" to save the government.
From the biological perspective, excessive population growth can be dangerous to the species [1].
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.
If poverty was causing reduced birth rate, we should have gone extinct long time ago. I suspect though that increased competition for non-essential resources and territory (like a new car or a house) might somehow turn off our reproductive instincts because in the past this was usually a prelude to self-destructive competition for essential goods.
I'm not encouraging or discouraging anything, I just don't see the problem. Everything seems to work according to the nature. The only thing that needs adjusting is the social security system which is based on the flawed assumption of infinite population growth.
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.
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).
For just one example, go here: 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-2051374-0E... (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.
As for immigration: If rules are very liberal, why is immigration so limited? Is it hard for foreigners to get these jobs? what about refugees and other non-professional immigration? Note that I don't think Japan is necessarily xenophobic (recent polls suggest a majority is pro immigration) but it's traditionally quite conservative and a bit "introvert" and let's agree it's not exactly a haven for the worlds poor immigrants...
The fertility rate in Japan is low, and there are many reasons for that. Like you say, as a society becomes more progressive and equal, more women will choose professional careers. This means longer educations and smaller windows for having family. That isn't the problem, the problem is that when this good thing happens, in order to keep fertility from dropping (assuming we want it to), a society must adopt things like subsidized daycare, parental leave and so on. Failing to do so means women have to choose between careers and family.
Japan will survive but an aging or shrinking population is problematic economically. It would really benefit Japan to have a higher fertility rate, and hopefully it can be done without women having to stop having careers.
I will attempt to answer your questions as best as I can. It is not hard for foreigners to get a job in Japan. There are 2 kinds of jobs: permanent positions from which it is difficult to lose your job and temporary positions which are usually renewed every year.
The first kind of position is hard to get unless you are just graduating from some kind of Japanese school (high school, trade school, university, etc). Even for Japanese people it is extremely difficult to get one of these jobs if you didn't get one right out of school. If you left your job, or were let go then it might be nearly impossible. As such, this kind of job is usually out of reach for most foreigners.
This is not necessarily a problem because there are lots of contract positions available and most foreigners are in Japan for a limited amount of time. Your initial visa is for 1-3 years (mostly depending on how much the government thinks you are at risk for not being able to support yourself if you lose your job). If you maintain your position in your job, my experience has been that the renewal is pretty much a rubber stamp. The last time I renewed it was literally a rubber stamp. The immigration official looked at my application for 10 seconds, asked me if I was still working at the same place and stamped the application -- visa renewed for 3 years!
Immigration without a university degree is quite a bit more difficult (but no more so than any other country I've lived in). I live in Shizuoka prefecture which probably has the highest migrant worker population in Japan, so my experiences may not reflect the whole of Japan. But as long as you can get a visa, there are many, many factory jobs available -- in fact there is a real shortage of workers.
The factories like to work with 1 year contract positions for their workers. This allows them to adjust the work force based on the current economic climate. Most Japanese people would like to have permanent positions, so these contract positions go unfilled for the most part.
There are also positions available for skilled workers who may not have gone to university. A good example are care workers for the elderly. In fact, there are many government programs to bring in workers from outside of the country. Like many "1st world" countries, care workers are underpaid here and since it is a very difficult job, most Japanese people would rather not do it.
So, basically, it is comparatively easy to come to Japan and get a job. In fact, many, many people do come to Japan. They just don't stay. Why?
It is hard to explain without being misunderstood, but I will try. If you are not Japanese, living in Japan is hard. This is not to say that Japanese people are hard on foreigners -- quite the opposite! Japanese people usually go out of their way to be extremely friendly and make exceptions for people who do not know the details about Japanese culture. In fact, it is this which forms most of the problem.
I usually explain Japan as an "inside - outside culture". By this I mean that in Japan people naturally form groups. For example, you have your family. You know the people who are inside your family and who are outside. Japanese people treat people on the inside of a group completely differently than the people on the outside of the group. This is integral to Japanese culture.
Now, you might imagine that this creates discrimination since you would have a group of Japanese people and a group of non-Japanese people, and to some extent this occurs. However, it works quite differently than more foreigners expect. If you are on the inside of a group you have a huge number of rules that you must follow (many of them seemingly arbitrary). You will be scolded if you breach one of these rules. At the extreme, you might even be excluded from the group if you show that you can't follow the rules. I have heard a saying, "If a nail sticks out, hammer it in. If it still sticks out, hammer it in again. If it still sticks out, throw it away". This is a pretty accurate description of what it is like on the inside of a Japanese group.
Outside the group, people are extremely polite and friendly. People will almost always go out of their way to help people outside their group. People are always smiling and say nice things. For people outside the group, you can pretty much always break the rules and get away with it. You don't even need to keep track of the rules at all because you are an outsider. The people on the inside will say, "Oh. They are an outsider. They don't know the rules. Let's forgive them".
Most foreigners, when they first come to Japan, experience being on the outside. It is very, very nice. People are so friendly and welcoming and helpful. Eventually you realize that only some of the people actually want to be nice and friendly. The rest of them are following the arbitrary rule of being friendly to outsiders.
This puts the foreigner, who is not used to Japanese culture, in a very awkward position. They aren't used to being treated so distantly. At first you think you are making lots of friends, but eventually you realize that quite a few of your "friends" are simply tolerating you out of a sense of duty. Many of the smiles are just masks and the kind words are simply repeated mindlessly without any particular intention.
At this point, many foreigners would like to get "inside" and in my experience, it is not difficult at all to get inside a group. Most groups are honestly flattered (and often surprised) that you might want to join them. But then you have to learn all the rules -- and follow them. Foreigners in Japan quickly get used to what has been called the "Gaigin Superpower" -- the ability to do whatever you want because nobody expects a foreigner to know the rules. When you start to get inside a group, though, you must always follow the rules. Any infraction -- whether you knew about the rule before hand or not -- reflects badly on the whole group.
Honestly, I know of only a few foreigners who can deal with it. Especially expats from the US or the UK often find that Japanese culture is at odds with their own moral values. They sometimes try to convince other Japanese people to change their ways and to adopt what they believe is a superior way of living. I have found that those kinds of people tend to get crushed by the sheer momentum of Japanese culture.
I suppose you could say that the above is "quite conservative and a bit `introvert`", but it is quite a bit more complicated than that. Of course my views are coloured by my experiences, but I have met many foreigners working here (both professionals and non-professionals). The people who are successful here all have pretty much the same profile: Are fluent in Japanese, are willing and able to follow arbitrary rules and be polite, try not to change Japanese ways of doing things, are willing to be "inside" several groups with all the downsides that entails.
In my experiences, the vast majority of people in the world are not willing to do those things. This is why they don't stay.
I hope you've found the above interesting. I love living in Japan. For whatever reason I find that I am actually more free here than anywhere else in the world. I am aware, however, that it is the rare foreigner that feels the way I do. I do not think that this is a bad thing, but it definitely hampers immigration.
As for improving career choices for women, I feel that this will happen as a matter of necessity in Japan. Again, it is a strange thing about Japan that most foreigners don't understand. In most parts of the world you fight to establish new ideas. These ideas spread slowly until most of the people have adopted them. In Japan it is completely different. Nothing ever changes in Japan. Everybody does things the way they have always done them. Nobody complains and everybody carries on in the same way. Then one day, somebody makes a decision that something will be done a different way. From that day forward, everybody does it that way. Everybody follows the rules. Nobody complains.
Note: Of course they complain! They just complain to their in-group ;-). Pro tip: If you want to know who your real friends are in Japan, they are the ones complaining to you.
As an example, when I first came to Japan, people used to smoke on the street while going places. Or they used to smoke while waiting for the train. One day these signs came up that said "A cigarette butt is eye level for a child. Let's stop walking and smoking." Now I barely see anyone walking around with a lit cigarette. It is now forbidden to smoke on the train platform and I can't recall ever seeing anyone break the rule.
Someday it will happen. The government will tell industry, "You must keep women working even when they have children because we need more workers". It will just happen -- no debate, no struggle, no (public) complaints.
That's Japan.
Cause, I mean, sure its no problem for the landmass or the state. For the nation/ethnicity though, it means extinction.
Some nations have no state, such as the Kurds.
Some states have multiple nations within, such as the USA (which is where the hyphenated-American thing had actually started; it made perfect sense to speak of a German-American or an Irish-American, because these persons would often merge elements of both nationalities).
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/16/article-2325502-19...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File:Birth...
I think sometimes people are blinded by TED talks and fail to question them.
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.
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.
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.
That's unnecessarily inflammatory. We could substantially reduce the birth rate by providing everyone with free birth control and promoting its usage. If that isn't sufficient we could pay money to anyone who has a vasectomy.
There are still ethical questions there, but it's a far cry from rounding up poor people and sterilizing them against their will.
The efforts to increase condom usage in sub-Saharan Africa show that this might not be very easy at all, and this assumes that the people who have children in those areas don't actually want to have children which probably isn't accurate.
> If that isn't sufficient we could pay money to anyone who has a vasectomy.
Economic coercion is still force, and still ethically shaky.
It assumes that some of the people who have children in those areas don't actually want to have children, which probably is accurate.
Moreover, the efforts to increase condom usage are targeted at reducing AIDS and other STIs. If you want to reduce birth rates you promote birth control pills. Particularly in an area where the legal system puts most of the economic burden of raising children on the mother.
> Economic coercion is still force, and still ethically shaky.
I fail to see how offering to pay someone $5,000 to have a vasectomy is less economically coercive than requiring them to pay $10,000+/year in child support for the next two decades if they get a woman pregnant.
We have to decide if we are to move forward or back. Technology can help us boost population while limiting impact, we can also branch out into new ecological niches (even those off planet) as any successful animal would. Biologically speaking, we should increase in number if we are doing well, to do otherwise isn't very natural (and ya, flora and fauna are out competed all the time, it's part of the system).
It might not be the moral thing to do, but it is definitely the natural thing to do.
Have you travelled to the US, Europe, Russia or Africa? In most parts of these continents there's nothing but nature for kilometres and kilometres with very low population density. Only large cities concentrate a lot of people, and there's still space for more if we really wanted to.
* Around 13 million hectares of forest were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year in the last decade compared to 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s. * The net change in forest area in the period 2000–2010 is estimated at –5.2 million hectares per year (an area about the size of Costa Rica), down from –8.3 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2000.
If you prefer reading about it, Collapse by Jared Diamond[1] is an exceptional book on the subject, with facts and references for every claim and anecdote.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143117009/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...
> Currently it takes 1.2 earths' worth of resources to support the earth's population
... which obviously isn't true since the earth's worth of resources currently supports its population.
Resources are finite. They are finite no matter how many humans there are on the earth. You are referring to consumption which is a large problem, but also a fixable one (edit: to a certain point, of course). It is not overpopulation.
LOL, this kind of "x amount of Earths" to support ourselves always make me laugh, because it assumes energy cannot be produced and that productivity gains do not exist. 30 years ago we were supposed to reach the "Peak petrol" point very soon, yet we found new ways to extract fossil fuels and push back that peak time to a much later time, leaving us time to develop alternative energies as well.
And we are still just literally scratching the Earth's surface. The Earth is a ball and most of its resources are far below the ground.
Overpopulation is a glibal crisis.
So the earth we are living on is in fact 1.2 earths, which is in fact 1.44 earths, which is in fact 1.728 earths, which is in fact 2.0736 earths, which is in fact at least two earths?