national

Japan's child population falls for 41st year to record low

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

Would be Parents find iPhones cheaper and cuter

0 ( +20 / -20 )

It has little to do with the virus, it had been dropping for 41 years! It’s has more to do with financial stability and work lifestyle balance. But those concepts just cause confusion for the LDP and Japan Inc.

18 ( +29 / -11 )

Japan's estimated child population fell for the 41st straight year to a record low, government data showed Wednesday, as women are believed to have refrained from having children due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic.

Who comes up with this stuff?? Trying to make an excuse due to the pandemic in every news is just plain stupid. STOP. NOW

21 ( +28 / -7 )

What a load of furikake! - We all know this is not the reason why “*women in Japan have refrained from having children … due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic.*”

There is

still no gov’t support for working parents as promised Oct 2021 by PM Kishida in his acceptance speech,

plus

stagnant low wages year-upon-year,

increased costs for everyday necessities,

increasing consumption taxes on everyday necessities,

increase in domestic violence on women & children,

disparity in pay between women & men for the same work,

a stagnant ‘education’ system repetitively grooming youth toward choosing one lifelong ‘career’ trajectory even though opportunities in certain fields are extremely limited and chances at advancement are slow or grounded by nepotism, …

(tired)

… please continue to add to this list . . .

26 ( +38 / -12 )

Who comes up with this stuff?? Trying to make an excuse due to the pandemic in every news is just plain stupid. STOP. NOW

It is a well described phenomenon in many countries of the world, not an excuse.

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/wr9jb/

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/early-impacts-covid-19-pandemic-findings-2020-guttmacher-survey-reproductive-health

There is no problem recognizing something that has a significant negative effect on the intention of families about having children, even if it is not the only reason.

-26 ( +5 / -31 )

Japan’s population has been dropping for a lot longer than Covid has been around.

22 ( +27 / -5 )

...as women are believed to have refrained from having children due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic.

Why not do a study and actually find out the reasons instead of just going off a theory? Sure, some women haven't been able to find a partner because they fear going out on a date and meeting someone, and maybe some women AND men are worried about finances during the pandemic so they have put off having children, but "refrained" seems a little dogmatic. 5 of my co-workers actually had babies in the last year, 8 if you include the men and none of them were concerned at all about the virus.

19 ( +21 / -2 )

just admit that the Japanese are working too much and living too little. Give this problem another decade or so, then you'll have a labor shortage of locals, which will pressure them to work even harder to support the elderly. The government can say what it wants, but it won't solve anything. Let the people live more.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

It has little to do with the virus, it had been dropping for 41 years! It’s has more to do with financial stability and work lifestyle balance. But those concepts just cause confusion for the LDP and Japan Inc.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/japanese-official-women-birth-giving-machines

Japanese official they just expecting people to give birth to a baby without care all difficulties in rising child in Japan in many aspect.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

So the virus forced couples to spend more time together, yet a decrease in births? If anything the virus should show up as an increase in births? Unless there are other social issues at play bigger than the virus.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

I can tell you from my experience the biggest problem is long working hours.

Don't get me wrong I have all lot of fun at home or with girls at work or other place as hotel are everywhere, however I work from morning to late at night.

I can't imagine to have babies on top of that.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Wow… I didn’t know that the pandemic started 41 years ago. (Being sarcastic)

The pandemic has nothing to do with this 41 years long ongoing trend.

There is almost no support from the government for families with kids.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

This is a problem across the board for nearly every developed economy and not just those in Asia, though Asia has some of the lowest Total Fertility Rates in the world. Along with Japan, South Korea, China and Singapore are all facing population declines due to very low birth rates. But it is a problem one finds in the US and across Europe, especially Italy and Russia. Even countries like Mexico have seen TFRs fall from the 6s to around 2 as the nation industrialized. Of the three dozen most developed nations in the world, those who are members of the OECD, only France has a Total Fertility Rate close to replacement. Every other nation is looking at long term population declines. Children are expensive and require a lot of time and effort to raise. For working people time and energy after work are usually in short supply, so it is not unexpected that kids too are in short supply.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Lordy, if you are a kindergarten teacher in Japan you had better start a career pivot!

6 ( +16 / -10 )

I work from morning to late at night.

As they say in Japan, bimbo hima nashi...

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

I thought this has to do with low birthrate and low marriage rates. No surprises with the low marriage rates. The cost of living has gone up and wages haven't gone up accordingly. How can you have babies if you can't provide for them? Furthermore the ridiculous health insurance premiums you have to pay per month makes it impossible to build up savings for future dreams like getting married and starting a family. On another note the mandatory pension payments you have to make are a joke. The amount you have to contribute are a lot. The payouts are extremely poor with only an average of 150 000 yen a month once you retire. Many Japanese and foreigners aren't enrolled in these schemes, illegal but you can't blame them. One wonders if Japanese in their early 20s will receive a pension when they retire. The fund is destined to collapse. Not enough people working and paying in and a evergrowing elderly population to support. That also means health insurance premiums will continually go up. Good luck if you are in Japan in 2040.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Japan's child population falls for 41st year to record low

women are believed to have refrained from having children due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic

ahhhh Japan. If it’s broke, don’t fix it.

isn’t this news a bit contradicting the article about womenomics?

where Japan says they don’t hire women executives because they are afraid of them “going on maternity leave” or whatever poor excuse is being used?

but in reality, there are less babies being born?

which is it Japan?

blame women?

Blame mothers?

blame maternity leave?

blame corona?

how about stop blaming anyone, especially the real cause of it, the oyaji government, and start making changes to improve things?

enough of this

1 ( +14 / -13 )

Why not do a study and actually find out the reasons instead of just going off a theory? 

Studies that have confirmed this happening have been done in several countries of the world already, and "just a theory" is not a criticism because in science this means it is an explanation. Same as germ theory or the circulatory system theory.

What you may be confused is thinking the article blames the population fall solely on the pandemic, in reality it just mentions this as a possible contributing factor, and unless you think the Japanese are somehow different from the rest of the human population it makes perfect sense.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

The ratio of children to Japan's overall population also fell to a record low of 11.7 percent, down 0.1 percentage point, the 48th straight year of decline.

When you live in a society where life expectancy is very high AND the largest population segments (baby boomers) are 50 years or older, "the ratio of children to Japna's overall population" naturally tends to be small. This trend will stay until most baby boomers pass away, after when the ratio will somewhat start increasing simply because the older and younger populations will be relatively more balanced.

One good news is that Japan's birth rate per women aged between 15 and 49 seemed to have hit the bottom in 2005 when the rate was 1.26. Since then it has been, though only slightly, increasing. Today it is 1.36.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Make love not kids..

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Really? Everywhere I go is always packed with noisy little ones (no problem with that).

2 ( +8 / -6 )

@socrateos

One good news is that Japan's birth rate per women aged between 15 and 49 seemed to have hit the bottom in 2005 when the rate was 1.26. Since then it has been, though only slightly, increasing. Today it is 1.36.

This "good news" is pretty moot when according to the Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare's own data the absolute figures have been crashing in burning pretty much every single year since the 70s (save for a small uptick in the 90s and one in the 00s before falling off the cliff again) .

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/wp/hakusyo/kousei/19/backdata/01-01-01-07.html

As per their data, while in 2040 the rate is forecast to hit 1.43 which may look cool but in absolute figures the country will lose another 130,000 births a year compared to 2019.

The fact is that less and less Japanese are being born with no much planning going on as to how to deal with the societal shift (i.e. super-aging tendency of society), so not much to rejoice for any of us, me thinks.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Happy Children’s Day!

8 ( +9 / -1 )

So the virus forced couples to spend more time together, yet a decrease in births? If anything the virus should show up as an increase in births? Unless there are other social issues at play bigger than the virus.

I remember at the beginning of the pandemic, some people were getting super excited about the coming baby boom, even coming up with the term "coronial baby" for those kids born because couples were forces to spend more time together. "Oh, is that a coronial baby? How cute! You got pregnant because your husband had to work from home."

5 ( +9 / -4 )

What you may be confused is thinking the article blames the population fall solely on the pandemic, in reality it just mentions this as a possible contributing factor, and unless you think the Japanese are somehow different from the rest of the human population it makes perfect sense.

Actually its the only contributing factor that the article mentions and the language used in the first paragraph to describe is clearly phrased in a way that indicates the pandemic is the main reason.

If you look at the number of births each year in Japan, the rate of decrease in 2020 and 2021 is about the same as the rate of decrease in the years immediately preceding them. This would suggest that the pandemic hasn’t had much effect on the birthrate in Japan and that various other factors are the main drivers, now as then.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Actually its the only contributing factor that the article mentions and the language used in the first paragraph to describe is clearly phrased in a way that indicates the pandemic is the main reason.

No, not at all, one thing is mentioning one extra factor that is of importance right now, but nothing in the language indicates it is the only or even the main one. [X is observed as Y is happening] can even be used for factors acting in the opposite direction.

If you look at the number of births each year in Japan, the rate of decrease in 2020 and 2021 is about the same as the rate of decrease in the years immediately preceding them. 

Yes, because other factors are involved (both facilitating and acting against this decrease), that does nothing to negate that the pandemic has been demonstrated as a cause for the reduction of the intention to have children. Nothing in my comment (nor the article) says the decrease depends on the pandemic, just that this exists and it is rational to expect it to affect the number of births as it happens in other countries and their pandemic "baby busts"

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

The number of children aged 14 or younger, including foreigners, stood at 14.65 million as of April 1, down about 250,000 from a year earlier and the lowest figure since 1950 when comparable data became available, according to the data released by the internal affairs ministry.

The story should say it, but in 1950, Japan's population was 84 million. So Japan (pop. 125 million) now has about a third fewer children than a young and genki country. The birthrate has stabilized at a low level, but since every successive generation is smaller than the previous one, this means fewer and fewer young people. Young people drive creativity and domestic consumption, and fulfill many frontline roles. This is a problem that should not be ignored. As a bonus, a country full of old people is even less likely to make any significant changes toward sustainability.

The seemingly obvious solution is immigration, but is unacceptable to many and incorrectly assumes that Japan has first dibs on the kind of immigrants it wants, skilled, law abiding, willing to assimilate, etc. Many countries in the world want these people and some pay better, have easier to learn languages, and shorter paths to citizenship.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Inevitable in a country this overpopulated that more couples will shift towards being childfree. Can only hope that the population reaches a sane level in the future, and maybe becomes a bit more decentralized while its at it.

I really don't think the pandemic had a whole lot influence. Maybe delayed a few people who were planning to have kids, but for the most part the trend was pretty consistent with what was happening before.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The economic factors are important but that’s only valid in developed countries and in general also very much overestimated as the many poorer countries with much higher birth rates surely quickly teach you. I think it’s more a matter of how the society sees that strategically and handles it quickly or intensifies the process by ignoring the problem in regard for the future development. The territorial ‘winners’ on the planet will be the people who have realized that already, with full strategy plan and conscience or not, doesn’t play a role. The overpopulation and migration streams in quite some areas show that already. While in poor countries (or expansion oriented religions) they have many kids as an insurance for themselves and the big families or clans, it also serves their countries and influence in general, although having the always same bad economic outlook. In contrary in the developed countries it is not immediately needed to have many kids as an insurance for private or societies’ wealth and development, but the lacking of children will turn out as a suicidal disaster later. No one cares for you when high aged, and no one develops and produces new technologies to keep the country economically at the top of the ranking. And then you are simply overrun and taken over by the already poorer ones with populations that consist of almost only young and hungry and strong forceful people in the midterms. They are even stupidly supported for some profit with technology, weapons, additional food , medical care and everything else to reach their world ‘leadership’ even faster than necessary. That’s the future that can be expected if nothing is done very soon. It doesn’t serve them much of course , because they cannot handle it all by themselves later, but the higher developed countries are then long occupied, gone and away and cannot even to be found in any history books, because those precarious masses everywhere again won’t have any books.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

blue

As per their data, while in 2040 the rate is forecast to hit 1.43

Still the fact is that the birth rate per women between 15 and 49 did hit the bottom in 2005. And it is slowly going up. Population will not increase unless the birth rate goes up to greater than 2.0. Yet, as it becomes closer to closer to 2.0, the population decrease slow down. You never know when the next baby boom happens - it happened before and it can happen again.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

No, not at all, one thing is mentioning one extra factor that is of importance right now, but nothing in the language indicates it is the only or even the main one. [X is observed as Y is happening] can even be used for factors acting in the opposite direction.

Actually yes, the article isn’t just mentioning one factor out of many, its attributing the trend to that one factor without proper phrasing that would indicate to the reader the caveat that this is but one among many:

Japan's estimated child population fell for the 41st straight year to a record low, government data showed Wednesday, as women are believed to have refrained from having children due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic.

The criticism that the article is poorly worded I think is valid.

Yes, because other factors are involved (both facilitating and acting against this decrease), that does nothing to negate that the pandemic has been demonstrated as a cause for the reduction of the intention to have children. 

Has this been demonstrated? You cite studies from other countries, but not Japan. The decision to have children is affected by a wide range of social factors, some of which are not universal and can vary by country (culture, economic situation, etc) so its unsafe to assume that the same variable (a pandemic)will have the same effect everywhere. Also the impact of the pandemic itself has varied considerably across countries, so the variable itself is not uniform.

I’m not saying the pandemic has had zero effect on childbirth in Japan, but I am questioning, given that there doesn’t seem to be any noticable change in the data pre/post the start of the pandemic, whether this is really a significant factor in Japan or if its impact is so small that it is little more than background noise.

Nothing in my comment (nor the article) says the decrease depends on the pandemic, just that this exists and it is rational to expect it to affect the number of births as it happens in other countries and their pandemic "baby busts"

It is reasonable to expect that it would have a negative effect on birth rates since it is difficult to think of a theory in which it would have the opposite effect, but whether it is actually having that effect in a given country is an empirical question that must be assessed by the evidence from that country. I don’t see that evidence in Japan right now, though I may be mistaken.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Actually yes, the article isn’t just mentioning one factor out of many, its attributing the trend to that one factor without proper phrasing that would indicate to the reader the caveat that this is but one among many:

Again that would be mistaken, it is mentioning one factor and it never attributes the trend to that one factor, that is all in your personal interpretation, the way it is written makes it clear that this is just one thing that may (or not) be affecting it. the same as saying "crime has spiked as more funding for the police soars" the interpretation that this factor is the cause is not valid.

Has this been demonstrated? You cite studies from other countries, but not Japan.

By citing studies that means this effect has been demonstrated, which makes it logical, rational to think it also affects Japan, unless you can demonstrate some kind of factor that would make the Japanese case unique in that the pandemic has not affected the intention of people about having children. In other words, if a factor has been identified and confirmed there is nothing strange to think this can also have an effect everywhere else, unless you can confirm this is not the case. or at least point to factors that make it unlikely.

The evidence is not coming from any single country but from a variety of them with many different social and cultural factors, thinking Japan is unique is what requires evidence, else it defaults to being just another country. Even if the specific amount of effect may be different it is not rational to expect for this to be non-existent or opposite just for Japan.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@socrateos

Still the fact is that the birth rate per women between 15 and 49 did hit the bottom in 2005. And it is slowly going up. Population will not increase unless the birth rate goes up to greater than 2.0. Yet, as it becomes closer to closer to 2.0, the population decrease slow down. You never know when the next baby boom happens - it happened before and it can happen again.

First: forget the birth rate and look at the birth figures.

Second: this article is talking about child population, if you want to talk about (overall) "population decrease" you need to factor also the people "exiting" (read; the deceased).

Again, a link to the Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare:

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/wp/hakusyo/kousei/19/backdata/01-01-01-03.html

As for 2019, 1,380,000 people die a year with 870,000 births, hence a 510,000 people loss a year. The forecast for 2040 announces 740,000 births vs 1,680,000 deaths a year, hence a 940,000 people loss a year.

And as far as any wishful baby boom goes, does the MLHW not seem to forecast anything like that any time soon.

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_21481.html

Population to crash land at around 88 Mio JPY in 2060 with already 35% people over 65 years of age from 2040 onwards.

Sorry, but I take my forecasts with hard data and facts, not happy-go-lucky optimism.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

From a non-judgmental anthropological point of view, the reduction in children, the increase in only child families, and the increase in single person households, will radically change our day to day society and culture. You can see it in Tokyo with self-absorbed persons who can't even be bothered to hold a door open for the next guy or make any form of greeting. Good or bad it is coming.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Great news for an already grossly overpopulated country.

-19 ( +4 / -23 )

blue

First: forget the birth rate and look at the birth figures.

It is the birth rate that determines if population increase or not.

If every pair gives birth to 2 children, the population remains same (the same number of parents will be replaced by the same number of children). If the rate is less, the population will decrease; if it is more, the population increase.

Therefore, it is very significant that the birth rate hit the bottom in 2005. And it is growing again ever since. As it becomes closer to 2.0, the population decrease becomes closer to zero (2 older persons get replaced by 2 new persons).

Death rate is not important in the long run since everybody dies. The rapid decrease of Japanese population today is partially due to a Japanese success: a long life expectancy of Japanese people that created a population imbalance with a larger number of elderly people (baby boomers), who are dying. This type of rapid population decrease will stop when all baby boomers pass away, creating a more balanced population map.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

How can life be harder now than it was in 1950 when the birth rate was high? Everything is plentiful today, but mental illness is pervasive.

All these people not having children are going to be lonely when they're old aren't they?

It's already happening now that people just die alone in their 1LDK and then someone comes to clean up...

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Considering the number of little humans I currently see running around here, screaming, stomping, and coughing, I can't imagine what it must have been like when people were having babies. It must have been awful.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Reckless and Chikabun, spot on.

People think that there is no consequence to such a dramatic fall of population.

Therr is no need of any bet to forecast all worst times coming : dying alone for the ones who decided family was a burden, very high taxes for everyone, increasing VAT, general decay in cities (robots yet to come to clean and maintain), etc.

Truth is life has never been as easy as it is today, but courage is not valued.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

@socrateos

(groan)

*First: forget the birth rate and look at the birth figures.*

It is the birth rate that determines if population increase or not.

Correction, the birth rate is about whether the population:

.decreases

.remains stable (the golden figure here being 2.1 (and not 2) )

.increases

You can not limit the signification of the rate to only what you like and exclude the other meanings to try to make a point.

If you want to "increase" the population, you need more than 2.1 and in Japan's case, much more to make up for the current "demographic bleeding" we're currently going through.

The reason I say to forget about the rate is, as the below earlier graph shows the rate went through the floor (i.e. below 2.1) back in 1975 and as far as forecasts go and until 2040, is not even close to being back to "sustainability"-level (i.e. 2.1) ) and this over a 65 year period! As we are not "sustainable", we are in constant decrease with no end of the tunnel yet in sight (i.e. a "death spiral")

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/wp/hakusyo/kousei/19/backdata/01-01-01-07.html

When (and if ever) we will be back to 2.1 is unknown, hence not even worth discussing at this stage, me thinks.

Death rate is not important in the long run since everybody dies. 

(Rolling my eyes and looking up to the skies...)

If you want to talk about demographics, you will need to talk about:

.people being born (not looking good)

.people being alive

.people dying (not looking good either)

Of course, you need to talk and factor in the people exiting the population. Again, you can not cherry-pick the items that you don't like to try to make a point.

This type of rapid population decrease will stop when all baby boomers pass away, creating a more balanced population map.

OK, back to basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers

.baby boomers: born 1946 - 1964, hence the oldest baby boomers are currently 76 of age and most likely already have started to pass away, the youngest are 58 and will head for retirement during this current decade.

Next: generation X: born 1965 - 1980.

If you look at this chart under the age-pyramid for 2040.

https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_21481.html

.in 2040, the 15 percent of 65 - 74 and up to 75 of age included are NOT baby boomers any more, they are Generation Xers!! Of course they are, as one generation is replacing another. Add another 10 years and pretty much ALL above 65 of age will be Generation Xers. People are continuing to age and therefore to pass away. Of course, they are!

My point being that:

.1 there is a never-ending supply of elderly people or people who will get old, hence will need to be taken care of, hence we need "replacement" to do so or to finance the task

.2 there is a very limited supply of young people to replace them, actually NOT enough. Just look at the same chart showing how we plummeted from 26 percent of up to 19 year olds in 1990 to 16 percent in 2020

Reason being (of course) that the age pyramid is now inverted.

Now, the questions being:

.will we ever stabilize the population: unknown

.if we do, when will that be: unknown

.if we do, what number will the population be: unknown

The only thing that is certain is that, if nothing changes like NOW, whatever level of population we stabilize at in some far-fetched future (i.e. hit 2.1), we will be stuck with a LOT of elderly people and not enough young people at that moment, meaning that the crunch will continue, yes I guess, until all those elderly have passed away which will take around another 20-30 years during which we need to will need to keep up the 2.1 to remain at a stable level. What generation of elderly are we talking about: millenials, Z, alpha? No clue, maybe they're not yet even born!

An additional question being:

.is a decrease in population a bad thing: unsure.

My two cents being, that globally we need to decrease the population BUT, what is sure is that we need to prepare (i.e. have a plan) to be able to deal with the seismic societal changes that this will bring. Unfortunately no such plan whatsoever is being prepared and Japan (but not only Japan) is basically sleepwalking into disaster...

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Funny they talk about the birthrate for women between 15 and 49. Since when is a 15-year old female a woman? Sounds more like child abuse and rape to me.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

@blue

The more you explain and give facts, the more some people get blinded. I don't know why.

Telling the truth is a good thing.

Raising a family is also a good thing any reasonable person shall think about.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Due to overtime pay, all do hard working, so no time for child planning.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Capitalism and the US occupation is going to spell the end of Japanese culture.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Country A has too few babies.

Country B is in the process of outlawing abortions.

Maybe countries A and B need to redistribute the babies among them?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

On the ground though, there are much more kids in the area I live in Nagoya.

More students, good subsidies.

I'm already teaching them pension collapse

2 ( +4 / -2 )

ahhhh Japan. If it’s broke, don’t fix it."

And if its broke...dont fix it either. Just create more expert panels to study and discuss the same issue over and over.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

I remember at the beginning of the pandemic, some people were getting super excited about the coming baby boom, even coming up with the term "coronial baby" for those kids born because couples were forces to spend more time together. "Oh, is that a coronial baby? How cute! You got pregnant because your husband had to work from home."

I remember such speculation. But having the kids home full time for distance learning probably limited opportunities for a little lunch hour frolic that might lead to a pregnancy. Just saying .........

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Covid may have been a contributing factor but the issues started long before the pandemic. Japan is not a child and family friendly place. People work too long hours to be able to get in any quality family time. There is a serious lack of childcare facilities and those that exist are a) hard to get into and/or b) expensive as heck. Raising a child in Japan is absurdly expensive. Many public facilities in Japan are not child-friendly or stroller-friendly - elevators at train stations are located ridiculously far away from the ticket gates; many trains lack spaces for parents to park the strollers; so many shops and restaurants have steps and stairs going up or down into them; parks in Japan lack play equipment and have absurd rules like "don't play ball" - it's a PARK!!! -...the list could go on. If the Japanese government wants to increase the birthrate, they'd better start reforming all these issues and more otherwise people are going to keep refraining from having babies.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@snowymountainhell I totally agree with all points which I would sum up to say "THE QUALITY OF LIFE" period!

*What a load of furikake! - We all know this is not the reason why “*women in Japan have refrained from having children … due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic.

There is

*still no gov’t support for working parents as promised Oct 2021 by PM Kishida in his acceptance speech,*

plus

stagnant low wages year-upon-year,

increased costs for everyday necessities,

increasing consumption taxes on everyday necessities,

*increase in domestic violence on women & children**,*

disparity in pay between women & men for the same work,

*a stagnant ‘education’ system repetitively grooming youth toward choosing one lifelong ‘career’ trajectory even though opportunities in certain fields are extremely limited and chances at advancement are slow or grounded by nepotism**, …*

(tired)

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Japan's estimated child population fell for the 41st straight year to a record low, government data showed Wednesday, as women are believed to have refrained from having children due to the expanding coronavirus pandemic.

So, according to this sentence, the pandemic has been going on for 41 years.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites