The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
Japan births fall under 330,000 in Jan-June, down 6.3% from 2023
TOKYO©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
76 Comments
sakurasuki
With long work hours and employee being punished for taking parental leave, Japan still wondering why number of babies declined?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/japan-has-some-of-the-longest-working-hours-in-the-world-its-trying-to-change.html
.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/japan-parental-leave-case-puts-spotlight-on-workers-rights-idUSKCN1VV0QD/
.
ebisen
Japan is currently both aged and overpopulated and that's the reason it can't sustain the society into an improved birth rate. When was the last time you saw someone giving up his or her seat to a pregnant lady, despite the pendant she's wearing informing everyone about? Almost never? Yes, extrapolate that to the rest of the child bearing and rearing period, and that's about the help you'll ever get.
"Excluding foreigners" - luckily they don't exclude Half's, so I did my part. Time to include foreigners better perhaps?
factchecker
Fewer humans on the planet is a good thing.
garymalmgren
This is not a problem for Japan alone.
ALL developed countries (Australia is a 1.5 live births per woman) and most developing countries (India etc) are facing a dramatic population decline and not one has reversed it.
Any theory of why Japan is facing this problem and how it should deal with it should be weighed against what we see in other countries.
Korea has a low birth rate along with active outward immigration. Yet those Koreans who settle in a new country emulate the low birth rate trend at home.
Every trick in the book has been tried and failed.
Countries that have a reasonable population growth are actually achieving that by inward immigration. That however is just a gap filling fix.
virusrex
The government: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.
JeffLee
That's not true. Canada isn't. The population grew 3.2 percent last year, faster than just about any nation on earth. I've watched the population double in my lifetime. And that's causing a series of intractable crises: very limited access to an overburdened healthcare system, overcrowded public schools, housing crisis affecting everyone but the very rich, etc., strained infrasture for which there are few funds or resources for upgrades.
Japan, with its gradually declilning population, has no such crises. Affordable housing, easily available healthcare when and where you need it, constantly improving infrastructure and environment.
It's a myth that developed countries need to pump up their populations to "susutain" themselves. It's a theory, and one that was constructed in the interests of the rich and powerful. The real-world reality is very different. Take a look also at UK and Germany. Japan would create lots more problems than it solves with large-scale immigration.
ian
Yeah but what's the birthrate
Rakuraku
garymalmgrenToday 07:36 am JST
This is not a problem for Japan alone.
Of course good to have support for people who want to have kids but it is unlikely to change much.
We just need to find ways to live with aging societies. Easier said than done though.
Aly Rustom
Preliminary data released by the ministry in August showed that the number of babies born in Japan, including to foreigners, as well as to Japanese citizens residing overseas, fell 5.7 percent from a year earlier to 350,074 in the January to June period.
So this number includes foreign babies and children born to Japanese overseas who may or may not reside in Japan in the future.
What is the number of Japanese children born in Japan during that time period?
Mr Kipling
One day its doom and gloom with no babies, next it is robots and AI will solve all our problems.
Which is it?
Fighto!
Interesting figures.
Could it be that the Japanese people are consciously choosing to depopulate their (insanely overcrowded) nation? Perhaps they are sick of the abject misery of catching public transport, trying to find childcare facilities, make reservations for hotels and restaurants on holidays etc?
A stabilised population of around 80 million is probably what they are trying to achieve - with the resultant free space, cleaner nature, ease of getting jobs, university entry and apartments, hospital beds and seats on trains. Time will tell!
carpslidy
That's a big drop, I hope more people will choose to have children
There is nothing better in life than being a parent
garymalmgren
>
garymalmgren
Geeter Mckluskie
Of course it's down. A smaller population is going to yield fewer children. The question is whether or not an increase in population is prudent considering the fact that all forecasts point to AI and mass-automation rendering 50% or more of current jobs obsolete within the next 2 decades. Also worthy of consideration is the fact that Japan is surrounded by hostile neighbors and only has around 35% self-sufficiency in terms of its own food production. At this point in Japan's history a reduction in population seems the prudent way to go. What's required is an economic shift that doesn't rely on unsustainable population growth.
Geeter Mckluskie
AI and robots will have created problems that require fewer babies. That's not necessarily doom and gloom...not if the population levels out to an optimal number that dovetails with the technology that will render 50% of current jobs obsolete within the next 2 decades.
dobre vam zajebava
I am not surprised at all.
just look around you and you will get it too,no uni degree or some experts are needed...
Tokyo Guy
"Honey, I'd love to get down with it and have a child, but I have to go drinking with the boys and the section chief, and then I have to write a report for the very same section chief, and he needs it by 9AM and we'll be out drinking until at least 1 AM, so I'll probably just go back to the office and sleep under the desk for a couple of hours. Sorry, you know how it goes. What? A divorce? Why on earth would you want to do that?"
Michael
It would be interesting to see what the growth in immigrants birth rate is by comparison
kohakuebisu
Yes, it is. The number dropping is not the story, it's been a trend for a long time, it's the size of this drop.
The current population of JHS kids is 3.17 million. 1.05m a year. The population of elementary kids is 6.05m, which I'll call a million a year. 330,000 in six months is cumulative fall of a third in six years. Imagine every child-related business, schools, etc. losing 1/3 of their demand. This is huge. Its baked in university demand for 18 year olds in 2042, graduate job seekers in 2046....
fwiw, I blame this on Covid as much as the recent inflation.
Lindsay
This trend of declining births has been going on for twenty years or more and will still continue into the future but the government’s only solution is to promote more births. They have to change their economic strategies to compensate for a shrinking population and workforce. The big one is the pension. The structure is only viable with a demographic ratios of when they created it. Now, with many more retirees and much fewer younger people to support the scam it is destined to fail. It’s already failed but the system will be totally destitute within a few decades. They’ll have the younger generation paying up to 50% of their salaries to pay the pension for the previous generation. On which they’ll only get 20% back for their pension if they are lucky.
Bringing in cheap foreign labor doesn’t work in a xenophobic culture. Japan needs a skilled workforce. The future for Japan doesn’t look very rosy.
rainyday
There is nothing "gradual" about the decline. In 2015 there were more than a million births. Now we are already under 700,000, which means more than a 30% drop in just 9 years, with the rate of decrease going up every year.
Yes, Japan doesn't have the same type of crisis as Canada does, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a crisis of its own.
These are things that exist now in Japan. Its questionable whether this will continue to be the case if the birthrate continues to crash. In terms of housing obviously more of it will be empty, but it doesn't mean that it will continue to be relatively affordable. Much of rural Japan is likely to simply be abandoned, meaning most of its housing stock will cease to exist. That will just fuel greater concentration in urban areas where services still exist, pushing up prices in those areas.
And I don't see how Japan's easily available healthcare (and Japan is way better than Canada in that regard) is going to be sustainable under the twin strains of immense numbers of elderly people needing care on the one hand, and not enough people to work as nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc on the other. Robots and AI are only going to get you so far.
kohakuebisu
The pension scheme is not pay as you go. It has a fund, pretty much the world's largest at 1.6 trillion USD, that made money last year. It is not a "scam" or a "Ponzi". That is factually incorrect. Other parts of the government's finances are likely to be more problematic. A scam will be pay as you go systems that suddenly start deciding that after paying into a system all your life to fund other people's pensions from 65, you will not get yours till you are 70.
The number of old people in Japan will start going down sometime around 2035 to 2040. Its hard to know when because we do not know what will happen with life expectancy. There are positive (less smoking, more cures) and negative (more meat, more sedentary lifestyle) trends. The basic problem with Japan's demographics is to pay for the boomers until they inevitably die, mostly in the form of health care for them. Most of the "boomers retiring" time bomb in Japan has already gone off. I would be more concerned about Europe, where people get much larger pensions, well over double many Japanese, with fewer young people and no investment fund to support them.
grund
What the article doesn't mention is that compared to other countries the Japanese birthrate is not all that bad. Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, Germany, Italy, and many other developed countries have just as low or lower numbers.
rainyday
Uh, no. Even compared to other countries, Japan's birthrate is extremely low.
Japan ranks #212 out of 227 jurisdictions in terms of Total Fertility Rate:
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison/
The fact that South Korea, Italy and a small handful of countries are a bit lower than Japan doesn't even remotely mean that Japan's birthrate "is not all that bad."
Alongfortheride
Who would ever want to have a child in Japan when all of the income of the married couples ends up going back to the Japanese government in some kind of taxes! They simply can not afford to have a child. Last year (and this year is looking like the same) just under 70% of my income went to the government in some form of tax. And then everything I purchase with the remainder 10% end up with them again in consumption tax.
So there is zero incentive for anyone to have a family here.
rainyday
That is in no way typical. My tax burden last year (consisting of income tax, residential tax and property tax on my home) was well under 30% of my income.
grc
How about making childbirth free in hospitals?
Zaphod
garymalmgren
That is a false assumption, as "inward immigration" means an influx of adults, not of babies. So it makes the population pyramid even worse in the long run.
JeffLee
@rainyday
2022- 124,997,5781.26
2020- 126,304,5431.30
2015- 127,275,8721.42
2010-128,185,2751.36
The trend looks pretty "gradual" to me.
Yes, yes, we know. Certain politicians and social scientists have been warning repeatedly about this for a couple of decades now. In the meantime, Japan's infrastructure, housing, healthcare, environment, etc. have improved marketly, to a greater extent than in many of the population-pumping neo-liberal paradises like Canada, where a recent poll finds that that 70% of the population believe the country is "broken," due to such issues as, well, infrastrucuture, housing, healthcare, etc.
Zaphod
Rainyday
Japan is in the same range as Western Europe, hardly any difference. The most dramatic population collapse is South Korea, hands down.
Zaphod
grc
It is free in many EU countries with the same demographic problem. That alone will not solve it.
rainyday
That isn't a response to my point. We are talking about the birth rate, not total population (which will only be directly affected by the former many years from now). The birth rate has fallen by more than 30% in just the past 9 years, and is on track to continue falling in the years to come. That is not gradual, that is catastrophic.
If you start with a population of 1000 and there is a 30% reduction in the next generation that next generation will have a population of just 700. But in Japan the 30% reduction isn't over the course of a generation, its over the course of 9 years. Given that the average age for having a first child in Japan is 31, that 9 years represents less than 1/3 of a generation.
So if the birth rate continues to fall at the same rate it has for the past 9 years, within a single generation the population cohort will go from 1,000 in generation 1 to just 343 in generation 2. That is almost a 70% drop in population from generation to generation, its absolutely catastrophic.
The decline in total population you cite is the delayed effect of what were, compared to what is happening now, extremely minor birth rate declines that happened about 30-40 years earlier. This is not a linear thing, when the actual effects of today's collapsing birth rate actually hit the effect on total population will not be the "gradual" decrease we see today, it will be massive.
Also even looking at the data on total population today the trend is hardly "gradual" - the population decline is increasing at an exponential rate. The natural decline in population is, using the years you cite:
2010 -125,000
2015 -284,000
2020 -531,000
2022 - 798,000
In other words the size of the decline has been doubling roughly every five years, rather than just increasing at a linear rate. Its likely to surpass the million mark this year.
Yes, and they are right to be raising such concerns. Just because the Titanic is still above water doesn't mean that the people pointing at the giant hole in its side are being irrational fearmongers.
How exactly have any of those things improved in Japan over the last 20-30 years? Most of those things are more or less fine, but they have been more or less fine for decades, and there is zero evidence that Japan's declining birth rates have had any positive effect on them.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Canada's problems are irrelevant to Japan's. Just because Canadian infrastructure, housing, healthcare (etc) are all facing crises of their own doesn't mean that Japan's collapsing birthrate isn't a problem to Japan.
kohakuebisu
Next year, the population of elementary school kids will likely fall by about 170,000 as the 1.04m of 2012 are replaced by the 0.865m of 2019.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/612152/japan-life-births/
Assume 28 kids a class, under 20 is common in inaka, and that's around 6000 fewer classes. The same will happen again in April 2026 and 2027. A lot of empty desks and a lot less demand for schools and for teachers. The same across all child-related parts of the economy.
virusrex
Compared with inconceivable higher burden of raising the child this is not even something that could be considered an advantage, is like "helping" people buy houses by giving them a free window cleaning for each purchase.
Mr Kipling
Some women are leaving it too late.
The average age for a first childbirth in Japan is 31 years. Unfortunately 16% of women over the age of 30 have already lost the ability to conceive.
Fighto!
Some women are leaving it too late.
It's not all on women - men's viability of sperm drops markedly as we age. All those 80 year old celebrities and moguls fathering children out there are getting "help" - make no mistake.
But maybe, just maybe, there are less men and women in Japan interested in reproducing anymire.
Mr Kipling
Who said it is all on women. Just stating a fact that 16% of previously fertile women have lost the ability before the average of childbirth. However much those women try, they will never have a child.
Fighto!
Source : Trust me bro
Zaphod
rainyday
The thing about wealth and birthrates is that if they are correlated, they are so in a negative way. The places with high birth rates tend to be the proverbial s-holes with terrible living conditions, while in the wealthy places with high living standards, they are going down, with people weighing children against material possessions. Just look at the birthrate by country list someone posted earlier.
This is a very tricky problem to solve by simply throwing money at it.
Geeter Mckluskie
It pretty much is when you calculate all the government grants above and beyond its National Insurance program, such as a ￥500,000 grant which not only covers the remaining costs that insurance doesn't cover, but allows for some remaining money for the transition out of the hospital into the home.
Geeter Mckluskie
We've managed to raise 5 children, who don't want for anything on my modest salary alone with my wife staying home to raise the children. One huge reason is the inconceivable low cost of housing in Japan.
virusrex
Any source to support this claim? because it surely looks like a huge misrepresentation.
That is not reflected on the opinions from the population, anybody can claim to be able to do something but that is not an argument that actually proves this is actually easy to do, is like someone saying he just decided to quit smoking a decade ago and had zero problems doing it
For the general population the cost is a very important factor not to have children
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20230525/p2a/00m/0na/010000c
Geeter Mckluskie
virusrex
How do this in any way contradict the first part of the quote? the reference clearly, unequivocally support the claim since the cost of raising a child is given as the most frequent reason for not having them.
Zaphod
virusrex
Non sequitur. Clearly, among the populations that have very little money, this is no reason not to have children. The "high cost" response is only given in societies where people actually have money.
Geeter Mckluskie
More like since the cost of raising children would prevent some from a lifestyle that includes trips to Hawaii, expensive electronics and all the luxuries that people in affluent nations have come to expect. There’s enough money for children for even low income earners in Japan. I make less than $50,000 per annum and my wife doesn’t work. We’ve managed to raise 5 kids in Japan with no issues.
rainyday
The survey cited in the article isn't a survey of the general population, it was a survey of females who were registered users of a temporary staffing website, and most of the respondents were in their 40s and 50s.
So the population of middle age women actively seeking employment view cost as an important factor (among many, the survey allowed multiple responses and the burden of child rearing falling mainly on women, and the lack of jobs that are compatible with child rearing also received significant support). But whether their views are representative of younger women - who are the main cohort making the decision to have or not have children today - or of men, is not clear from the survey.
Geeter Mckluskie
A clear case of confirmation bias
virusrex
That is not what non-sequitur means, I made a claim and supported it with a source that prove it, there is no illogical step there.
The rest of your argument is the one that is illogical, giving a life of poverty to a child is a perfectly valid reason to choose not to have that child, that parents can choose to be irresponsible and subject their children to a life of difficulty with poor education, crippling health issues, etc. do not mean that those that validly consider this to be a likely consequence have "no reason" to avoid it.
Without a source that proves this claim this is baseless, no part of the actual source even hints to lack of luxuries being the reason. Anyone making saying that people don't have children because of the responsibility of not being able to raise them while giving them as much resources (education, health, etc.) necessary for them to pursue happiness with some change of being successful would have the same basis for their argument and therefore refute you.
What epidemiological argument can you give that would indicate the survey as not representative of a wider population demographic? I mean there are other sources that indicate this reason as well without being conducted in this specific population
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00230/
80% of families that refrain from having another child because of the cost is a very congruent result with the previous source, specially when more than 50% of those families with more than 8 million yen of annual income give the same reason.
It is not like the source is some kind of outlier and other sources give completely different reasons. That completely debunk the point you tried to make.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240920/p2a/00m/0na/025000c
virusrex
No, that would be rejecting a valid source, that is completely congruent with other sources just because you want to believe something different, so you reject any evidence that points out to something no matter how valid it is, It was easy to prove other sources prove the point as well.
Geeter Mckluskie
40-50 year old temp workers’ opinions aren’t congruent with the birth rates in impoverished nations
virusrex
So your new argument is that Japan is an impoverished nation? that makes no sense. The source is used to prove this reason applies in Japan, and the results are congruent with the other sources also provided.
Pretending that the sources that also prove the same point don't exist only helps making more evident that your interest is to push a personal opinion instead of recognizing something very different that can be proved.
rainyday
The point I made was that you misrepresented what your source said. You were wrong, I corrected you and none of what you have written has debunked anything I said, all of which stands.
The survey was exploring a question of social science, not medicine. There are no epidemiological arguments to be made.
From the view of a social scientists there are lots of problems with passing off a survey of a specific population as that of the general population. I can recommend some introductory textbooks on research methodology if you are unaware of this basic fact.
Yes, so why misrepresent what your original source said instead of accurately conveying what this second source said to make your point?
Geeter Mckluskie
No, my argument is simply stating the fact that impoverised nations have the highest birth rates. See below
In other words the opinions of 40-50 year old temp workers in Japan don't match the reality that the poorest countries have the highest birth rates...Another thing to consider is...poor people in Japan DO have kids despite what boxes 40-50 year old temp workers tick off in.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262884/countries-with-the-highest-fertility-rates/
BB
I did my part. But honestly, looking back, I can only say I must have been addled by the irrational optimism that comes with youth. Parenting is tough work, no doubt about it.
virusrex
My point was never that this source was unique in some unexplored field of study, the source is (as demonstrated) one of many that indicates this reason as being the most common for families in Japan. You made no correction just assumed the situation reported there was not reflected in other populations, which was very easily corrected with other sources.
Fair enough I used the wrong word, you still give no argument that would prove the source is not in congruence with other sources from different populations in Japan, which is understandable since it is perfectly congruent as proved.
No misrepresentation was made, I offered one example of many avaliable that proved the point, assuming this was the only example was a mistake you made and that could have been prevented easily and seeing how in general studies done in different demographics still sustain the claim without problem.
So you give up trying to disprove that the reason Japanese families are not having more children is because of the huge cost of raising those children? that is understandable, what is not understandable is to try to use completely unrelated things as if they had anything to do with this proved claim. Specially when as argued before being socially responsible enough to think about the chances of the children to have a life free of excessive difficulties is a perfectly valid reason that can explain how developed nations (where this goal is commonly considered part of the social responsibility of the parents) have more people that instead choose not to have children since the available resources are not enough considering the costs of raising them properly.
And this in no way refutes the argument that being responsible about the fertility is a perfectly valid reason to choose not to have children, this is like saying that parents that smoke in presence of their children prove the ones that do not do it are in the wrong.
rainyday
All I have to go on is what you write. I made absolutely no assumptions whatsoever in my response, I merely pointed out that there was a gap between what you said the source you relied on proved on the one hand and what evidence that source actually provided on the other. This is factually accurate. If there are better sources to prove a point then you should rely on them rather than on one that fails to do so. This should not be a controversial observation.
My point isn't that the fundamental argument is wrong (I agree, based on the sources you provide in your subsequent post, that cost is clearly a major factor). I pointed out your mistake, you then provided further evidence to better establish the point, and now your point is better made.
No, you offered an example that didn't prove the point you were making, which was my point. I made no mistake in assuming anything about the existence of other sources, I explicitly and specifically stated that the source you were relying on didn't say what you said it did. The fact that other sources which you didn't cite provide better proof of the point you were trying to make only shows that you were mistaken in not relying on them rather than the one you did, not that my correcting you was mistaken.
Mr Kipling
From a St Andrews University study. On average 90% of eggs are gone by 30 years old and for 16% all gone.
15 year olds are more fertile than 30 year olds. Leaving it late may not be a great idea.
Geeter Mckluskie
The point being it is possible for even poor people in Japan to have children, but some prefer to forgo having children because children cost money they would rather spend on themselves. Why is it do you suppose that the most affluent nations have the lowest birth rates? I would say it has more to do with individual material wants, birth control, the advent of the Internet (which means more and more men opting for an online life that includes pornography over actual relationships), an erosion of more traditional values and more women entering the workforce rather than the economy. If it were the economy then the poorest nations wouldn’t have the highest birth rates and the most affluent nations wouldn’t have the lowest birth rates.
virusrex
Not really, this is something well known and reported (as the sources even in English clearly indicate), it is not farfetched to assume people with opinions in this topic already know this at least to the point of understanding there is plenty of literature about it, if anything my mistake was to assume this very elementary previous knowledge, for me it was like talking about Mt Fuji assuming people knew where it is. Giving an easy to find example of many not expecting that people would wrongly assume the conclusion is based completely on this single source as if it was something just discovered recently.
No, you assumed a mistake when giving an example was for you giving the one and only available source indicating this.
The example did prove the point on the scope of the study done, a point that has been widely reported many times (almost as much as the choice of Japanese families not to have children), if you required clarification about this well known situation is not exactly my responsibility. I never claimed this was the only, or the best example of the studies that point to this perfectly clear conclusion, that is all in your assumption.
This take has been already debunked as overblown and exaggerated,
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/dont-panic-women-can-conceive-over-30
to put things in context at 15yo women already lost 80% of the immature eggs, and in the whole reproductive life only 450 out of 2 million reach maturity and are involved in reproduction (so only 0.02% are actually necessary).
By the way the claim of 16% of women over 30 losing the ability to conceive is not included anywhere in the original scientific paper nor in the reports done about it.
Which in no way refutes that people can be responsible and choose not to do it when the investment is so high that they can't do it and ensure a proper life for the child, that you think people are justified in just having children without worrying about what will happen in their life (and maybe burden them with decreased possibilities because of bad education, low health, disabilities, etc.) do not make that worry less valid, or even desirable.
In fact, this lack of responsible considerations is what can be considered an erosion of values.
As proved, lack of proper consideration explains without problem this difference, and as the second reference clearly proves people with higher income give less importance to costs as a reason not to have children, this would not happen if the explanation you are trying to shoehorn was actually correct.
rainyday
No, my correction of your mistake required no assumptions on my part. You made a mistake, I pointed it out. Nothing you have written refutes that.
Yes, you were mistaken in that. What a given population cites as the main cause (among many potential factors) for Japan's low birth rate is not a piece of very elementary previous knowledge like where Mt. Fuji is. "Mt. Fuji is in Japan" is not a statement I would expect to see a citation in support of in an academic paper. "The factor most cited by respondents to a survey in determining Japan's low birth rate is the high cost of child rearing and education" in contrast is very much something one would expect a citation to.
And my point was that the scope of the study done was different from the point you were trying to prove. This is simply a factually correct observation.
Geeter Mckluskie
In 2014, 26.9% of households with incomes under 5 million yen had children,
In 2014, 4.5% of couples with incomes over 8 million yen had children,
In Japan, having more money means having fewer children. That's "congruent" with all affluent nations
Zaphod
Geeter Mckluskie
Correct. Also confirmed by the fact that ultra-religious groups in both Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the exception to the trend.... they are producing children in large numbers, seeing them as more important than material wealth.
Zaphod
virusrex
Not all populations follow your logic, as reality shows. Even in our societies, not so long ago, having children was seen as increasing the familiy work power and old-age insurance, and not as an "expense". This still applies all over the third world. You are trying to project your cultural biases on different societies.
virusrex
Definetely it does, you assumed the claim is based on the example as the sole source, something that anybody with even a small amount of background knowledge would not make. All your arguments are based on that assumption since none hold by adding "here is one example of people giving this reason"
To be fair this is a perfectly logical assumption, people that come to the topic usually have this background knowledge present, again is like talking about Mt Fuji without having to clarify it is about the mountain in Japan.
Which still is irrelevant the moment it is quite obvious this is not the basis for the generalization but simply one example between many that mentions this reason. You are still not making any point against the justified assumption that is made that people will know there is more than one source, that unfortunately was wrong on your case.
Definetely not, the current situation is not even remotely similar to 10 years ago, so your comparison is obviously invalid. A proper comparison is done with as much as other variants the same, for example the source I already present where both populations are living at the same time and have as the variable that is different the amount of annual income.
80% of families that refrain from having another child because of the cost is a very congruent result with the previous source, specially when more than 50% of those families with more than 8 million yen of annual income give the same reason.
As the reference clearly proves this is incorrect, having more money means families don't worry as much about the very high cost of raising a child.
For example (because people may think this is the sole and only source of information)
Direct data from last year proves that higher income is correlated with higher number of children, not the opposite as you mistakenly claim.
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hh/3-2.html
Household without children income 496.6
Household with 1 child income 767.9
Household with 2 children income 796.3
Household with 3 or more children 808.9
(in 10 thousands of yen)
Which of course is not relevant, for the argument to be relevant you would have to prove it is the case for this specific population, else it is still a perfectly valid assumption.
Which would be irrelevant for those whose priority is to give a good life to their children instead of using them as insurance or profit (which you call "family work power"), this argument acts much more strongly against having children for those that think outside of themselves.
Geeter Mckluskie
Japan’s birth rate was 1.26 in 2005, 1.43 in 2014 and is currently 1.20
not much has changed other than people are becoming less and less inclined to get married and have children. The reasons for which I’ve posted above.
Geeter Mckluskie
Two years ago, in 2022 the birth rate was 1.26, precisely what it was in 2005 when things weren't "remotely the same."
rainyday
I did not. I challenged you for using a source that did not align with what you said it stated. This is a normal thing to be called out for as anyone with an academic background should know.
No my argument (singular, I am only making one) is not based on that assumption, your defense of your mistake is based on an assumption that contradicts what you actually wrote.
This is simply false, for reasons I outlined in my previous post. If you submitted an academic paper to peer review stating that surveys of the general population cited cost as the number one factor driving Japan's low birthrate then you would absolutely be asked to provide a citation to that fact. It is not obvious (ie there are numerous possible factors that could be cited the most often, cost is merely one), it is not constant (ie views of the public on that issue could change over time, something that doesn't happen with Mt. Fuji's location), and it is likely subject to variation (ie depending on who is being asked the results of such a survey could differ).
Yes indeed, you are the one making assumptions, not me. This was your mistake, I corrected you on it, and hopefully you have learned from the experience.
virusrex
So you think the only think that is different from 2014 to this year is the birthrate? No recession, no pandemic, no differences with how much people can buy with their salaries or how easy is or not to find who takes care of a child (etc. etc.)?
This makes no sense at all, it is as wrong as your claim that in Japan more money meant less children, something that was very easy to debunk with official data that proved the opposite.
Your comparison completely depended on everything (not only birth rates) to be comparable, this is not the case, there are a lot of differences in life in Japan from 10 years ago, and as it was easy to prove at the end your claim is evidently false.
And thus you assumed the source had to support exactly the claim instead of being simply an example between many, something that anyone informed (and aware of the many sources available) would have avoided.
Yet it was very easy to prove this by adding a clarification that would have not been necessary for anybody informed about the reports on the topic, this is very clear the moment you refused to address this very simple proof.
So, this may surprise you, but this is not an academic paper and the example provided is not a citation. When you whole argument depends on misrepresenting a comment section as if it was a peer reviewed Journal you are implicitly accepting that is what would be required for your point to have merit.
A valid, logical assumption that people would be informed of state of the evidence about the reasons for families to not desire to have children. The lack of this information is what made you mistakenly assume a simple example was the only and sole source available to prove a point, when in reality many sources were available. Once again for some people it is necessary to write "The Mt. Fuji that is in Japan", learning this is not exactly something useful.
rainyday
And anyone familiar with the many sources available would know that your original statement is still incorrect - none of the sources you subsequently provided are based on surveys of the "general population" either. They are all also based on targeted surveys of specific groups.
I get that this point seems to be lost on you, but for those of us who do research in the social sciences this isn't just nitpicking I'm engaging in. Your statement was incorrect and a misrepresentation of the state of research on this question. If anything by framing it as the opinion of the "general population" you are undermining the value of the sources you were citing to answering the question at hand. A survey of the "general population" (which would include for example many old men whose views would be largely irrelevant) is actually less useful than a survey of specific populations (such as the National Fertility Survey that was mentioned in the Mainichi source) which focus on target populations whose views are much more relevant.
>
falseflagsteve
You’re life changes for the better when you become a parent.
virusrex
That is deeply incorrect, it was easy to prove that for every attempt to investigate the cause the answer was the same, the high costs of raising a child. To say this is incorrect you would have to bring a source that demonstrates this is not the case, else generalizing from multiple attempts is a perfectly valid argument to say this applies to the general population. A survey gives only a limited view of the total of the population, but if every one ends up saying the same thing it is valid to say that this applies in general (until evidence that contradicts this conclusion is presented). Being obnoxious about "general population" having to include people unrelated to the problem does not help making a point either, it takes very little common sense to understand this applies to those for which the answer have any kidn of importance.
The problem is not nitpicking, the problem is that trying to make an attempt to justify an invalid assumption on ignorance about the topic that even with the presence of many sources of information that have been reported on the media, so even laymen know about. There is no undermining, unless of course you can provide sources that prove that for any group of people the costs of raising children is inconsequential as a justification to not having them. Also, to make an appeal to a personal authority is also nonsense when it comes from anonymous account. If someone comes here and claim they published papers on the causes for families not to have children and it has been proved the cost is the only significant reason, would you say "oh, if you have researched this, thenI will have to concede you must be right"?
For some, for others not (and sad headlines appear here sometimes because of it). Also, in many cases the life of the child is the one that becomes worse than desired by this decision, which would mean that some people don't have children precisely because they want to be better about it.
Geeter Mckluskie
It certainly gives you a fulfilling sense of purpose
Geeter Mckluskie
and many don’t have children because they want to be better to themselves so they prefer to keep their money for their own interests. Was “I prefer designer handbags, luxury travel and eating in nice restaurants to having children” a choice on the survey? “Kids are too expensive” seems like a pretty simple answer. I’m not surprised that box would get ticked in a survey. How about “I prefer living online and getting my gratification via pornography and online gaming”? Was that an option in the survey? It should have been. These are real choices being made by people who would likely answer “kids are too expensive”
virusrex
It can, but not for everybody, and for some the purpose is not a positive one, human nature.
As long as a valid reason as described is possible, or even more, likely that still means you need to disprove this valid reason before claiming the one you like to imagine is responsible for the decrease. It was very easy to demonstrate your claim that "more money means less children" was completely false, it would not be surprising that this other claim you make is the same, after all if this reason was correct it would clearly indicate that having more money would lead to more desire to keep it to themselves.
Instead it was easy to prove with the data from the own government that families with less money have also less children. Crystal ball arguments only help proving you have no real ones to support the claim you make.