Japan records lowest number of births on record as population shrinks(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Japan records lowest number of births on record as population shrinks
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/01/japan-suffers-lowest-number-of-births-on-record-as-population-shrinks
57 comments
It's not clear that (2) is true. Support for the idea that "the husband should work outside and the wife should care for the household" remains surprisingly strong in Japan (people are roughly evenly split between for and against), even among younger generations. Actually, according to the latest Cabinet Office survey, support is stronger among 20-39 year olds than 40-59 year olds (see [0]), and only a few percentage points lower among women vs. men.
Similarly, a majority of respondents of the Japanese General Social Survey think that "in case the husband's income is sufficient, it is better for the wife not to work". But economic realities make such lifestyle choices difficult. For example, when asked what level of household income would be sufficient for them to consider getting married, a plurality of Japanese women cite a figure of around ¥500k net per month [1], which is around the limit of the top quartile of household incomes, and way above what unmarried men typically make on their own.
As for (3), I'm not particularly interested in debating whether "Japan is a racist country", but getting Japanese citizenship is far from being impossible. In fact, the rejection rate of formally submitted naturalization applications is about 1% (consistent over at least the past decade, see e.g. [2]).
[0]: http://www2.ttcn.ne.jp/honkawa/2410.html [1]: http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp/english/research/monographs/jgss... [2]: http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/05/10-years-of-natural...
Similarly, a majority of respondents of the Japanese General Social Survey think that "in case the husband's income is sufficient, it is better for the wife not to work". But economic realities make such lifestyle choices difficult. For example, when asked what level of household income would be sufficient for them to consider getting married, a plurality of Japanese women cite a figure of around ¥500k net per month [1], which is around the limit of the top quartile of household incomes, and way above what unmarried men typically make on their own.
As for (3), I'm not particularly interested in debating whether "Japan is a racist country", but getting Japanese citizenship is far from being impossible. In fact, the rejection rate of formally submitted naturalization applications is about 1% (consistent over at least the past decade, see e.g. [2]).
[0]: http://www2.ttcn.ne.jp/honkawa/2410.html [1]: http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp/english/research/monographs/jgss... [2]: http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/05/10-years-of-natural...
I don't particularly trust survey results conducted by the Japanese Gov for the following reasons:
1. Saving face is the most important thing in Japanese society. Based on history, Japan's government is not above molding things like survey results to fit their agendas like the preservation of Japan's nuclear family or hunting endangered whales and other fish
2. In psychology, we're aware that people don't necessarily do what they say. I would guess that this is even more true of Japanese society at large. I wouldn't be surprised if many respondents merely gave answers based on what they felt people expected. Japanese society is a polite society. It is less direct and less truthful when you compare it to other cultures.
Of course I could always be proven wrong.
1. Saving face is the most important thing in Japanese society. Based on history, Japan's government is not above molding things like survey results to fit their agendas like the preservation of Japan's nuclear family or hunting endangered whales and other fish
2. In psychology, we're aware that people don't necessarily do what they say. I would guess that this is even more true of Japanese society at large. I wouldn't be surprised if many respondents merely gave answers based on what they felt people expected. Japanese society is a polite society. It is less direct and less truthful when you compare it to other cultures.
Of course I could always be proven wrong.
Some other factors:
1. Wealth: despite long term economic malaise, Japan is still one of the richest countries. Rich people tend to have fewer children. Japan's GINI coefficient is also a lot lower compared to, say, the US, which means the wealth is spread around a lot more. That means that a comparatively greater proportion have a high log-wealth than in the US, and would thus be less inclined to have kids.
2. Lack of opportunity for moms: day care is expensive (no immigrants to do it) and in short supply. If you can't get into daycare, you basically have no choice but to stop working. A lot of women don't see this as being worth the sacrifice. Here is a recent Planet Money article on this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/19/203372076/will-rob...
1. Wealth: despite long term economic malaise, Japan is still one of the richest countries. Rich people tend to have fewer children. Japan's GINI coefficient is also a lot lower compared to, say, the US, which means the wealth is spread around a lot more. That means that a comparatively greater proportion have a high log-wealth than in the US, and would thus be less inclined to have kids.
2. Lack of opportunity for moms: day care is expensive (no immigrants to do it) and in short supply. If you can't get into daycare, you basically have no choice but to stop working. A lot of women don't see this as being worth the sacrifice. Here is a recent Planet Money article on this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/19/203372076/will-rob...
The post-WW2 boom is dying off. Literally. Japan has smaller land area than California (a lot of it is mountains, too) and has 125mm people. They don't need more population growth. (not that you were implying they do, just saying)
I didn't say that they needed population growth. I'm just giving the reasons for Japan's population decline.
I didn't say you did. Sorry if that's what I seemed to be implying. I'll edit.
Also, in my travels, Koreans were about 1000x less welcoming to me than Japanese were. Koreans literally laughed in my face when I spoke anything in Korean to them. Japanese people would get a huge smile on their face when I spoke Japanese to them. Anecdotes and whatnot. :)
Also, in my travels, Koreans were about 1000x less welcoming to me than Japanese were. Koreans literally laughed in my face when I spoke anything in Korean to them. Japanese people would get a huge smile on their face when I spoke Japanese to them. Anecdotes and whatnot. :)
Well I did mention that most of Asia is racist right? (there's only one or two countries that aren't - on a whole)
I can explain the reasons behind the different receptions you received. In Japan, caucasians of European descent are largely seen as an exotic novelty; you will be treated nicely on the surface, but you are not expected (or really allowed generally speaking) to fully integrate into Japanese society. You're just a tourist or English teacher on a temporary stay. Koreans don't have this view of caucasians (though I don't know anything about whether Korean society as a whole allows other ethnicities to integrate) also imo Korea is the equivalent of Italy in Asia
I can explain the reasons behind the different receptions you received. In Japan, caucasians of European descent are largely seen as an exotic novelty; you will be treated nicely on the surface, but you are not expected (or really allowed generally speaking) to fully integrate into Japanese society. You're just a tourist or English teacher on a temporary stay. Koreans don't have this view of caucasians (though I don't know anything about whether Korean society as a whole allows other ethnicities to integrate) also imo Korea is the equivalent of Italy in Asia
It's a lot easier to immigrate to Japan than to the US. Getting a work visa to Japan takes about a month or less. Converting that into a spouse visa (if you want) takes a couple of visits to the immigration and family record offices.
It is not near impossible to get Japanese citizenship, but you are technically required to renounce other current citizenships. Permanent residency is a more attainable goal especially for technical workers in Japan.
[deleted]
What if having children is a (good) biologically programmed "selfish" act? Meant to ensure that the parents are one day taken care of by their children when they themselves grow older. And programs like social security and retirement income remove the psychological need to have children?
500 years ago: "If I don't have children who will take care of me?". Today: "If I don't have children, public funding will take care of me." If this has any bit of truth to it, the reduced risk that such social programs create have a consequence on population levels. Not bad, not good. Just something to analyze.
500 years ago: "If I don't have children who will take care of me?". Today: "If I don't have children, public funding will take care of me." If this has any bit of truth to it, the reduced risk that such social programs create have a consequence on population levels. Not bad, not good. Just something to analyze.
Of course there is an argument that individuals might feel more free to have children knowing that there are entitlement programs to fallback on to help with medical, educational and day care in case they are unable to provide for their offspring. Some entitlements provide direct income for each child that they bear which seems like it could be incentive to have more children too.
That is an interesting line of thinking. At some point we'll likely break from the invisible hand of the greedy gene, but I'd be surprised if we're there yet.
For those curious to see some numbers, this WP article [1] (2003) does a decent job -- among this, a projected ~25% population decline by 2050.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22...
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22...
However, it also just recorded "Number of 20-year-olds in Japan rises for first time in 21 years" [1] (the year you become a legal adult), giving a different signal for the future
[1]http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/31/national/number-...
[1]http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/31/national/number-...
> The proportion of people aged 65 or over is forecast to reach nearly 40% of the population in 2060, the government has warned.
These sorts of demographic shifts provide some of the best investment opportunities of the 21st century. Japan offers one of the most extreme shifts that will be found, but there are numerous others around the globe.
These sorts of demographic shifts provide some of the best investment opportunities of the 21st century. Japan offers one of the most extreme shifts that will be found, but there are numerous others around the globe.
"The proportion of people aged 65 or over is forecast to reach nearly 40% of the population in 2060"
This takes for granted that in year 2060 people will be old like they are today. That change in human biology won't happen.
One of the areas our company has worked is DNA(software) processing. You probably have heard about "mother cells" for a reason. Those things could do incredible things. They repair the body constantly(if you are young),when you lose them, you age.
Breakthroughs on this area wont probably happen in single years time. But over decades it is a different story.
This will create another problem for humanity(humanity has always solved problems by creating new [smaller]ones). But at the same time we will have fusion and ability to travel (cheaply)outside the earth by 2060.
This takes for granted that in year 2060 people will be old like they are today. That change in human biology won't happen.
One of the areas our company has worked is DNA(software) processing. You probably have heard about "mother cells" for a reason. Those things could do incredible things. They repair the body constantly(if you are young),when you lose them, you age.
Breakthroughs on this area wont probably happen in single years time. But over decades it is a different story.
This will create another problem for humanity(humanity has always solved problems by creating new [smaller]ones). But at the same time we will have fusion and ability to travel (cheaply)outside the earth by 2060.
Disappointing to see the use of the word 'suffers' in the headline. It betrays a natalist ideology that appears much too frequently in the reporting of Japan's shrinking population.
Given that none of the entitlements that western-style governments have set up work with a declining population, someone's gonna suffer alright.
Yeah, a population aging and shrinking in numbers is something that should be viewed neutrally or even celebrated...
God forbid is people express a preference for renewal of population and births...
God forbid is people express a preference for renewal of population and births...
You seem to be expressing two entirely different view points in the same post ... which one is sarcastic?
The first.
Many of the world's problems could be greatly alleviated if we collectively agreed that shrinking, not growing, our populations over time is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, nationalism incentivizes the opposite. No country's going to go first.
In much of the developed world the fertility (children per woman) is barely the (slightly over) 2.0 required to sustain the population. Countries where, say, 1.0 children are born per woman is having a rapidly shrinking population, but more seriously a rapidly aging population where a smaller number of working people supports a larger and larger number of elderly.
If a country wanted to have a shrinking population, it would likely want a fertility rate of just below 2. Japan has 1.41 (!) and barely any immigration.
The solution to global population issues is making sure that poor countries with high fertility rate (4-7) are brought down to 2-2.5, something which is already happening very quickly. See e.g. Hans Rosling's famous talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXJnOE-1gw
The solution to the low fertility rate is likely hard to change short term (cultural), but comparing countries in europe for example, it seems likely that making children reforms such as subsidized day-care, free higher education etc. would help.
If a country wanted to have a shrinking population, it would likely want a fertility rate of just below 2. Japan has 1.41 (!) and barely any immigration.
The solution to global population issues is making sure that poor countries with high fertility rate (4-7) are brought down to 2-2.5, something which is already happening very quickly. See e.g. Hans Rosling's famous talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXJnOE-1gw
The solution to the low fertility rate is likely hard to change short term (cultural), but comparing countries in europe for example, it seems likely that making children reforms such as subsidized day-care, free higher education etc. would help.
Regardless, current estimates that I've seen point to the population of the Earth stabilizing at around 10 billion. People always say that we can't move from industrial to more sustainable types of farming because our current population levels couldn't be sustained. Where is that cut-off point? 1 billion? Less? I think that point is what all "enlightened" nations should be aiming for in terms of policy — the point where we could all survive comfortably without having to depend on oil-based products just to feed us. (Otherwise, it'll eventually have to happen naturally, and it won't be pretty.)
There isn't a clear distinction between "needs oil" and "sustainable". It's quite likely that there are ways (or ways to be found) to farm very efficiently without ruining the planet. Btw I think the latest prognosis was bumped to 11bn.
Actually lots of the first world population are shrinking or near flatlining.
So, what you propose is basic "you third world guys should be shrinking, not growing".
On the other hand, this first world countries, not the populous third world ones, consume most of resources and fuck the environment more...
So, what you propose is basic "you third world guys should be shrinking, not growing".
On the other hand, this first world countries, not the populous third world ones, consume most of resources and fuck the environment more...
On first-world countries and resources: that's beginning to change. Yes, on a per-capita basis, OECD nations (largely the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan) consume more resources than elsewhere. China's absolutely stunning economic growth over the past 20 years has been accompanied by an equally stunning growth in resource consumption, and the country exceeded the US in CO2 emissions by 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the...
That said, I = P * A * T holds. Environmental impact is a function of population, per-capita affluence (resource consumption), and technology.
That said, I = P * A * T holds. Environmental impact is a function of population, per-capita affluence (resource consumption), and technology.
What are you talking about? Many countries have gone "first" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Decline_by_n...
Apparently Japan is. Now that China and India have "won" that particular game, it doesn't seem worth playing.
I imagine the government will eventually take steps to try to fix this "problem". It's not exactly voluntary.
> No country's going to go first.
Apparently one is.
Apparently one is.
There are economic issues, as the article notes. But a gradual decline is not catastrophic. A slightly less crowded country is almost certainly a good thing in the long term.
I hear this all the time... But I don't think I have heard any actually good arguments... Why is a smaller population a good thing?
A smaller population allows you to devote more resources per capita while reducing the resource consumption of the population as a whole. Apart from the obvious appeal of enjoying at least comparatively luxurious allocation of public resources, this can have real benefits for a modern knowledge economy; having more educational resources to devote per-child can give your country a leg-up on those that have to use their funding on a much larger, ever-growing student body.
Put another way, which problem would you rather have: desperately trying to keep 2000 inner city youth from dropping out of a school that is halfheartedly going through the "everyone should go to college" motions and not really teaching them anything relevant or helpful to their life track so that the majority can graduate into minimum wage service jobs at best or end up on welfare or in a gang at worst, or teaching 20 everything you know about web development or some other marketable trade that can lift them out of the vicious cycle?
I don't really know anything about Japan's education system beyond serafuku, but this is the way I see the world moving in the somewhat near future as manual labor and service jobs continue to fall to automation.
Put another way, which problem would you rather have: desperately trying to keep 2000 inner city youth from dropping out of a school that is halfheartedly going through the "everyone should go to college" motions and not really teaching them anything relevant or helpful to their life track so that the majority can graduate into minimum wage service jobs at best or end up on welfare or in a gang at worst, or teaching 20 everything you know about web development or some other marketable trade that can lift them out of the vicious cycle?
I don't really know anything about Japan's education system beyond serafuku, but this is the way I see the world moving in the somewhat near future as manual labor and service jobs continue to fall to automation.
The birthrate problem is advanced nations is actually a real estate problem.
Young couples can't afford a single family dwelling within a reasonable distance of job centers. As a result they rent apartments and buy cats.
A declining population eventually forces the government to create a sustainable housing situation.
Young couples can't afford a single family dwelling within a reasonable distance of job centers. As a result they rent apartments and buy cats.
A declining population eventually forces the government to create a sustainable housing situation.
Less demand for resources, and consequently less damage to the environment?
> Less demand for resources, and consequently less damage to the environment?
While this is intuitive, it is largely incorrect. As our population has increased, we have become more efficient due to network effects. With a decreasing population, you'll experience a reduction in efficiency.
Also, at what point will you be satisfied? Ideally, with humanity extinct, we'll be using zero resources and won't be damaging the environment at all. That's the definition of misanthropy, isn't it?
While this is intuitive, it is largely incorrect. As our population has increased, we have become more efficient due to network effects. With a decreasing population, you'll experience a reduction in efficiency.
Also, at what point will you be satisfied? Ideally, with humanity extinct, we'll be using zero resources and won't be damaging the environment at all. That's the definition of misanthropy, isn't it?
> As our population has increased, we have become more efficient
The efficiencies that we've gained hasn't kept up with population growth. If it did, we wouldn't be having major issues with things like climate change, over fishing, or water shortages. Moreover, if you've read one of Bill Gates' more recent blog posts; gaining efficiencies doesn't lessen demand for resources.
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Making-the-Modern-World
> Also, at what point will you be satisfied? Ideally, with humanity extinct,
Please re-read the post that I replied to. I was just merely giving an answer to a question: "Why is a smaller population a good thing?" You're making too many assumptions with too little data.
The efficiencies that we've gained hasn't kept up with population growth. If it did, we wouldn't be having major issues with things like climate change, over fishing, or water shortages. Moreover, if you've read one of Bill Gates' more recent blog posts; gaining efficiencies doesn't lessen demand for resources.
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Making-the-Modern-World
> Also, at what point will you be satisfied? Ideally, with humanity extinct,
Please re-read the post that I replied to. I was just merely giving an answer to a question: "Why is a smaller population a good thing?" You're making too many assumptions with too little data.
[deleted]
True, but a fertility rate of 1.41 isn't really a gradual decline.
I thought the worry is more about the effects of an aging population.
We replaced "suffers" with "records".
I tend to agree - Japan already has a pretty large population (127 million people) for such a small island. That's about 4x what Canada has over a much, much larger land mass and far greater resources. It would seem reasonable for Japan to stabilize at around 5-10mm people. From that perspective, the headline could have been written, "Japan makes great strides towards sustainable population levels once again."
Canada is mostly un-inhabited, and Japan is quite populous.
They're about the worst countries to compare in this fashion.
Canada is very in-efficient in the way land is used and Japan is extremely efficient.
They're about the worst countries to compare in this fashion.
Canada is very in-efficient in the way land is used and Japan is extremely efficient.
What I was trying to (and failing to do), was highlight that the basic carrying capacity of each landmass is not in sync with the existing population. For them to be at parity, Canada would increase it's population, and Japan would reduce it.
Canada is an extremely low density country. Nine tenths of the population lives within a hundred miles of the US. Most of the rest is Arctic wilderness. A more realistic comparison would be countries such as the United States, Brazil, and the countries of Europe.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Japan is moving towards the 'kite' formation common to aging populations which throughout history resembled more of a pyramid, and more often today look like a cylinder. The simple solution would be immigration which will occur eventually whether or not the politicians and people of Japan want it. It would be better to do it now and slower then later on and with larger groups because acclimating foreigners to Japanese society will be more difficult if large enough populations of immigrants can come in to form their own communities. Perhaps that would be best, who knows, but the Japanese would probably prefer more aggressively allowing Koreans and Chinese in small amounts today then large waves in 30 years when they desperately need the additional labor, or allow their country to become internationally irrelevant.
1. Economic factors: The salary man is slowly going away and so are the institutions that revolve around him such as mainstream Japan's definition of a family.
2. The younger generation wants more freedom from a patriarchal society; in particular women. On a whole younger Japanese women are not content with being trapped as a housewife. (It doesn't help that women older than 25 are derogatorily referred to as 'Christmas cake', something past its due date of 12/25 that no one wants.) Younger males are also no longer content with being trapped as a corporate slave who lives mainly for his corporation and functions mainly as an ATM for his family that he rarely sees.
3. Xenophobia: Even though the younger generation is more tolerant, on a whole Japan is a racist country. For example, unless you have Japanese ancestry it is near impossible to get Japanese citizenship. This has larger consequences such as really low immigration numbers and generally, non-existent integration of immigrants into mainstream society (yes there are always exceptions depending on which part of Japan we are talking about). In Japan's defense most of Asia is also racist, but Japan just takes it to another level.