Society/Culture Japan population crisis

[barreness]

Aging population problems dont exist because of capitalism.

Alienation of workers from their production. Commodification of housing, dating, etc. Growth without limits. These are factors that effect reproductive rates from a capitalist framework.

State capitalism is no better, I mean war massively bumps fertility but that doesn't mean it's good.

The problem with an aging population is that more of the workforce needs to be involved in elder care? Is this really a problem

Capitalism deals better with aging population then any other system.

Pre bronze age? IDK kinda seems like this is a problem capitalism itself has created so to say it solves it better is silly, better than china? We'll see I guess

But yeh there's bigger issues to worry about, low fertility is a good thing looking forward, less tragic deaths

 

[Seeds]

Alienation of workers from their production. Commodification of housing, dating, etc. Growth without limits. These are factors that effect reproductive rates from a capitalist framework.

State capitalism is no better, I mean war massively bumps fertility but that doesn't mean it's good.

The problem with an aging population is that more of the workforce needs to be involved in elder care? Is this really a problem

Pre bronze age? IDK kinda seems like this is a problem capitalism itself has created so to say it solves it better is silly, better than china? We'll see I guess

But yeh there's bigger issues to worry about, low fertility is a good thing looking forward, less tragic deaths

I think you might be confusing (at least in the way im interpeting it) rising life expectancies with reduced fertility rates. They are two seperate things.

Improving health doesnt increase the amount of workforce needed for care. It just pushes back the age at which people need care and also boosts the amount of years people can work.

Lower fertility rates dont increase the amount of workers in elder care. They increase the proportion of workers in elder care.

But capitalism is also delivering us automation and reducing the amount of jobs in other areas. We cant complain about capitalism reducing the amount of jobs whilst also providing too many jobs at the same time. It cant be both now can it?

 

[Seeds]

What are you on about?

Ive just shown your assumption is completely false. Tax rates have had no influence on birth rates.

Lower birth rates are caused by changing social norms and increased access to contraception. Yes the under 40s have been screwed over by the baby boomers tax policies. But this isnt driving lower birth rates. If birth rates were driven by economic factors then how do you explain high birth rates 70,150, 300 years ago when young people were far far poorer then they are today.

 

[Gerard_waitley]

Alarming figures coming out of Japan

Japan's new births fall to record low, while fewer couples marry

The number of babies born in Japan falls for an eighth straight year to a record new low last year, according to government data and a top official says the country must reverse the trend in the coming years.

www.abc.net.au

Pretty much many families in Japan are only having 1 child and are waiting until later in life to do so. This is the effect of uber high living standards. Career standard are high, everyone wants to be successful in a job. Have visited Japan myself and can't believe just how well run everything is. Everyone, down to the most mundane of jobs, does everything with complete pride.


Unfortunately if things don't change Japan's population is set to decline to around 87 million by 2070 from 125 million right now. By then if things don't change 4 out of every 10 citizens in Japan will be aged 65 or older. That obviously isn't sustainable.


This is very relevant to Australia with Japan being such a huge trading partner.

What kind of stats do we have on trade with Japan? India is developing and could be a strong alternative.

 

[barreness]

I think you might be confusing (at least in the way im interpeting it) rising life expectancies with reduced fertility rates. They are two seperate things.

A reduced fertility rate creates an aging population, you can maths this seeds

My comment was on an aging pop not rising life expectancy

Improving health doesnt increase the amount of workforce needed for care.

How else do you improve health?

It just pushes back the age at which people need care and also boosts the amount of years people can work.

Nah the economically useful human lifespan(under capitalism) is the same as what it always was, we just keep them alive longer at the back end.
Pension age was 65 in 1909

Lower fertility rates dont increase the amount of workers in elder care. They increase the proportion of workers in elder care.

Which is what right wing economists are scared about. I guess Zidane was running the nationalist 'death of a nation' claptrap.
An aging population will increase the amount of workers in aged care, and the proportion as well because of lower fertility

But capitalism is also delivering us automation and reducing the amount of jobs in other areas. We cant complain about capitalism reducing the amount of jobs whilst also providing too many jobs at the same time. It cant be both now can it?

We can because automation has never reduced an individuals need for a job under capitalism, it has reduced the need for workers. If your job is automated and it now takes 1 hour instead of a fulltime week you don't get to sit back and work one hour for the same wage, you get another job to feed and house yourself.

I can't see automation coming into aged care in a large way

 

[ferball]

Ive just shown your assumption is completely false. Tax rates have had no influence on birth rates.

Lower birth rates are caused by changing social norms and increased access to contraception. Yes the under 40s have been screwed over by the baby boomers tax policies. But this isnt driving lower birth rates. If birth rates were driven by economic factors then how do you explain high birth rates 70,150, 300 years ago when young people were far far poorer then they are today.

That wasn't my assumption. Go argue with a mirror somewhere, then do a course in reading comprehension.

 

[basashi]

This issue is something I follow pretty closely. I will make some comments from my perspective.

There are two main sets of drivers for the lower than normal fertility rate.

1 - Those issue common with other developed countries.
The first set of drivers are very similar to the issues we see playing out in Western Europe, where birth rates are collapsing. These are things like the progress of women in the workplace, governments continuing the cradle to grave subsidy of those born 1946-60, rising rates of tertiary education, availability of contraception, higher cultural expectations of the time spent with kids and so on. You can throw a few more on this stack. Interestingly one thing you can't throw on is expense. Japan is a very cheap place to have a kid. A month worth of childcare fees in Tokyo wouldn't get you two days of care in Sydney. Another thing you can't throw on is education. The government is highly committed to both quality AND consistency of quality in the government sector (these are different concepts). This means that if you have kids in Japan you don't have to pay for private education to get quality and you don't have to waste anywhere nearly as much time in checking the comparative quality of government schools. That peters out a little in high school, but is not a factor at all in the lower grades. I could go on about education here but I wont.

Outside Japan commentary is really drawn to this first set of drivers. Its what we understand and there are a lot of "things people say" about fertility rates. It is common discussion fodder for industry groups, educators, gender activists, family activists. We often read articles talking about family discount, baby bonuses and cheaper childcare... even though very powerful models of those things have already been implemented.

2 - What is unique to Japan
The second set of drivers requires a bit more background to understand, and therefore does not get a running in foreign media. These are the drivers that Japan experiences on top of the first set. It starts in the aftermath of WW2. The country was broke. The occupying government and the budding modern parliamentary Japanese government had to rebuild Japanese society.

Taking a step back, in every country households and individuals have a different relationship and get different things from different parts of society. EG in the UK social housing comes from the local government. In the US health insurance comes from the employer / whereas we have medicare. The risk of unemployment might be dealt with by insurance or a government agency. etc etc. So what did this look like in 1946 Japan? The government had no money so a sector had to be pinned with everything.

That sector was the employer. (For reasons I will not go into) Everyone knew that employment would be very strong in postwar Japan. Employers were begging highschool graduates to join them. So government just threw all responsibilities at the employer. Unemployment? No, just legislate to force employers to keep staff to retirement age. First house.... company dormitory. Second house? Company apartment. Further education? Company scheme. Health insurance? employer scheme. it goes on and on.

Japanese workers almost became citizens of their companies. Ever wondered where Japanese company loyalty came from? Employment supported their life like no other place in the world. Getting one of these jobs was like winning the lottery. Like literally, the net present vale to a high school leaver was pretty much like a lottery win. It still is for some. Life is safe, secure and prosperous as long as you had a proper full time job. These jobs are called seishain. They were a dime a dozen back in those days.

So if you had seishain in the 60s, 70s, 80s... you were in a first world country. All the things that supported modern life came from these jobs. Those without seishain were not really living a first world life. They had fallen through the cracks and were living a much meaner life than people who fall through the cracks in Australia or western Europe. But there were so few of them.

But then.... (ominous piano music). In the 80s we had rapid technological advancement. We also had corporate finance, with raiding, mergers, acquistions in the western world. It meant that Japanese companies were presented with competitive challenges they were poorly able to respond to. They couldn't rapidly change their skill base by losing 1000 workers here and hiring a different 1000 there. And then the crash came. Japanese business was in crisis.

Japanese business lobbied government for change. And they were granted it in the early 90. the change was a type of labour market flexibility. Laws were relaxed and companies were allowed to hire more and more people on limited contracts. These are called keiyakushain. No tenure. No benefits. Rolling one year or three month contracts. Not even an invitation to company parties in most cases. And it wasn't a one off. While conditions did not deteriorate for seishain workers, the proportion of new workers hired under keiyakushain arrangments increases every year.

The gap in society between seichain and keiyakushain is massive. If you start as keiyakushain, you are roughly only a 20% chance of changing to seishain. You are not living in the first world. You can't commit to anything. you can't buy a house. You are not getting married (don't forget the more transactional nature of marriage in Japan). You are not having kids. And it is an ever increasing proportion of the Japanese workforce. All childbearing age ranges are now saturated with high levels of keiyakushain workers. Childless.

One of the great ironies is when some western journalist tries to explain low birthrates by pointing to long hours in the workplace and poor work life balance. The reality is that those are the exact blokes who are still having kids. Its the young people without the long hours that are not having kids.

Like the Australian housing market, government is faced with a choice bewteen fixing a major problem OR doing what makes life easier for baby boomers. You know where this is going.

(will reread and clean up)

 

[Gethelred]

This issue is something I follow pretty closely. I will make some comments from my perspective.

There are two main sets of drivers for the lower than normal fertility rate.

1 - Those issue common with other developed countries.
The first set of drivers are very similar to the issues we see playing out in Western Europe, where birth rates are collapsing. These are things like the progress of women in the workplace, governments continuing the cradle to grave subsidy of those born 1946-60, rising rates of tertiary education, availability of contraception, higher cultural expectations of the time spent with kids and so on. You can throw a few more on this stack. Interestingly one thing you can't throw on is expense. Japan is a very cheap place to have a kid. A month worth of childcare fees in Tokyo wouldn't get you two days of care in Sydney. Another thing you can't throw on is education. The government is highly committed to both quality AND consistency of quality in the government sector (these are different concepts). This means that if you have kids in Japan you don't have to pay for private education to get quality and you don't have to waste anywhere nearly as much time in checking the comparative quality of government schools. That peters out a little in high school, but is not a factor at all in the lower grades. I could go on about education here but I wont.

Outside Japan commentary is really drawn to this first set of drivers. Its what we understand and there are a lot of "things people say" about fertility rates. It is common discussion fodder for industry groups, educators, gender activists, family activists. We often read articles talking about family discount, baby bonuses and cheaper childcare... even though very powerful models of those things have already been implemented.

2 - What is unique to Japan
The second set of drivers requires a bit more background to understand, and therefore does not get a running in foreign media. These are the drivers that Japan experiences on top of the first set. It starts in the aftermath of WW2. The country was broke. The occupying government and the budding modern parliamentary Japanese government had to rebuild Japanese society.

Taking a step back, in every country households and individuals have a different relationship and get different things from different parts of society. EG in the UK social housing comes from the local government. In the US health insurance comes from the employer / whereas we have medicare. The risk of unemployment might be dealt with by insurance or a government agency. etc etc. So what did this look like in 1946 Japan? The government had no money so a sector had to be pinned with everything.

That sector was the employer. (For reasons I will not go into) Everyone knew that employment would be very strong in postwar Japan. Employers were begging highschool graduates to join them. So government just threw all responsibilities at the employer. Unemployment? No, just legislate to force employers to keep staff to retirement age. First house.... company dormitory. Second house? Company apartment. Further education? Company scheme. Health insurance? employer scheme. it goes on and on.

Japanese workers almost became citizens of their companies. Ever wondered where Japanese company loyalty came from? Employment supported their life like no other place in the world. Getting one of these jobs was like winning the lottery. Like literally, the net present vale to a high school leaver was pretty much like a lottery win. It still is for some. Life is safe, secure and prosperous as long as you had a proper full time job. These jobs are called seishain. They were a dime a dozen back in those days.

So if you had seishain in the 60s, 70s, 80s... you were in a first world country. All the things that supported modern life came from these jobs. Those without seishain were not really living a first world life. They had fallen through the cracks and were living a much meaner life than people who fall through the cracks in Australia or western Europe. But there were so few of them.

But then.... (ominous piano music). In the 80s we had rapid technological advancement. We also had corporate finance, with raiding, mergers, acquistions in the western world. It meant that Japanese companies were presented with competitive challenges they were poorly able to respond to. They couldn't rapidly change their skill base by losing 1000 workers here and hiring a different 1000 there. And then the crash came. Japanese business was in crisis.

Japanese business lobbied government for change. And they were granted it in the early 90. the change was a type of labour market flexibility. Laws were relaxed and companies were allowed to hire more and more people on limited contracts. These are called keiyakushain. No tenure. No benefits. Rolling one year or three month contracts. Not even an invitation to company parties in most cases. And it wasn't a one off. While conditions did not deteriorate for seishain workers, the proportion of new workers hired under keiyakushain arrangments increases every year.

The gap in society between seichain and keiyakushain is massive. If you start as keiyakushain, you are roughly only a 20% chance of changing to seishain. You are not living in the first world. You can't commit to anything. you can't buy a house. You are not getting married (don't forget the more transactional nature of marriage in Japan). You are not having kids. And it is an ever increasing proportion of the Japanese workforce. All childbearing age ranges are now saturated with high levels of keiyakushain workers. Childless.

One of the great ironies is when some western journalist tries to explain low birthrates by pointing to long hours in the workplace and poor work life balance. The reality is that those are the exact blokes who are still having kids. Its the young people without the long hours that are not having kids.

Like the Australian housing market, government is faced with a choice bewteen fixing a major problem OR doing what makes life easier for baby boomers. You know where this is going.

(will reread and clean up)

Thought provoking post, thanks for posting it.

 

[james haish]

Abolish age pensions and other welfare for the old and the problem solves itself

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Aging population problems dont exist because of capitalism. Capitalism deals better with aging population then any other system.

Low birth rates are driven by changing social norms and better access to fertility prevention measures. It has nothing to do with taxes. Zip.

Incorrect. The Soviet Union solved ageing population issues far better than any capitalist nation. They did it by not only incentivising people to have children, but by heavily taxing people of childbearing age who didn't have children.

Capitalists don't care about the positives of people having children, they only care about the productivity of their workers. Women who have to eventually drop out of the workforce for a while to birth their kid and look after them for the first few years are not as productive overall, and so that's a perception women have to fight against to make it somewhere in the corporate world.

As basashi said, there's a massive difference between the two classes of Japanese worker, one of which has financial security and one which does not. Given how hard it is to make it into the class with financial security, plus the extra challenges women face in terms of perception about their value across their career, is it any wonder women are choosing to prioritise their careers and their survival over having children?

I reckon the only way to make birth rates rise again is to weaken the link between career growth and basic financial security. If everyone was financially secure and could easily buy a house, even without having to dedicate their youth to hustling to get somewhere in the workplace, that would be a game changer.

 

[burge13]

Incorrect. The Soviet Union solved ageing population issues far better than any capitalist nation. They did it by not only incentivising people to have children, but by heavily taxing people of childbearing age who didn't have children.

Capitalists don't care about the positives of people having children, they only care about the productivity of their workers. Women who have to eventually drop out of the workforce for a while to birth their kid and look after them for the first few years are not as productive overall, and so that's a perception women have to fight against to make it somewhere in the corporate world.

As basashi said, there's a massive difference between the two classes of Japanese worker, one of which has financial security and one which does not. Given how hard it is to make it into the class with financial security, plus the extra challenges women face in terms of perception about their value across their career, is it any wonder women are choosing to prioritise their careers and their survival over having children?

I reckon the only way to make birth rates rise again is to weaken the link between career growth and basic financial security. If everyone was financially secure and could easily buy a house, even without having to dedicate their youth to hustling to get somewhere in the workplace, that would be a game changer.

That sounds a truly dreadful idea.

No arguments with the rest on COL being a pretty major reason people prioritise career now by necessity rather than choice in some way but couldn't possibly get behind the bolded.

 

[basashi]

Incorrect. The Soviet Union solved ageing population issues far better than any capitalist nation. They did it by not only incentivising people to have children, but by heavily taxing people of childbearing age who didn't have children.

Capitalists don't care about the positives of people having children, they only care about the productivity of their workers. Women who have to eventually drop out of the workforce for a while to birth their kid and look after them for the first few years are not as productive overall, and so that's a perception women have to fight against to make it somewhere in the corporate world.

As basashi said, there's a massive difference between the two classes of Japanese worker, one of which has financial security and one which does not. Given how hard it is to make it into the class with financial security, plus the extra challenges women face in terms of perception about their value across their career, is it any wonder women are choosing to prioritise their careers and their survival over having children?

I reckon the only way to make birth rates rise again is to weaken the link between career growth and basic financial security. If everyone was financially secure and could easily buy a house, even without having to dedicate their youth to hustling to get somewhere in the workplace, that would be a game changer.

Its different solutions in different societies. Japan has not experienced the market failure Australia is experiencing in the housing sector. Even if you live in Tokyo you can buy a good house in a good area 30 mins from the major centres for 500 to 600k AUD. You can pay it off over 20 years at half a percent interest, which is tax deductible. Even still, this is not going to cut it when your employment status cuts you out of all the security of mainstream society.

 

[Seeds]

Incorrect. The Soviet Union solved ageing population issues far better than any capitalist nation. They did it by not only incentivising people to have children, but by heavily taxing people of childbearing age who didn't have children.

Capitalists don't care about the positives of people having children, they only care about the productivity of their workers. Women who have to eventually drop out of the workforce for a while to birth their kid and look after them for the first few years are not as productive overall, and so that's a perception women have to fight against to make it somewhere in the corporate world.

As basashi said, there's a massive difference between the two classes of Japanese worker, one of which has financial security and one which does not. Given how hard it is to make it into the class with financial security, plus the extra challenges women face in terms of perception about their value across their career, is it any wonder women are choosing to prioritise their careers and their survival over having children?

I reckon the only way to make birth rates rise again is to weaken the link between career growth and basic financial security. If everyone was financially secure and could easily buy a house, even without having to dedicate their youth to hustling to get somewhere in the workplace, that would be a game changer.

Im confused. I thought capitalists wanted too much population growth to feed the economy and capital profits through cheap labour?

But now they also want not enough population growth and more expensive labour?

Which is it? It cant be both. Or do we just blame capitalism for everything now?

Also im pretty sure families with kids have high expenditure and low savings which fuels sales and rates of return on capital. Cant possibly see why existing capitalists are against families. Potential new capitalists yes but not existing.

Women having children and dropping out of the workforce does impose a cost to businesses. Why do we expect businesses to be good samitarians here? Its the tax payer and government who should be paying businesses for these added costs so businesses are properly incentivised to hire women of child bearing age.

Governments are supposed to regulate the system within which capital freely operates. Once the government sets the rules capital should be solely incentivised to maximise profit because this is tge best way to allocate resources to maximise everyones standard of living (this includes all workers). If there is a distortion with the current system that isnt optimal or fair then its the governments job to change theboundaries within which capital operates. Its not the job of businesses to self regulate based off laws that dont exist.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Im confused. I thought capitalists wanted too much population growth to feed the economy and capital profits through cheap labour?

Of course they do, but that's cheaper through immigration than it is through natural increase. Getting a ready-made, educated 30 year old from overseas means that businesses do not have to spend much training them, don't have to pay taxes to support their formative education, and didn't have to give their parents parental leave to birth and raise them. It's the perfect solution for the business sector.

Also im pretty sure families with kids have high expenditure and low savings which fuels sales and rates of return on capital. Cant possibly see why existing capitalists are against families. Potential new capitalists yes but not existing.

They're against their existing employees having families if it means they have to pay them to not work for an extended period.

Women having children and dropping out of the workforce does impose a cost to businesses. Why do we expect businesses to be good samitarians here?

If they want to be part of society, they have to follow the rules. The minimum wage imposes a cost to businesses, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate businesses paying less than that. We recognised as a society that the principle of making money should be less important than some things, and fair treatment of women should be one of those things.

Its the tax payer and government who should be paying businesses for these added costs so businesses are properly incentivised to hire women of child bearing age.

Yay, more welfare for those poor starving corporations!

Governments are supposed to regulate the system within which capital freely operates. Once the government sets the rules capital should be solely incentivised to maximise profit because this is tge best way to allocate resources to maximise everyones standard of living (this includes all workers).

And gender discrimination laws are the government setting a rule. By the way, the fact that what is in the interests of corporations is not always in the interests of the public at large is precisely why the power of corporations should be curtailed, and several industries shouldn't be primarily composed of corporations (or at least not ones owned by private shareholders seeking maximum profits above all).

If there is a distortion with the current system that isnt optimal or fair then its the governments job to change theboundaries within which capital operates. Its not the job of businesses to self regulate based off laws that dont exist.

Of course it isn't, and that's why I want an interventionist government that is willing to go after corporations with a hammer if their profiteering is hurting broader society.

 

[Seeds]

Of course they do, but that's cheaper through immigration than it is through natural increase. Getting a ready-made, educated 30 year old from overseas means that businesses do not have to spend much training them, don't have to pay taxes to support their formative education, and didn't have to give their parents parental leave to birth and raise them. It's the perfect solution for the business sector.


They're against their existing employees having families if it means they have to pay them to not work for an extended period.


If they want to be part of society, they have to follow the rules. The minimum wage imposes a cost to businesses, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate businesses paying less than that. We recognised as a society that the principle of making money should be less important than some things, and fair treatment of women should be one of those things.


Yay, more welfare for those poor starving corporations!


And gender discrimination laws are the government setting a rule. By the way, the fact that what is in the interests of corporations is not always in the interests of the public at large is precisely why the power of corporations should be curtailed, and several industries shouldn't be primarily composed of corporations (or at least not ones owned by private shareholders seeking maximum profits above all).


Of course it isn't, and that's why I want an interventionist government that is willing to go after corporations with a hammer if their profiteering is hurting broader society.

I think you will find businesses are completely indifferent to the concept of raising families and its impact on them. It leads to a lot more consumption and high rates of return on capital which drives up profits in the short run. But it also imposes higher indirect taxes as you state. But this is usually in the long run and in the long run there are also more adult consumers. In saying all this, most business owners and boards would have no idea about any of these indirect economic impacts. I work in a large organisation (one of the largest in the country) and our board would have no idea about any of this stuff we are discussing. The only thing that drives them is direct impacts. Direct taxes and Direct costs that they can influence.

And ofcourse employers are against higher costs. They are going to want to employ workers who give them the most direct economic return. The broader economy wide gains shared by society of more women being employed arent directly felt by companies. Given its an economy wide gain its the government who should pay for it in my view. I.e. government should pay child care costs and maternity/paternity leave. Not businesses.

On your minimim wage point yes i agree businesses should abide by the rules set by government. I dont in any way disagree with that. We must trust government is initiating rules that either improve fairness for individuals or provide economy wide gains relative to a free market. Businesses dont get to decide if governments rules achieve this or not. Thats for an informed voting public to decide.

And i fully agree and advocate that governments need to intervene where a companys pursuit of profits negatively impacts the broader society/economy. Obvious examples are when monopoly power exists or third parties not involved in the course of business are impacted by a market exchange (eg. carbon pollution, poisioned rivers etc) or market participants arnt properly informed about the benefits and risks associated with the products they are purchasing (i.e. snake oil products). There are many other examples as well. Again its governments responsibility to set the rules and boundaries here within which private businesses should operate. Its not the job of businesses to think up what these rules and actions should be. They arent democratically elected nor do they have the resources to think up these rules and ensure they are consistent with everyone else. The government is the group that sets the rules/boundaries so its the same for everyone. Its the business goals to maximise profits whilst abiding by the rules set by government. If business doesnt follow the rules it should be penalised considerably (business penalties for breaking the law today are far too lax). But if business law abiding actions are not in the publics interest its not the business that should be blamed but the government for not employing the correct rules.

 

[barreness]

I think you will find businesses are completely indifferent to the concept of raising families and its impact on them. It leads to a lot more consumption and high rates of return on capital which drives up profits in the short run. But it also imposes higher indirect taxes as you state. But this is usually in the long run and in the long run there are also more adult consumers. In saying all this, most business owners and boards would have no idea about any of these indirect economic impacts. I work in a large organisation (one of the largest in the country) and our board would have no idea about any of this stuff we are discussing. The only thing that drives them is direct impacts. Direct taxes and Direct costs that they can influence.

And ofcourse employers are against higher costs. They are going to want to employ workers who give them the most direct economic return. The broader economy wide gains shared by society of more women being employed arent directly felt by companies. Given its an economy wide gain its the government who should pay for it in my view. I.e. government should pay child care costs and maternity/paternity leave. Not businesses.

On your minimim wage point yes i agree businesses should abide by the rules set by government. I dont in any way disagree with that. We must trust government is initiating rules that either improve fairness for individuals or provide economy wide gains relative to a free market. Businesses dont get to decide if governments rules achieve this or not. Thats for an informed voting public to decide.

And i fully agree and advocate that governments need to intervene where a companys pursuit of profits negatively impacts the broader society/economy. Obvious examples are when monopoly power exists or third parties not involved in the course of business are impacted by a market exchange (eg. carbon pollution, poisioned rivers etc) or market participants arnt properly informed about the benefits and risks associated with the products they are purchasing (i.e. snake oil products). There are many other examples as well. Again its governments responsibility to set the rules and boundaries here within which private businesses should operate. Its not the job of businesses to think up what these rules and actions should be. They arent democratically elected nor do they have the resources to think up these rules and ensure they are consistent with everyone else. The government is the group that sets the rules/boundaries so its the same for everyone. Its the business goals to maximise profits whilst abiding by the rules set by government. If business doesnt follow the rules it should be penalised considerably (business penalties for breaking the law today are far too lax). But if business law abiding actions are not in the publics interest its not the business that should be blamed but the government for not employing the correct rules.

A govts choice of regulation(or not) is functionally set by lobbyists, think tanks, media organisations, business groups, donations etc. ie the arms of capital. Catch 22

 

[kranky al]

This issue is something I follow pretty closely. I will make some comments from my perspective.

There are two main sets of drivers for the lower than normal fertility rate.

1 - Those issue common with other developed countries.
The first set of drivers are very similar to the issues we see playing out in Western Europe, where birth rates are collapsing. These are things like the progress of women in the workplace, governments continuing the cradle to grave subsidy of those born 1946-60, rising rates of tertiary education, availability of contraception, higher cultural expectations of the time spent with kids and so on. You can throw a few more on this stack. Interestingly one thing you can't throw on is expense. Japan is a very cheap place to have a kid. A month worth of childcare fees in Tokyo wouldn't get you two days of care in Sydney. Another thing you can't throw on is education. The government is highly committed to both quality AND consistency of quality in the government sector (these are different concepts). This means that if you have kids in Japan you don't have to pay for private education to get quality and you don't have to waste anywhere nearly as much time in checking the comparative quality of government schools. That peters out a little in high school, but is not a factor at all in the lower grades. I could go on about education here but I wont.

Outside Japan commentary is really drawn to this first set of drivers. Its what we understand and there are a lot of "things people say" about fertility rates. It is common discussion fodder for industry groups, educators, gender activists, family activists. We often read articles talking about family discount, baby bonuses and cheaper childcare... even though very powerful models of those things have already been implemented.

2 - What is unique to Japan
The second set of drivers requires a bit more background to understand, and therefore does not get a running in foreign media. These are the drivers that Japan experiences on top of the first set. It starts in the aftermath of WW2. The country was broke. The occupying government and the budding modern parliamentary Japanese government had to rebuild Japanese society.

Taking a step back, in every country households and individuals have a different relationship and get different things from different parts of society. EG in the UK social housing comes from the local government. In the US health insurance comes from the employer / whereas we have medicare. The risk of unemployment might be dealt with by insurance or a government agency. etc etc. So what did this look like in 1946 Japan? The government had no money so a sector had to be pinned with everything.

That sector was the employer. (For reasons I will not go into) Everyone knew that employment would be very strong in postwar Japan. Employers were begging highschool graduates to join them. So government just threw all responsibilities at the employer. Unemployment? No, just legislate to force employers to keep staff to retirement age. First house.... company dormitory. Second house? Company apartment. Further education? Company scheme. Health insurance? employer scheme. it goes on and on.

Japanese workers almost became citizens of their companies. Ever wondered where Japanese company loyalty came from? Employment supported their life like no other place in the world. Getting one of these jobs was like winning the lottery. Like literally, the net present vale to a high school leaver was pretty much like a lottery win. It still is for some. Life is safe, secure and prosperous as long as you had a proper full time job. These jobs are called seishain. They were a dime a dozen back in those days.

So if you had seishain in the 60s, 70s, 80s... you were in a first world country. All the things that supported modern life came from these jobs. Those without seishain were not really living a first world life. They had fallen through the cracks and were living a much meaner life than people who fall through the cracks in Australia or western Europe. But there were so few of them.

But then.... (ominous piano music). In the 80s we had rapid technological advancement. We also had corporate finance, with raiding, mergers, acquistions in the western world. It meant that Japanese companies were presented with competitive challenges they were poorly able to respond to. They couldn't rapidly change their skill base by losing 1000 workers here and hiring a different 1000 there. And then the crash came. Japanese business was in crisis.

Japanese business lobbied government for change. And they were granted it in the early 90. the change was a type of labour market flexibility. Laws were relaxed and companies were allowed to hire more and more people on limited contracts. These are called keiyakushain. No tenure. No benefits. Rolling one year or three month contracts. Not even an invitation to company parties in most cases. And it wasn't a one off. While conditions did not deteriorate for seishain workers, the proportion of new workers hired under keiyakushain arrangments increases every year.

The gap in society between seichain and keiyakushain is massive. If you start as keiyakushain, you are roughly only a 20% chance of changing to seishain. You are not living in the first world. You can't commit to anything. you can't buy a house. You are not getting married (don't forget the more transactional nature of marriage in Japan). You are not having kids. And it is an ever increasing proportion of the Japanese workforce. All childbearing age ranges are now saturated with high levels of keiyakushain workers. Childless.

One of the great ironies is when some western journalist tries to explain low birthrates by pointing to long hours in the workplace and poor work life balance. The reality is that those are the exact blokes who are still having kids. Its the young people without the long hours that are not having kids.

Like the Australian housing market, government is faced with a choice bewteen fixing a major problem OR doing what makes life easier for baby boomers. You know where this is going.

(will reread and clean up)

Interesting post - love reading stuff I never knew

 

[Cmarsh]

Seems pretty much all of East Asia isn't into breeding anymore.

Empty classrooms, silent halls: Taiwan’s declining birthrate forces schools to close

Authorities fear looming economic crises caused by an expanding elderly population without enough workers to support them

www.theguardian.com

 

[basashi]

Journalist here provides three answers as to why japan birth rates are falling:

• high child care costs (they are not high - day care is very cheap in Japan)
• declining marriage rates (an intermediate issue between the true cause and the lack of births)
• demanding corporate culture (opposite is true - the guys with these demanding jobs are the ones still having kids)

 

[Todman]

Incorrect. The Soviet Union solved ageing population issues far better than any capitalist nation. They did it by not only incentivising people to have children, but by heavily taxing people of childbearing age who didn't have children.

The ATO also does this. What can a single wage-earning person without dependants claim? SFA.

 

[Dockerau]

Ive just shown your assumption is completely false. Tax rates have had no influence on birth rates.

Lower birth rates are caused by changing social norms and increased access to contraception. Yes the under 40s have been screwed over by the baby boomers tax policies. But this isnt driving lower birth rates. If birth rates were driven by economic factors then how do you explain high birth rates 70,150, 300 years ago when young people were far far poorer then they are today.

isnt lower birth rates good. with the creation of AI and robotics will eliminate the need for several jobs and industries, its an estimated that around 30% of the total jobs market in the world are drivers of some form, so with the potential of self driving cars replacing a large share of those jobs an ageing population is a good thing

 

[Cmarsh]

Japan aside... Australia is going through a population crisis. Record low birthrate. With an already aged population and next to no youngsters coming through this will just about cook the country. Can't believe this isnt being talked about more.

No more 'middle children': What Australia's record low birth rate means

The fall in the birth rate in Australia has surprised experts who say it could irreversibly change family dynamics and how communities function.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[kranky al]

Japan aside... Australia is going through a population crisis. Record low birthrate. With an already aged population and next to no youngsters coming through this will just about cook the country. Can't believe this isnt being talked about more.

No more 'middle children': What Australia's record low birth rate means

The fall in the birth rate in Australia has surprised experts who say it could irreversibly change family dynamics and how communities function.

www.sbs.com.au

Why would you have kids when you can barely afford to live, will never own your own home and the generations before you have trashed the joint?

 

[kranky al]

The ATO also does this. What can a single wage-earning person without dependants claim? SFA.

Salary sacrificing cars and computers etc, negative gearing…

 

[Cmarsh]

Why would you have kids when you can barely afford to live, will never own your own home and the generations before you have trashed the joint?

You are being a bit defeatist. The structural barriers that you allude to are there. But we are also seeing the emergence of personal choices not to have children becoming quite a dominant force. It's become much more accepted to place career progression in front of family commitments.

This will have the consequences of a reduced tax base and fewer people of working age to manage what will be an increasing demand on health and social security services for an all too overrepresented senior population.

There is only so much a turn around in economic conditions can do without there also being a turn around in societal attitudes towards actually having and raising children.