Japan: Can anything be done to stop population decline?

The latest numbers on Japanese population make for a dismal reading — the number of people who died in 2022 (1.56 million) was roughly twice as big as the number of newborn children (771,000). Based on residency registrations, the country’s Internal Ministry estimates a total population loss of some 800,000 last year. This is the largest total drop in population since comparable statistics were first collated in 1968.

Japan now has 122.4 million nationals, down from a peak of over 128 million some 15 years ago.

But the issue of Japan’s shrinking population goes much further into the past. Since the 1990s, successive Japanese governments have been aware that the population would start to decline and tried to offer solutions. And yet, the speed of the contraction has caught even the experts by surprise. In 2017, for example, the Tokyo-based National Institute of Population and Social Security Research forecast that the annual number of births would not fall below the 800,000 threshold until 2030.

With the news on Japan’s population decline growing ever more grim, the government of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has announced a series of efforts to encourage more people to have children.

Japan ‘on the brink’

In January, Kishida warned that the nation is “on the brink” of a crisis and that his government would spend around 20 trillion yen (around €128 billion, $140 billion) on measures to support young couples who wish to have more children. This corresponds to around 4% of Japan’s GDP, and is nearly double the amount that the government had earmarked for the same goal in fiscal 2021.

The prime minister also set up a panel to devise ways to spend the extra funds. He also hosted an event in Tokyo in late July to mark the launch of a nationwide campaign to support children and families. The government has agreed on increasing child allowances and putting in additional effort to eradicate child poverty and abuse. New fathers will also be encouraged to take paternity leave and additional funding will go into pre-school facilities so that working parents are able to return to work. Parents will also get greater tax breaks.

Kishida said he aims to win the support of society for children and parents.

“We hope that a social circle friendly to child-rearing will spread nationwide,” he said at the launch event.

Critics, however, are not entirely convinced by the latest proposals. They warn that the previous government had also tried to use spending to encourage a baby boom, but Japanese society has failed to respond.

The population is rapidly aging, and the number of people over 65 is already at close to 30% in Japan. Japan’s neighbors China and South Korea are facing similar troubles, and the number of senior citizens is expected to continue climbing in the next three decades.

Will funding be effective?

“The government is focusing very much on the economic aspect and while the budget they are allocating to the problem is very large and it sounds positive, we will have to see whether it can truly be effective,” said Masataka Nakagawa, senior researcher with the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research.

Nakagawa agreed that the latest population statistics were worrying, but warned there are other factors that need to be considered, such as the falling number of marriages. People in Japan are typically getting married later in life and opting to have fewer children, primarily a result of financial pressures, he said.

Chisato Kitanaka, an associate professor of sociology at Hiroshima University, said governments have failed to devise effective policies to solve the population problem, despite knowing that a decline was inevitable.

“There have long been a lot of hurdles for young people who want to have children to overcome,” she told DW. Those include financial and educational concerns, she said, but arguably the biggest problem is social attitudes.

“In Japan, having a child means that a couple has to get married,” she said. “Only 2% of children are born out of wedlock in Japan, but other countries take a far more ‘flexible’ approach to the concept of a family.”

“This is what is considered socially acceptable here and that makes raising a child as a single mother difficult because she has to work and earn money, while at the same time she is singled out by society,” she added.

More foreigners in Japan

Kitanaka believes the government should dramatically increase welfare payments to families to help them raise their children and reduce the substantial costs of education, particularly at the tertiary level.

While looking into the population statistics, Japanese officials also found that nearly 3 million foreign residents were living in Japan, up by more than 289,000, or over 10%, from the previous year. The increase puts the number of foreigners in the Asian country at record high.

And yet, many Japanese are unwilling to seriously contemplate large-scale immigration as a way to solve Japan’s population problem and provide a stable supply of workers.

“It is difficult,” Kitanaka admitted. “There are clearly more foreign residents of Japan now but we as a society are not really thinking about it as a long-term issue. And there are many in Japan who are still not ready to accept foreigners. We need to discuss the sort of Japan that we want to live in for the future.”

korobuhito,

This problem will fix itself once all these geriatric morons die off. That goes for basically all problems in the whole world.

doublejay,

nice ageism.

AngrilyEatingMuffins,
AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

Remind me again what age group has more captive wealth? Twenty somethings or the elderly? Who is banned from public office? Twenty somethings or the elderly?

Give me a fucking break.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

Are you looking forward to the day when you're elderly and future generations blame you for events you lived through but didn't personally cause?

AngrilyEatingMuffins,
AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

I thought the youth were the ones who didn’t vote?

schroedingershat,

If you’re not giving up luxuries and comfort to prevent it, then you are complicit.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

Oh? What luxuries and comforts are you giving up for the sake of future generations? It's presumptive of you to assume future scapegoating enthusiasts will care enough to carve out an exception for you when they blame huge groups of people collectively for the problems of tomorrow.

schroedingershat,

What luxuries and comforts are you giving up for the sake of future generations

Red meat, dairy, most other animal products, driving, cheap electricity, a large house, 24/7 climate control, and cheap new clothes. Cheap imported food. Bought-new electronics. Higher paying jobs I am qualified for, higher paid jobs that require a car for no reason. Not having my face in a facial recognition database my local police makes of people recorded at protests which is used to screen public servant applications (in spite of nothing illegal happening). Just to name the most significant that immediately come to mind.

I also still own my culpability for not doing more rather than narcissistically trying to deflect blame.

Your turn, asshole.

DarkGamer, (edited )
DarkGamer avatar

I appreciate that you walk your talk, asshole, (since that's what we're evidently calling each other now.) Now if only you could do it without being so abrasive. I doubt future generations will look at our time in history books and say, "those jerks in the early 2000's ruined the planet, but @schroedingershat was cool." You will likely be lumped in with everyone else, just like is being done to previous generations in this thread.

I also avoid driving, flying, don't use climate control, minimize my waste, and use far fewer resources than average, but I also don't assume everyone in generations older than the one I'm part of are to blame for the ills of the world. Regardless of what groups they were born into, one should judge individuals by their own merits. Otherwise, you'll be lumping huge amounts of people together inappropriately and showering blame on them because of when they were born, without regard for the individual choices they made.

schroedingershat,

You will likely be lumped in with everyone else, just like is being done to previous generations in this thread.

This is fine. If there is anything I can be doing differently to stop murdering current and future generations and am not, then I share some culpability. I also share blame for not reducing my impact more, sooner and for tolerating those around me who are doing far worse.

Defending the actions of the majority who do not care, or who actively care to make the problem worse is where I have an issue. You are sharing rhetoric created to help those in power amass more power and ruin the world.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

You are sharing rhetoric created to help those in power amass more power and ruin the world.

I thought I was just speaking up against ageist scapegoating. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AA5B,

Bullshit, people are not just measured by their suffering, nor is life uni-dimensional.

schroedingershat,

What are you even trying to say?

If the luxuries are causing the harm, and you keep taking them, then you are complicit. End of story. Stop trying to pretend it was some kother teresa bullshit or justify your killing of current and future generations by saying life is “not dimensional”.

AA5B,

I really wish the lemmy feature to see the conversation thread worked, so I could reply to this. Somehow I’m logged in enough to reply directly but trying to see the thread fails saying I’m not logged in

ikiru,

There are sadly plenty of people who are both old and poor.

Your real issue is with capitalism, not the elderly.

AngrilyEatingMuffins,
AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

Could you tell me the age range that controls the gears of capital and governance?

ikiru,

Babies.

Kill them all.

hark,
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

This is like saying all Americans are the problem because the average wealth is high compared to the rest of the world when you count all the insanely rich assholes in the US in that average.

AngrilyEatingMuffins,
AngrilyEatingMuffins avatar

Again, I thought it was the youth that didn’t vote?

hark,
@hark@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t know who you’re responding to, but it couldn’t be me since I said nothing of the sort. You’d do well not to paint with such broad brushstrokes.

ManosTheHandsOfFate,
@ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world avatar

New geriatric morons are created daily.

ninjakitty7,

Can’t force people to have kids. When the environment simply can’t support a population, it stops growing. It’s in basic biology. People can’t afford it anymore, we’re at a limit.

AA5B,

We’re not at any such limit. Sure overall there may be too many people, and there are certainly regions overcrowded well past sustainability. However we’re talking about developed countries, who do have resources.

Most importantly, this is not about population growth. This is about population implosion, shrinking fast enough to be a problem for their society, and all anyone is advocating gfor is a way to stabilize

bigkix,

So, people can’t afford having kids because of crooked monetary/distribution system we live and that is environment taking care of things? Do you forget to breathe sometimes if you think too much?

orphiebaby,
@orphiebaby@lemmy.world avatar

People aren’t always clear; and even then, everyone makes mistakes. Be cool, fam.

Metaright,
Metaright avatar

Maybe if they'd fix their work culture this wouldn't be as big of an issue.

Alteon,

The old guard refuses to change anything. Nothing will change in that country until the leaders either change or pass on. Culture and Tradition is so important in the business setting that it’s overbearing and fundamentally inhibitive to social progress. The government can’t do anything about unless the businesses change…and they won’t.

MajesticSloth,
@MajesticSloth@lemmy.world avatar

That is always my first thought when this topic comes up. Often not just with Japan. It is a problem in many countries.

Empyreus,

It really is wild to me that the government isn’t working to put restrictions on working hours. It seems that focusing on the benefits of having children, not focusing on building more marriages seems to be a miss from the government.

Deceptichum,
Deceptichum avatar

You mean like the the “Work Style Reform” laws they passed a few years ago aimed at exactly that?

lorkano,

Did it help?

Anonbal185,

Unlike China there are tonnes of people who want to live in Japan. The only problem is that the immigration laws are extremely restrictive. They could solve this issue today, if politics gets in the way of doing so then it’s on them.

NathanielThomas,

Serious question: Is a shrinking population in a country with 125.7 milion people a “problem”? I mean, the only reason that anyone would be upset at a shrinking population where there’s a very healthy base already is because of the economy. And if that’s the reason to be concerned then wouldn’t it logically be impossible to ever stop growing the population? Since the economy requires infinite growth, so would our populations.

Gimly,

It’s a problem because our entire economic system is based on growth and it will be complicated to have economic growth with a decrease in population. Now the fact that our system is based on continuous growth is probably a problem bigger than the decline in population.

orphiebaby, (edited )
@orphiebaby@lemmy.world avatar

The anti-immigrant racism in this thread, man. Not sure if it’s because the racists are Japanese, or if it’s because the racists are weebs.

pyromaniac_donkey,

deleted_by_moderator

  • Loading...
  • orphiebaby,
    @orphiebaby@lemmy.world avatar

    Jeeeeesus…

    AnyProgressIsGood,

    It’s not a problem. The system requireing growth is the problem

    Pyr_Pressure,

    Ya we should all be aspiring to stop growing the population, the real issue is no one seems to be looking for solutions to making smaller populations work rather than trying to stop the decline.

    EhList,

    No it’s people not wanting to work until they die that is the problem. Maintaining that support requires more people paying into it than taking from it. Once you have more taking than paying the system goes bankrupt.

    Warfarin,

    Democrats taking notes on how to cull the native population

    Chainweasel,

    What good could possibly come from unlimited population growth?
    From 1973 to 2023 the world population doubled. If that trend continues, doubling every 50 years, by the year 2123 there will be 32 Billion people on Earth.
    We can’t even house and feed the 8 billion we have now, not to mention the ecological damage that would be inevitable due to expansion and urbanization.
    Even if we just double the current population to 16 billion people 100 years from now it won’t be sustainable. We need to find a new system that isn’t reliant on the next generation being bigger than the previous generation because we’re less than a century from it collapsing anyway. We have finite space on this planet and infinite growth will fill that up very quickly.

    cyd,

    Sure, unlimited population growth is unsustainable, but advanced countries are facing the opposite problem. At a fertility rate of 1, each generation is half the size of the previous one. And the developing world is not far behind these fertility trends. At this rate, humans may end up leaving the planet to the AIs.

    NathanielThomas,

    Let’s start worrying when the global population is actually shrinking then. Not that I would worry, however, as the world was seemingly just fine in 1950 with 2.5 billion.

    glacier,
    @glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    We can house and feed everyone, but we don’t because it is not profitable to do so. Destroying the planet by selling and using fossil fuels makes a lot more money.

    EhList,

    If I offered you a home but it was in rural Minnesota with no services or people around for miles would you want to live there?

    We can house everyone but not everyone is going to want to live where we have space for them.

    auroravenue,

    I won’t, but maybe a homeless person will take every opportunity they can to get out of the cold streets, you know?

    EhList,

    What if the place where you can be relocated to has no job opportunities?

    glacier,
    @glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Well, a lot of people would rather live somewhere other than where they live. Most people might not want to live in the middle of nowhere, but if the house were available, there would be some people who want it.

    EhList,

    The issue is most of the available housing is in places that do not have jobs

    EhList,

    Things like social security/national pension plans require a steady stream of workers paying taxes into the system so retirees can take money out of it. When you get to the point where more people are retired than the workers can support you have serious issues. Thus the issue is maintaining this population not necessarily growing it.

    ram,

    That sounds like a pyramid scheme.

    EhList,

    Then you are confused as to how pyramid schemes work.

    NathanielThomas,

    true, but only if you examine it within the lens of current predatory capitalism. We could all live prosperous lives without worrying about “retirees” if we had an equitable system.

    EhList,

    No this exists regardless of your economic philosophy. You need more stuff being contributed than taken no matter what philosophy you follow.

    NathanielThomas,

    Break it down to the simplest analogy of human survival.

    Let’s say you have a tribe of 20 people. 6 are children, 8 are adults who hunt/gather and 6 are elders who stay in the village. The 8 productive ones feed all 20 equally.

    If that tribe loses 2 people, regardless of which demographic, the amount of productivity may go down, but so does the need to be productive.

    If the tribe loses 2 of the productive adults or the demographics shift so that the adults have to take care of more children or elders, it can be a bit harder of the tribe, but ultimately not if everybody is sharing the resources.

    The reason it gets harder in our world is that we don’t share. So when populations change the burden continues to fall only on the exploited class of workers and not on the people hoarding the wealth.

    So in the tribal analogy, 1 of the 20 people would take 90% of the productive value of the tribe, regardless of the circumstances, so when the tribe loses some members the 1 person doesn’t suffer because he’s insulated himself completely with his wealth.

    EhList,

    The problem with your analogy is it presumes that losing 10% of whatever resource it is you are discussing does not have life altering consequences. Losing those two productive adults would be horrific if everyone was just getting by with all adults working at full capacity.

    It’s further complicated by the fact that someone will not always die at the same time as someone stops working. It is possible that fewer workers will need to support more people which again is hard if everyone is just getting by in the initial setup.

    Finally it’s made more difficult if the numbers are different such as 12 elderly 6 adults and two kids. The moment someone drops out of the workforce the productivity takes a huge hit.

    In every instance a greater number of workers fixes the issue. It is a problem of numbers not distribution.

    sheogorath,

    The main problem in Japan is the birth rate basically doesn’t even replenish the outgoing population. Japan also have one of the longest life expectancy. Tell me how can you take care of 10 seniors in a retirement home if there’s only 1 working age person to take care of them?

    Chainweasel,

    The easiest way is to make sure it’s not a 10:1 ratio to begin with. And, You don’t need 1 nurse per person, if you give a nurse 2 patients for the day for a 2:1 ratio it’s better care than most people get right now.

    kmkz_ninja,

    “The easiest solution is to simply not have a problem”

    Wow thanks.

    Octavio,

    Robots!

    Half the people are hand-wringing about robots taking all the jobs. The other half are hand-wringing about population decline leaving too few working-age people to do all the jobs.

    Seems like these 2 problems cancel each other out.😎

    EhList,

    That’s because you are ignoring how these retirees financial needs are met. Things like social security systems require people paying in. Robots aren’t going to make up the shortfall in tax revenue.

    Amntomek,

    Yes, revolution and hangings of the bilderbergs and world economic forum members.

    Player2,

    Why do these people always want to promote unlimited growth? Oh wait, higher profits

    fluxion,

    It seems stupid to be concerned with maintaining growth given the abysmal outlook of the sustainability of human society if it continues on it’s current course.

    But social/medical security for the elderly is also funded by workers, so I can see why population decline warrants concern.

    Player2,

    It just seems to me that we should be focusing on things like automation and healthcare to actually solve the problem rather than trying to brute force it by increasing population everywhere. That’s just not sustainable in the long term, for us nor the planet. But I am not an expert on this subject

    kilgore_trout,

    Hospitals need workers too.

    AA5B,

    I don’t think anyone here is proposing continued growth. We’re concerned about not maintaining current society. We’re concerned about rapid (relatively) drops in population in places like Japan

    fluxion,

    If by “we” you mean people on Lemmy, then perhaps. If by “we” you mean human society then there is definitely a financial reliance on the idea of yearly GDP and company growth sheerly through population growth and corresponding efforts to maintain those growth levels.

    forbes.com/…/how-population-growth-matters-for-bu…

    We need to be careful to balance avoiding population decline with unchecked growth because there are definitely powerful entities that have a vested interest in promoting the latter with little regard for the consequences.

    SlopppyEngineer,

    Because economics, and more specifically fractional reserve banking, require continuous growth. Without growth the whole system comes crashing down. So politics have the option to reform the financial system from the ground up but bankers have historically a tendency to assassinate those that try this, or to force the country into more growth. So they go for the second option.

    EhList,

    You are confused this has nothing to do with fractional reserve lending.

    You need a greater number of people paying into a pension system than taking out. As Japan has the oldest average population and a smaller number of people attempting to support that elder population they either need to increase the number of workers, decrease the payments to the point of making it almost impossible to retire or destroy the entire nation’s economy by doing nothing.

    Their problem isn’t that a bank can create fiat money by lending $10 twice, rather it is because of population decline

    Onfire,

    The problem with Japan right now is that it’s in and heading toward decline. They can’t even sustain. Wage are low, price are high. They seriously need to relax on the immigration policy.

    sheogorath,

    Yep, with 0.8 birth rate there’s no way to sustain the population. IIRC you need to have a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain the population.

    Hangglide,

    0.8 population growth is what the earth needs. It isn’t what bankers want so it isn’t what we will get.

    EhList,

    It has nothing to do with banking or bankers at all. In a communist system you still need a greater amount of resources being paid into the support systems than being taken from them. If every worker only created enough to cover the needs of themselves and family there would not be enough fir those that could not work and have no family. This is a real world problem that exists regardless of your system for distributing resources

    Hazdaz,

    A lot can be done, but their culture and traditions simply won’t allow it.

    They seem to rather die off as a nation rather than alter their thinking. It’s sad to see, but at the same time that stubbornness to change is the most Japanese thing ever. Their culture revolves around tradition and they rather keep those traditions than open their country up to fresh, new ideas and people.

    Piemanding,

    I kinda wonder if AI takes over the job market and they get universal basic income if we would see a shift back to an increasing population.

    Buffalox,

    This would be almost like it’s out of an Asimov novel.

    joel_feila,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    Not to much. For people living in places lo Tokyo space is also a factor

    NathanielThomas,

    Stubbornness to change? Did you notice what happened from 1945 onwards?

    pyromaniac_donkey,

    deleted_by_moderator

  • Loading...
  • AgentGoldfish,

    I taught English in Japan (JET) for one year, and at the end I said what a lot of people say: I’d love to visit, but I’m never going to work here again.

    The work culture in Japan is fucked. The fact that the amount of time you spend at work, not your actual output, determines how “productive” you are is so fucking stupid. I worked my contract hours and I was seen as lazy. Despite the fact that everything I was asked to do was always done and done well, the fact that I didn’t come in 2 hours early and nap at my desk meant I was lazy. Add onto that the fact that I only got a (generous for Japan) 15 days of nenkyuu (paid days off), which you can’t actually use because what happens if you get sick. Sick leave exists, but does it? Does it really? The one time I tried to use it, I was told “it’d be better for everyone if you didn’t”, and then had to use my nenkyuu anyway.

    And that was me working a pretty privileged position! If I was coming from Vietnam to work in a retirement home, I’m sure the working conditions would be far worse with the threat of deportation looming over my head. Immigration is a band aid at best. As soon as immigrants have the opportunity to move somewhere better, they will of course take that.

    In contrast, I now live in the Netherlands, which shockingly has some of the least generous child benefits in the EU. And yet, we get about 100€/month from the government in support, plus about 50% the cost of childcare paid for. My wife gets 4 months of maternity leave at full pay (I only get 5 days which is super fucked), with up to 3 years at 60% pay with a guarantee of her job being there when she gets back. We each have 25+ days off a year, which are actually used for days off, if the kid gets sick, we can use sick leave to care for it, and sick leave is unlimited. Also, healthcare for children is 100% paid by the government. And with all of that, we’re barely in a position to be able to consider having children.

    TitanLaGrange,

    the fact that I didn’t come in 2 hours early and nap at my desk meant I was lazy.

    I’m curious, if you were in the office but obviously doing not-work activities like playing video games or table-top games with coworkers instead of napping would that be seen negatively?

    Bashnagdul,

    Father parental leave has increased a lot this year though. It’s now 5 weeks instead of 5 days.

    AgentGoldfish,

    You’re talking about the Netherlands? It’s 5 days fully paid.

    I can take several months if I want it, but I have to take a 30% pay cut, which we can’t afford. Paternity leave in the Netherlands sucks.

    Bashnagdul,

    Still, it used to be 2 days paid and that’s it. So, it still sucks, but has gotten much better.

    AgentGoldfish,

    I wouldn’t call 3 extra days “much better”.

    Bashnagdul,

    Well it’s now 5 days 100% and 5 weeks 70% instead of 2 days 100%. I call that much better.

    KalJay,

    I have to agree here. I was reading down this waiting for some sort of address of the work culture but its just not there. If Japan truely believes they can solve their population problem by throwing money at it the country is doomed.

    ecoboy,

    It’s too expensive to have a kid in Japan. There aren’t enough childcare to take care of the kids so one parent usually ends up staying home, making household income low.

    Japan can’t fix this by having bandage solutions like paying couples to have children, or subsidizing deliveries or schools. Yes, they help, but only in the short term. Prospective parents will think about long term prospects and opportunity cost in having kids. Japan has change the whole system to make it work for couples to have kids.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • world@lemmy.world
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines