• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 minutes ago

      And not get molested the whole way home by some guy that thinks he’s in the old boy’s club. And not get fired because they’re a married woman now, and need to stay home (literally normal there).

      Like, people are losing interest in kids everywhere, but in the core Western countries nobody’s nervous to get married because they get socially demoted in the process. That’s a theme I’ve definitely heard from women over there, and probably why it’s happening faster.

  • A_Filthy_Weeaboo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Also…loosen immigration laws?

    I know it’s a very closed off nation with deep cultural roots that is very weary of outsiders…

    • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Capitalism is totally different from a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, the profits go up to the person at the top and you always need new people that come in, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart and the people at the bottom will be the ones that suffer. Under capitalism however, the profits of everyone’s work will go up to the top and you always need new workers to come in, otherwise the system will fall apart and the people at the bottom will suffer. Totally different.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        otherwise the system will fall apart and the people at the bottom will suffer.

        Don’t you mean “suffer more”?

      • john89@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Hm. There is a difference.

        Once crapitalists run out of “new horizons” to “expand” into, they start cannibalizing their current workforce and raise prices while lowering quality for customers.

        Do not be fooled. Quality is going down because profits are going up.

          • qaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            I think it actually fits quite well.

            A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

            Meanwhile, the current pension system in most countries depend on a growing population to spread out the payments for pensioners over multiple workers.

            Ponzi schemes collapse when there aren’t enough investors to sustain the dividends to be paid to the existing investors. Most countries’ pensions rely on an increasing amount of working age inhabitants to pay retirees and are now having issues paying out pensions due to the shift in demographics, that’s why many countries have been increasing the retirement age recently.

            There are 2 solutions to this.

            1. Increasing birth rates, this option is not sustainable in the long term but is commonly preferred for reasons mentioned below.
            2. Migration. There are currently plenty of countries with a large working-age population and a weak economy. Letting those migrate would solve the demographic issue, but is political suicide.
            • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these funds work.

              The goal is not to pay people with the money from new people paying into the pot. They invest the money and then the pot grows and that money is used to pay out. When the pot is not growing enough - whether because investments aren’t doing well enough, or you designed a you designed an bad system where people can withdraw from it for too long, or any other many possible issues - then yes you functionally end up dipping into the money given by new people, but this is not how it was designed to be used.

              You are acting like this is a one-to-one system where you just put money in, then you get money out later, and all of the money given out is 100% the money that people put in in the first place with no intention of growing that money or finding a sustainable way of disseminating it long-term.

              Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?

              • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these funds work.

                This misunderstanding is on your side. There is a method of funding pensions refered to as pay as you go (PAYG).

                The goal is not to pay people with the money from new people paying into the pot.

                This is exactly how many unfunded, state sponsored pension schemes function. No pot of money exists. Only the ability to collect taxes.

                They invest the money and then the pot grows and that money is used to pay out.

                This is true for private pension schemes run by companies and individual pension schemes. Funded pension schemes are (usually) not ponzis.

                • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 hours ago

                  State pension plans are primarily funded (in order of what comprises the most) by 1) the government 2) investments and 3) employee contributions.

                  Pay as you go is about employee contributions, which is typically the smallest pot being contributed. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

              • xavier666@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes

                “Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I’ll have my wife’s brother arrested”

              • qaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                21 hours ago

                Of course I understand that the money that is put in is invested, but that doesn’t mean the problem goes away when the system relies on the “pot” growing at a certain rate.

                EDIT:

                Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?

                I’m not implying that it’s the same, just that the comparison fits better than you might expect.

                • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  21 hours ago

                  When did I ever say the problem goes away? I am saying it is not a Ponzi scheme. You were saying it is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t move the goalposts here.

  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    ·
    2 days ago

    Daycare/Kindergarten is already free across the country for all children starting at 3 years old.

    All child healthcare is also free after a prefecture-set monthly premium (usually about 1000 yen).

    This policy announcement is specifically about making the 0-3 year old gap free.

    Honestly I’d rather just see the government pay more into the shakai hoken (the national insurance that pays for mother/father leave) so people can take more time off from work early on in the kids’ lives.

    Making it easier for parents to go back to work instead of focusing what’s good for children and parents seems par for the course.

    • kinetic_donor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Daycare/Kindergarten is already free across the country for all children starting at 3 years old.

      My information might be biased towards the greater Kanto area (Tokyo/Yokohama), but I’m not aware of anybody paying less then 20000 Yen (a little over $100 USD I guess) per month per child for a place in a public daycare (can be more than double, depending on the area/daycare, and much more for private ones).

      It’s much more complicated, though. You can receive various support money from the state/prefecture/city, but it’s usually less than what you have to pay. And you’re not guaranteed a place, and the waiting list cam be long (especially in highly populated areas in Tokyo).

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I’m not sure why your friends are paying that… Most cities in Saitama, Chiba, and the 23 wards at least I know that the 学費 was set as 無償化.

        There are some instances where you don’t qualify for free school if you make too much money. (Or it could just be they didn’t have a good guide at the city office to walk them through the maze of beaurocracy)

        Also 23 wards and most of the cities in Saitama and Chiba have daycare and kindergarten entry that’s points based(the larger cities have more kids than daycare spots, which is my favorite bit of irony about the Japanese birthrate problems), the more points you have (points based on need, like are you a single mother, both parents working full time etc.)

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The only solution is to make childcare paid i.e. every single person that has a child gets a stipend worth a full time job.

      Because it is a full time job.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Decent first step, but it’s going to take an actual investment in making parenthood desirable.

    • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      92
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Parenthood is already desirable. There’s a biological drive and social conditioning to desire it for most people. The disincentives have just become overwhelming. Children take a hell of a lot of resources. Every aspect of modern society has drained all the time, money, energy, emotional resiliance, social support, etc that people need.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Usually the newer buildings owned by larger real estate groups don’t do they kept money thing anymore.

        I’ve only really seen it in buildings owned by small real estate concerns and old dudes.

        It’s luckily getting kind of pushed out as a normal thing, just slowly.

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Only once in my life have I got my damage deposit back. That is tipping the landlord a lot of money. The time I got it back was in a terrible situation and I had leverage over the parasite.

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Housing is pretty affordable in Japan since housing in Japan is not an investment, it depreciates like a car (only the land has value, the house ontop of it has literally negative value since it’s assumed anyone will want to bulldoze it), and their lax zoning allows for continual densification to happen.

    • regul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 days ago

      Housing in Tokyo is known for being relatively affordable, actually.

      • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        2 days ago

        ya it’s funny when you watch some videos about “small apartments” in tokyo and only to realize they are still more cheaper and spacious than some NA options in big cities.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not in Tokyo, but farther out in Tokyo’s residential cities (outside the 23 wards like Chiba and Saitama)

        It’s even cheaper the farther you get from train stations. There’s a 30 minute walk “cliff” where residential land prices plummet when you’re more than 30 minutes walk away from a train station.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Hmm sarcastic or not sarcastic… This is a hard one. I’m going to guess sarcastic.

      • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not good to make assumptions. Better to Downvote and report. Even if you guess right, some bigot may think it validates their hatred.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    What governments and corporations never understand and will never want to understand is that …

    … it isn’t about the quantity of life … or even the quantity of people who are alive or are born

    … it’s about the quality of life

    If everyone lives a comfortable, safe and fulfilling life without risk of poverty or losing everything they have, then they are more likely to have children and raise them to become productive people who will contribute to society.

    Otherwise if you don’t take care of people, they will either have no children or a bunch of children that will all grow up to become a burden to society.

      • Murple_27@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The climate catastrophe is caused by a hyper-reliance on fossil fuels & deliberately shitty transport infrastructure (i.e. the private automobile & it’s consequences), entirely for financial reasons; not just raw numbers of people.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe we should be less focused on making more people, and more focused on enabling living people to work together to meet each other’s needs?

      People will have children. But the only thing that pushes the nationalistic desires to have a positive birth rate is the zealotry around eternal 3%+ growth of financial product. That needs a growing consumer base.

      We could be achieving an economic degrowth while simultaneously increasing the standard of living. Instead we have tech billionaires, a venture capitalist class, and a war on women’s(as well everyone else’s) bodily autonomy.

    • chaos@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      “Life without risk of poverty”?! That desperation and fear is the only way I can staff my sweatshops!

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      If everyone lives a comfortable, safe and fulfilling life without risk of poverty or losing everything they have, then they are more likely to have children and raise them to become productive people who will contribute to society.

      You would assume that, but is it really true? The countries with the safest and most comfortable lives, in Scandinavia, have the lowest birth rates. The countries with the least safe and comfortable lives, in Africa, have the highest birth rates.

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Well, countries with higher birthrates have a third option that is essentially negligible in those with lower birthrates, which is not even making it to adulthood. Effectively still less children end up becoming productive members of society. And together with that, due to less available social services, often a goal of having children survive is so they can take care of the parent when they’re older.

        As soon as infant mortality becomes a non-factor, birthrates decline drastically as well. And since children are no longer largely seen as a “life assurance” for when parents are older, and the society’s demands for productive members is higher as well, the focus really does shift to the quality of the life and the two types of reasons to have kids are harder to compare. But even among developed nations you can see differences in fertility rates.

        PS. Scandinavia doesn’t have the lowest birth rates, they actually have fairly typical birth rates for more developed regions.

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Maybe I’m reading into this wrong, but I think the interpretation of fertility statistics may be underestimating/overlooking how much rape and sexual violence contributes to the high fertility rates we’re seeing in impoverished countries struggling with widespread violence.

        Countries like the ones in Scandinavia have lower rape statistics and access to abortion which could explain a lot about those numbers and why they are the way they are. Again, it’s a just hypothesis, but one worth mentioning I think.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 days ago

      The way I’ve heard it said is “if you live in a developed country, you could probably afford to move to Japan right now. If you get a job in Japan, you’ll never afford to move back.”

      Japan’s cost of living is low compared to developed nations, but their average income is also low for a developed nation.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        When you move from the US you lose like half your salary for an equivalent position (more now cause of the relative power of the dollar to the yen).

        The people that live like kings are the ones that are in Japan at the behest of American companies on American salaries living at like a third of their American costs.

        • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          This is true in Europe too. Salaries in the US are just stupid high in general. They need to be because the US has shit for social services, which must be paid out of pocket.

          Case and point: childcare.

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      rent is cheapish, it’s everything else that will get you. if you’re fine with crushing and all-permeating conformism, ridiculous degree of nationalism and misogyny, how you won’t be ever accepted as one of their own as foreigner and famously toxic work culture, feel free to give it a shot