
Japan records lowest number of births on record as population shrinks - remotorboater
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/01/japan-suffers-lowest-number-of-births-on-record-as-population-shrinks
======
chaostheory
I'm guessing that there are a couple reasons for this (and I could be wrong):

1\. Economic factors: The salary man is slowly going away and so are the
institutions that revolve around him such as mainstream Japan's definition of
a family.

2\. The younger generation wants more freedom from a patriarchal society; in
particular women. On a whole younger Japanese women are not content with being
trapped as a housewife. (It doesn't help that women older than 25 are
derogatorily referred to as 'Christmas cake', something past its due date of
12/25 that no one wants.) Younger males are also no longer content with being
trapped as a corporate slave who lives mainly for his corporation and
functions mainly as an ATM for his family that he rarely sees.

3\. Xenophobia: Even though the younger generation is more tolerant, on a
whole Japan is a racist country. For example, unless you have Japanese
ancestry it is near impossible to get Japanese citizenship. This has larger
consequences such as really low immigration numbers and generally, non-
existent integration of immigrants into mainstream society (yes there are
always exceptions depending on which part of Japan we are talking about). In
Japan's defense most of Asia is also racist, but Japan just takes it to
another level.

~~~
mti
It's not clear that (2) is true. Support for the idea that "the husband should
work outside and the wife should care for the household" remains surprisingly
strong in Japan (people are roughly evenly split between for and against),
even among younger generations. Actually, according to the latest Cabinet
Office survey, support is stronger among 20-39 year olds than 40-59 year olds
(see [0]), and only a few percentage points lower among women vs. men.

Similarly, a majority of respondents of the Japanese General Social Survey
think that "in case the husband's income is sufficient, it is better for the
wife not to work". But economic realities make such lifestyle choices
difficult. For example, when asked what level of household income would be
sufficient for them to consider getting married, a plurality of Japanese women
cite a figure of around ¥500k net per month [1], which is around the limit of
the top quartile of household incomes, and way above what unmarried men
typically make on their own.

As for (3), I'm not particularly interested in debating whether "Japan is a
racist country", but getting Japanese citizenship is far from being
impossible. In fact, the rejection rate of formally submitted naturalization
applications is about 1% (consistent over at least the past decade, see e.g.
[2]).

[0]:
[http://www2.ttcn.ne.jp/honkawa/2410.html](http://www2.ttcn.ne.jp/honkawa/2410.html)
[1]:
[http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp/english/research/monographs/jgss...](http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp/english/research/monographs/jgssm3/jgssm3_02.pdf)
[2]: [http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/05/10-years-of-
natural...](http://www.turning-japanese.info/2012/05/10-years-of-
naturalization-statistics.html)

~~~
chaostheory
I don't particularly trust survey results conducted by the Japanese Gov for
the following reasons:

1\. Saving face is the most important thing in Japanese society. Based on
history, Japan's government is not above molding things like survey results to
fit their agendas like the preservation of Japan's nuclear family or hunting
endangered whales and other fish

2\. In psychology, we're aware that people don't necessarily do what they say.
I would guess that this is even more true of Japanese society at large. I
wouldn't be surprised if many respondents merely gave answers based on what
they felt people expected. Japanese society is a polite society. It is less
direct and less truthful when you compare it to other cultures.

Of course I could always be proven wrong.

------
ChrisNorstrom
What if having children is a (good) biologically programmed "selfish" act?
Meant to ensure that the parents are one day taken care of by their children
when they themselves grow older. And programs like social security and
retirement income remove the psychological need to have children?

500 years ago: "If I don't have children who will take care of me?". Today:
"If I don't have children, public funding will take care of me." If this has
any bit of truth to it, the reduced risk that such social programs create have
a consequence on population levels. Not bad, not good. Just something to
analyze.

~~~
tzakrajs
Of course there is an argument that individuals might feel more free to have
children knowing that there are entitlement programs to fallback on to help
with medical, educational and day care in case they are unable to provide for
their offspring. Some entitlements provide direct income for each child that
they bear which seems like it could be incentive to have more children too.

------
lpsz
For those curious to see some numbers, this WP article [1] (2003) does a
decent job -- among this, a projected ~25% population decline by 2050.

[1]
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22/japans-
sexual-apathy-is-endangering-the-global-economy/)

------
jmadsen
However, it also just recorded "Number of 20-year-olds in Japan rises for
first time in 21 years" [1] (the year you become a legal adult), giving a
different signal for the future

[1][http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/31/national/number-...](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/31/national/number-20-year-
olds-japan-rises-first-time-21-years/#.VKW93Ht93Ms)

------
7Figures2Commas
> The proportion of people aged 65 or over is forecast to reach nearly 40% of
> the population in 2060, the government has warned.

These sorts of demographic shifts provide some of the best investment
opportunities of the 21st century. Japan offers one of the most extreme shifts
that will be found, but there are numerous others around the globe.

------
Htsthbjig
"The proportion of people aged 65 or over is forecast to reach nearly 40% of
the population in 2060"

This takes for granted that in year 2060 people will be old like they are
today. That change in human biology won't happen.

One of the areas our company has worked is DNA(software) processing. You
probably have heard about "mother cells" for a reason. Those things could do
incredible things. They repair the body constantly(if you are young),when you
lose them, you age.

Breakthroughs on this area wont probably happen in single years time. But over
decades it is a different story.

This will create another problem for humanity(humanity has always solved
problems by creating new [smaller]ones). But at the same time we will have
fusion and ability to travel (cheaply)outside the earth by 2060.

------
oska
Disappointing to see the use of the word 'suffers' in the headline. It betrays
a natalist ideology that appears much too frequently in the reporting of
Japan's shrinking population.

~~~
archagon
Many of the world's problems could be greatly alleviated if we collectively
agreed that shrinking, not growing, our populations over time is the right
thing to do. Unfortunately, nationalism incentivizes the opposite. No
country's going to go first.

~~~
alkonaut
In much of the developed world the fertility (children per woman) is barely
the (slightly over) 2.0 required to sustain the population. Countries where,
say, 1.0 children are born per woman is having a rapidly shrinking population,
but more seriously a rapidly _aging_ population where a smaller number of
working people supports a larger and larger number of elderly.

If a country wanted to have a shrinking population, it would likely want a
fertility rate of just below 2. Japan has 1.41 (!) and barely any immigration.

The solution to global population issues is making sure that poor countries
with high fertility rate (4-7) are brought down to 2-2.5, something which is
already happening very quickly. See e.g. Hans Rosling's famous talks:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXJnOE-1gw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXJnOE-1gw)

The solution to the low fertility rate is likely hard to change short term
(cultural), but comparing countries in europe for example, it seems likely
that making children reforms such as subsidized day-care, free higher
education etc. would help.

~~~
archagon
Regardless, current estimates that I've seen point to the population of the
Earth stabilizing at around 10 billion. People always say that we can't move
from industrial to more sustainable types of farming because our current
population levels couldn't be sustained. Where is that cut-off point? 1
billion? Less? I think that point is what all "enlightened" nations should be
aiming for in terms of policy — the point where we could all survive
comfortably without having to depend on oil-based products just to feed us.
(Otherwise, it'll eventually have to happen naturally, and it won't be
pretty.)

~~~
alkonaut
There isn't a clear distinction between "needs oil" and "sustainable". It's
quite likely that there are ways (or ways to be found) to farm very
efficiently without ruining the planet. Btw I think the latest prognosis was
bumped to 11bn.

------
shit_parade
Japan is moving towards the 'kite' formation common to aging populations which
throughout history resembled more of a pyramid, and more often today look like
a cylinder. The simple solution would be immigration which will occur
eventually whether or not the politicians and people of Japan want it. It
would be better to do it now and slower then later on and with larger groups
because acclimating foreigners to Japanese society will be more difficult if
large enough populations of immigrants can come in to form their own
communities. Perhaps that would be best, who knows, but the Japanese would
probably prefer more aggressively allowing Koreans and Chinese in small
amounts today then large waves in 30 years when they desperately need the
additional labor, or allow their country to become internationally irrelevant.

