Japanese women refuse to "do it"

[Taro Toporific]

Japan's birthrate falls to record low of 1.29, reports say
CJAD, 10 June... Japan's birthrate has been falling for decades, a trend largely attributed to changing values among younger generations of Japanese who find less fulfilment in marriage and children....
...Japan has one of the world's lowest birth rates, ranking closely behind...Italy's birthrate stood at 1.24 in 2001, while Germany's was 1.29. The birthrate in Canada is 1.5.

[Andocrates]

Now see I don't get that. Almost every one I know has children, teenagers clog the streets and shops all day. You see a constant stream of girls in mini-skirts riding their bikes with that odd "knees together as they pedal" method.

It might just be a big conspiracy.

[canman]

I mean, don't most industrialized countries have falling birthrates? I thought that as country moves from developing to developed, the trend was an increase in consumerism, and a decrease in birthrates. But is this such a bad thing. I know everyone keeps worrying about the pension system going bankrupt, but hell it will anyway. Also I feel that Japan is a unique case when compared to other industrialized countries, especially regarding the cost of education. My wife and I are now preparing for out children to start the long road called high school and university, and I can tell you I don't know how the average Japanese family can do it. When high school costs run you anywhere to 450 000 a year, and that's for a public school, to the millions that university costs. I can see why parents are having less kids. Do something about those costs and you may see an increase in the birthrate, but I doubt it.

[Taro Toporific]

Sure it's "natural"....ya gotta love this stat.

London economy lauded
London Free Press, Canada - 10 June... Japan as having the worst demographics, with the lowest birth rate and oldest population, with dogs now outnumbering babies 10 to one. ...

[Unspoken]

Ah yes, the new generation is at it again, but this time it's also screwing over the next one by not making it!!!

But maybe, just maybe, there's a bit more to it than that.

Perhaps more and more teenagers are actually acknowledging the fact that love might not be the ever-lasting force that romanticized poetry makes it out to be. Maybe they're not just ignoring the scientific facts behind it, and maybe they're not rushing into marriage as a result. Or maybe they see more and more marriages end in divorce, and they simply don't want that to happen to them.

And maybe they *gasp* end up choosing to engage in non-monogomous relationships instead!

Or maybe they're not all owners of large farms who need five sons and five daughters to maintain the family business.

Or maybe they just don't like kids.

Or maybe they don't think that they would make good parents.

Or maybe they're not so well-off that having multiple kids is a realistic option (roughly 20 years worth of food, clothing, health-care, school tuitions, etc. can add up).

Or maybe they're selfish pricks who want to spend all their money on themselves.

Or maybe they'd like to contribute to society through means that don't include breeding like rabbits.

Or maybe they realize that the leveling of the world's population as a whole is a good thing.

Well, that sure is a lot of maybes, and those are just the ones that immediately came to my head. The point is, most governments want you to have plenty of kids. It's good for the economy, especially in the long run, and can strengthen almost every other facet of the country. Despite all this, it's pretty indisputable that government officials should stop sticking their noses in such an intensely personal side of our lives (especially when the reasons for their stance seem to be entirely selfish).

This is exactly what I'm talking about (the Yahoo! News story is not there anymore, and I couldn't find a cache of it, so I'm quoting a piece from Nerve.com)

The Australian government wants citizens to get down under the covers tonight, reports Reuters. Australian national treasurer Peter Costello wants to see the country repopulated, and has ordered his countrymen and women to have more sex toward that end. The average Australian couple has two children, which Costello called inadequate – and even unpatriotic. Costello said Tuesday that if everyone followed his order to "go home and do your patriotic duty," the country's aging demographic would shift. "You should have one for your husband, one for your wife, and one for your country," he said. If a couple knows people unable to conceive or planning not to have children, he added, that couple should have more kids "for the country." Costello proposed a "family package" of federal compensation to encourage procreation. For each baby born after June, he said, families would receive Aus $3,000, to the tune of Aus $19.2 billion nationwide over five years.

[Caustic Saint]

Ah yes, the new generation is at it again, but this time it's also screwing over the next one by not making it!!!

But maybe, just maybe, there's a bit more to it than that.

Or maybe they just don't like kids.

Or maybe they don't think that they would make good parents.

Or maybe they're selfish pricks who want to spend all their money on themselves.

Hey! These are my top 3 reasons for not breeding! (Especially that third one.)

Or maybe they'd like to contribute to society through means that don't include breeding like rabbits.

Or maybe they realize that the leveling of the world's population as a whole is a good thing.

I like these two as well, but they're not as key in my decision as the first 3.

[canman]

First off I hate the fact tht gov'ts try and bribe people into haing money. I remember a long time ago when the Quebec gov't did the same thing, when they feared being over run by, gasp"English" speakers. Some social commentators reported that the monetary rewards appealed to the lower income groups, precisely the people who could or should not have any more children.
But the other point is that they are offering money because they know how damn expensive it is to have and raise a child. I figure $3000A wouldn't even pay for the diapers and food for the first couple of years. They make having children a quick way to make a buck, or so it seems.

[mercutio]

Some social commentators reported that the monetary rewards appealed to the lower income groups, precisely the people who could or should not have any more children.

They could offer progressively larger tax breaks to the rich... the more money you make, the more they take of your taxes per child. That would make for some interesting social dynamics.

[cstaylor]

Some social commentators reported that the monetary rewards appealed to the lower income groups, precisely the people who could or should not have any more children.

They could offer progressively larger tax breaks to the rich... the more money you make, the more they take of your taxes per child. That would make for some interesting social dynamics.

Just make it a flat percentage: if you pay more, you'll save more after having a child.

I wonder what kind of tax shelter this will be: "All of Redmond are my children", said Bill Gates, father to over 100,000 people in Washington.

[Taro Toporific]

Or maybe they just don't like kids.
Or maybe they don't think that they would make good parents.
Or maybe they're not so well-off that having multiple kids is a realistic option (roughly 20 years worth of food, clothing, health-care, school tuitions, etc. can add up).
Or maybe they're selfish pricks who want to spend all their money on themselves.

"Japan seems to be trying to explore all options before it faces the inevitable -- a shortage of people" laughs sociologist Yoshida. Pets and robots are just substitutes but many people seem to prefer them to the alternatives, which involve a lot of pain and compromise."
How Japan succumbed to a massive attack of puppy love
The Japanese treat their dogs like children. But that's because a nation whose population is in freefall desperately needs child substitutes.
The Independent, UK / 11 June 2004i