Not necessarily poor, but lower standards of living. As I said, if we come to the point where every country is developed and birth rates are declining everywhere, you have much bigger problems to worry about.
No it will not. Immigration does not stabilize the population and as long as the population is not stable, you will just need more and more migrants. And when I say that I do not mean it as needing increasingly larger quantities of migrants, I'm just saying that you will need to continue importing people if your population does not stabilize and that is not desirable.
Your plan will not work because it does not actually stabilize anything. It just adds more people to compensate for the decline while doing nothing to stop the actual decline. This is not a viable long term solution, you need to solve the issue, not actively ignore it with band aid measures.
Now, what do I think should be done? Just like the article points out, I believe that the birthrate decline not just in Japan but in the Western world as well is, in large part, due to the lack of viable long term job opportunities. In order to marry and raise a family, a steady source of income is vital. However, the last few decades have seen a decline on the availability of said long term jobs in favor of short term ones.
What I think needs to be done, first and foremost, is creating more long term jobs. This can be done by directly funding said jobs, giving monetary incentive to companies that retain their employees or fining companies that do not.
Concurrently, better maternity leave policies need to be put in place, as the current ones seem to be punishing towards working women. Social benefits from having children, in particular more than one child, should be pushed.
Small amounts of migrants can help alleviate the economic stress on the short term while the remaining solutions take fruit. Automation will also allow the filling of many low-level jobs that people no longer want to do while opening new jobs in the tech and robotics fields.
Finally, like carcarcargon said, a thorough economic reform will be needed to adapt the economy to a stable population rather than a growing one.
These are just my 2 cents and granted, it's not much, but I think it's important to attempt to solve the underlying issue rather than treating band aids as permanent solutions.
maybe in your country, but most people can he quite happy and healthy through their 60s.
Which is why I'm suggesting we should solve the problem of declining birth-rates in developed countries, not relying on some areas being perpetually worse off.
Sadly the only realistic course of action.
Are you genuinely arguing that we should let poorer countries remain poor just so we can leech immigrants to sustain an migration-based demographic that could be completely avoided by stabilizing our populations then?
No, I am not.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about things about Japan specifically, like the culture of workaholism, difficulty dealing with sexual situations etc.
Your right, lets hold guns to random strangers heads and kill them if they don't make babies.
except no, it was a suggestion. A money incentive isn't forcing anyone to do anything, it's benefiting people that have a kid and would then need money, and encouraging it.
And you can easily have the hour-week law have a catch of signing papers to allow for over 40 hour weeks. Banning companies from demanding it is just good in general and free's up time for family life.
That's what I would say to MediocreSpine. But I guess in the end we are all just a bunch of people brainstorming solutions to problems that are not our own, with solutions based on our views rather than theirs.
I'm not claiming I have the fucking solutions, I'm just pointing out that you can't just import immigrants forever and call it a solution.
What is it with these types of posts? "Oh you don't have a 50 page thesis on how to fix every element of Japan's population decline in your post on a forum for a mod of a 14 year old game". No shit, you'd need sociologists to form an actual plan on what the proper steps to take are and how to implement them. If it was a simple problem to fix it would be solved already.
It's not about forever, but for the next, at least, 50 years. It's better than whatever you are offering.
How is it better? You are not offering a solution, you are just arguing to keep the band aid in place for 50 years until everything is magically fixed.
What are you even talking about? How is migration not a solution to a declining population compared to your non-solution of "just make them fuck more, lol!". People just don't want to have many kids if they don't need them.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/01/asia/japan-migrants-immigration/
Migration is a temporary solution because it does not actually stop the population from declining, it just adds in more people to temporarily set the decline back. The decline will always return until it's actually addressed.
Unless you get the people already on the country to procreate more, the problem will never be fixed and even if you get more migrants you will just be setting the problem back to square one.
My solution involves taking advantage of the fact that lots of people want to have children but cannot by creating opportunities for said people, encouraging procreation and creating an economy favorable to said procreation. How is "just get some immigrants to bump up the numbers lol!" a better solution, or even a solution at all?
Maybe the population is already overpopulated and the declining birth rates a natural stabilization?
This is so unrelated and so obviously just a personal bugbear.
Contraceptives are good, and they aren’t the reason Japan is suffering. They aren’t having enough sex to need contraception
This is part of the reason why we need to keep a lot of countries in developed or undeveloped status. Because if it wasn't for them we couldn't get migrants to replace our workforce.
It’s not why Japan is failing.
What is “wrong” with contraception
Yeah, I think that the "population" issue is being overemphasized. The population is there, but what is not is the money. Seems like both the media and the government are portraying it as a population problem so they have an excuse to do backwards-ass shit like the overabundance thing you mention, and not bothering to spend money on what is really a valuable workforce, as well as educating them. Might also be a old vs. new generation thing, which would not be surprising given the "culture" we have of being loyal to the elderly. Again, this country is run by old men.
That is what I believe we are seeing. However they should still seek to increase the birthrate to speed up stabilization.
That's an insanely low limit, lots of industries need their employees working 50-60, and it's not difficult either. I usually work about 48 or 56 hours a week and it's not super hard on me. Lacking almost any time at all to do anything outside of work sucks for sure, but I'm also fairly mentally ill and I'm sure that a more driven and focused person could routinely pull off 60 easily.
I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong, because I don't know the actual economics behind it but couldn't they just hire additional employees to fill extra time needed?
We can all help out with this problem.
And they should all learn English too.
Majority of people in the US that ive worked with that have 4+ kids are more than likely to spend even less time at home and more at working. More kids means more $$$ needed to raise them, which means more work.
I don't really agree with work weeks over about 40 hours unless it is stuff like voluntary overtime or end of fiscal year pushes (so, maybe 2 weeks or so of 60 hours a year) in industries where that is important.
I am a bit proponent of work-life balance. In countries like the Netherlands work-life balance is taken very seriously, as do many other West European countries such as the Nordic countries. Only 0.5% of the Netherlands work more than a 50 hour work week and most of those are people who work in services like health and law enforcement. You'll find that the Netherlands and other countries who take a similar approach routinely rank very high in the OECD for happiness and contentment.
If your business needs employees routinely working 50-60 hours a week then what it really needs is to hire more people. Personally I don't care if that means that it eats into company profits, the mental and social health of a companies employees are important too.
You say yourself that you lack time to yourself outside of work. I'm not a psychiatrist nor do I claim to be any sort of mental health professional but there been proven links between working hours and stress and mental health.
Work is of course important but people shouldn't find their social lives completely hamstringed by their employers.
I prefer Japanese actually.
Governement subsidized orgies
I was speaking about the general "wants to go to live in japan" population. I know Japanese myself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
