• WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    19 hours 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.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours 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.

    • kinetic_donor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 hours 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
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours 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.)

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      21 hours 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
        9 hours 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
          ·
          4 hours 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
      ·
      21 hours 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

  • geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Considering the situation they should mave life care, no one wants to have babies there. Raise by social entities

    • geography082@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Considering the situation in this country, the government should have gone a step further and implemented a live care system (LIVE care), where children are raised by specialized care organizations.

  • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Affordable housing, better working conditions, less working hours, efficient healthcare and better pay. It’s not hard goddamn it.

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Why are you of that opinion? Something like 30% of Japan’s population is over 65. Low birth rates are obviously not sustainable for them and will have extreme issues for their country if it continues.

      • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Infinite growth is unsustainable. A decreasing population will accelerate the collapse of capitalism, when the capitalists run out of cogs.

        • Zetta@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          47 minutes ago

          I just disagree on the infinite growth being unsustainable thing. Humanity, in my opinion, is destined to expand to the stars where we will continue to grow Indefinitely on a time scale that actually matters to you and me.

          Obviously, that could not happen if we somehow all die, but despite all the doom and gloom, I really don’t think that’s likely.

        • Zetta@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          50 minutes ago

          “Has almost made the planet uninhabitable” The Earth is definitely worse off since we have proliferated, but this is such a clickbaity untrue statement.

          Humanity has and will continue to cause changes to the world that are negative, I agree, and that sucks. But like it or not, humanity is good at adapting and surviving, and we will be fine, even with the worldwide population overall continuing to grow for a very long time into the future.

          • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            35 minutes ago

            LoL. You think we’re gonna grow gills or something? How do you think we’ll adapt to food chain collapse?

        • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Old people can’t work and need someone to pay for their retirement.

          If there are more old people than young people (population pyramid wrong way round) every young person needs to pay a crapton of taxes so that old folks don’t starve to death

        • Zetta@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          53 minutes ago

          The two biggest issues off the top of my head are rural towns in Japan will continue to lose population and completely disappear, and there won’t be enough young working people paying into health care and social funds to support the old non-working population. I think there are a lot of other major negative impacts Japan will face as a country but I’m just not that knowledgable on the subject.

          I assume we just have fundamentally different views on this topic because I really wish humanity would change to a more scientific and explorative approach entirely, where we expand outward into space and become a multi-planetary species, which will need a huge sustained population growth to support. I assume you don’t support that.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s not obvious. Low birth rates are completely sustainable, you just kill anyone who can’t afford to retire and can’t work anymore, and society functions perfectly well.

      • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        So the solution is to rip off souls from the non-existence aether, bring them to this ever-bizarre world in order to condemn them, like Sisyphus, to a lifetime pushing of a social boulder which is fated to always go downhill? (In other words, why the unborn should sustain the faults of an unsustainable society that weren’t their faults to begin with?)

        • Zetta@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          59 minutes ago

          “Unsustainable Society” No matter your opinion on current governments, humanity has been around for an awful long time, and it will likely continue to be around for significantly longer into the future of the universe. In my opinion, that’s pretty cool.

          In the grand scheme of things, just looking back over the past couple hundred years, the vast majority of humanity is in a better spot than we were, no matter how bad things may seem on a small time scale.

          • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            55 minutes ago

            Yeah, global climate, carbon dioxide levels and even biodiversity are in a better spot nowadays than they were before, huh? That’s pretty cool! /s

            • Zetta@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              43 minutes ago

              You definitely are right some things are worse, but I more so meant quality of life in almost every single aspect for people that are alive. No shit, there are atrocities across the world still and things locally suck in many ways to varying degrees for a significant portion of the population in the world. Either way you can’t argue I’m good faith that the average humans quality of life hasn’t gotten exponentially better over the past thousand years. And I think that trend will continue into the next thousand years.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours 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
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

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

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Childcare is outrageous. Daycare for my two kids was more than my mortgage every month. Ive been counting down until they were eligible for public schools

      • Evotech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Damn, in Norway is not free, but both public and private kindergartens (1-6) are capped in terms of what they can bill for each month. Which is about 210usd

        The rest is paid for though taxes obviously.

      • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        Unfortunately for many of us Americans, there is a substantial contingent of our government that would really like to do away with public schools.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 hours 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
      78
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      22 hours 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.

    • Fisch@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours 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.

    • kalleboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      19 hours 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.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        19 hours 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
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours 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.

    • regul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      22 hours ago

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

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        19 hours 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.

      • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        21 hours 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.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours 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.

    • chaos@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 hours ago

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

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours 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.

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

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours 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.

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours 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.