Is just that it happened a while ago and now the massive population is getting old and the bottom of the pyramid isn’t looking too good for them anymore.
I don’t know that that’s necessarily true, particularly as the older generations are on their way out. I’m not sure how many people Japan can/should support in a sustainable fashion (thinking here more in environmental terms and maybe a bit in economic terms, but not in terms of the safety nets that are getting really wrecked by what you mentioned).
I will 100% agree that the distribution is rather unsustainable on a number of levels. Not being able to get into free/subsidized childcare with growing shrinkflation and stagnant wages has certainly been an issue, and more people moving to the same places has definitely impacted that poorly.
Naoki Hyakuta, a writer and founder of the Conservative Party of Japan, also said that women should not be permitted to attend university from the age of 18, apparently so they could focus their efforts on producing more babies.
The conservative party’s solution to declining birthrates is to make it illegal for women to do anything besides have children. What are you confused about?
Naah, I was referring more to the headline, as I believe there would be a positive correlation between married women and kids. Banning women to marry = less kids.
It is similar to other countries getting rid of “no fault divorce” or abortion access.
By making the strict cutoff early, you have women who genuinely do want kids much more likely to do it with the nearest guy they can find and while their careers aren’t stable enough to really recover from a pregnancy. Which then traps them in the marriage and means they continue to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for the rest of their lives.
I saw it play out in grad school far too many times. Women who wanted families would start early (and there are actually very strong health reasons to not wait until your mid-late 30s). And even with our advisor being very understanding… it is a massive derailment at a time where even a two month delay can be the difference between being cited for a foundational concept going forward and having to start over because someone else published. Same for getting internships that can lead to jobs and so forth. Which leads to “oh it is just too hectic right now. I’ll go back to school when my kids are old enough to not need me all day”
But even five or six years later? Both partners have a solid salary. So it is still a big hit to have diminished capacity for the third trimester and then maternity leave but that kid goes into preschool and things get back on track pretty quickly.
But… then you have one or two kids. Rather than the person who gave up on a career and is a stay at home mom (and no shade to people who DO want to do that) where it is “easier” to have more.
Don’t they… have… a… population shortage?
I’m so confused
No, they have colossal overpopulation.
Is just that it happened a while ago and now the massive population is getting old and the bottom of the pyramid isn’t looking too good for them anymore.
I don’t know that that’s necessarily true, particularly as the older generations are on their way out. I’m not sure how many people Japan can/should support in a sustainable fashion (thinking here more in environmental terms and maybe a bit in economic terms, but not in terms of the safety nets that are getting really wrecked by what you mentioned).
I will 100% agree that the distribution is rather unsustainable on a number of levels. Not being able to get into free/subsidized childcare with growing shrinkflation and stagnant wages has certainly been an issue, and more people moving to the same places has definitely impacted that poorly.
The conservative party’s solution to declining birthrates is to make it illegal for women to do anything besides have children. What are you confused about?
Them removing womens ability to procreate. Not only is it counter productive this costs money.
WOW that’s fucked up.
Naah, I was referring more to the headline, as I believe there would be a positive correlation between married women and kids. Banning women to marry = less kids.
It is similar to other countries getting rid of “no fault divorce” or abortion access.
By making the strict cutoff early, you have women who genuinely do want kids much more likely to do it with the nearest guy they can find and while their careers aren’t stable enough to really recover from a pregnancy. Which then traps them in the marriage and means they continue to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for the rest of their lives.
I saw it play out in grad school far too many times. Women who wanted families would start early (and there are actually very strong health reasons to not wait until your mid-late 30s). And even with our advisor being very understanding… it is a massive derailment at a time where even a two month delay can be the difference between being cited for a foundational concept going forward and having to start over because someone else published. Same for getting internships that can lead to jobs and so forth. Which leads to “oh it is just too hectic right now. I’ll go back to school when my kids are old enough to not need me all day”
But even five or six years later? Both partners have a solid salary. So it is still a big hit to have diminished capacity for the third trimester and then maternity leave but that kid goes into preschool and things get back on track pretty quickly.
But… then you have one or two kids. Rather than the person who gave up on a career and is a stay at home mom (and no shade to people who DO want to do that) where it is “easier” to have more.