5 ms·

Make having kids a zero-cost endeavor. If that doesn't do it, make it a profitable one. It's as simple as that.

by seandoe 4mo ago

Tor3 4mo ago
It is not as simple as that. In my country giving birth is free. And you get economic support for every child. For most people it's still an economic burden to some extent, but for the majority it's not something which blocks them from having children. It's more that most families I know are content with having two children. It feels fine to them. But that's the families that do have children. 25% of men in my country never have children. It's not enough. A lot of families need to produce 3 children, and better if there are some with four.. and most people simply don't want that. And that's for the most part not a question of economy.
- HerbManic 4mo ago
  And there are the increasing infertility rates as well to hamper the efforts. Personally, I would love to have a few kids but after many years of trying and all manner of treatments we have gotten nowhere at all. But that is just how if falls I guess.
- ponector 4mo ago
  It is as simply as that. Economic support you mentioned is never enough to cover basic needs. Better than nothing, but still require to sacrifice a lot to have an extra kid. More kids means you need a bigger house, bigger car, extra furniture, a part time job for mother to manage kids.
  - Tor3 4mo ago
    I specifically mentioned families where the economy is not a burden, and they still don't want many children. Very few will want more than two. Please note that in my country at least, as long as the economy is good enough that there aren't any real problems living, then it doesn't matter if it costs more with more children. That is not the reason.
TheDong 4mo ago
Children cost hundred's of thousands of dollars to raise, and that doesn't even count the opportunity cost of your own career progression as you have to spend a year of sleepless nights and possibly have one or both parents reduce their work hours to care for the child. The Japanese government already struggles to pay out pensions with its aging population, healthcare and pension costs are both rising, where do you propose the money for this comes from? Should the government increase its already high tax rate from up-to-50% to up-to-90% and take money from the childless to give to parents? Should the government replace your salary if you quit your job to raise a kid (since after-all that is a cost of the endeavor)? If you're just talking about "giving birth", I assure you the cost to give birth is already close to free, the government already covers that, and various cities have local parent stipends which make it "profitable" in a sense. But the real cost of giving birth is not the giving birth, it's the millions of yen you then need to spend over the next 18 years to raise and educate the child, not to mention the cost of possibly dying during childbirth.
- lmm 4mo ago
  > Should the government increase its already high tax rate from up-to-50% to up-to-90% and take money from the childless to give to parents? Yes > Should the government replace your salary if you quit your job to raise a kid (since after-all that is a cost of the endeavor)? Yes > If you're just talking about "giving birth", I assure you the cost to give birth is already close to free, the government already covers that, and various cities have local parent stipends which make it "profitable" in a sense. Yes and no. There are a zillion different support programs where you have to fill out a 4 page form in triplicate and submit to city hall to get $80 3 months later. Childbirth is induced regardless of medical necessity because there's one programme that covers medical costs up to the scheduled due date and another programme that covers medical costs after birth, but if you need medical care after your due date with the baby still unborn then you fall through the cracks. The country badly needs to replace its patchwork subsidy program with simply including childbirth under normal medical insurance.
  - Schiendelman 3mo ago
    I will fight tooth and nail against this. Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children.
skeledrew 4mo ago
> It's as simple as that. Not really. Cultural values is a huge factor, and that was seriously upended when the US invaded and occupied them.

Make having kids a zero-cost endeavor. If that doesn't do it, make it a profitable one. It's as simple as that.

by seandoe 4mo ago

Make having kids a zero-cost endeavor. If that doesn't do it, make it a profitable one. It's as simple as that.

Tor3 4mo ago

It is not as simple as that. In my country giving birth is free. And you get economic support for every child. For most people it's still an economic burden to some extent, but for the majority it's not something which blocks them from having children. It's more that most families I know are content with having two children. It feels fine to them. But that's the families that do have children. 25% of men in my country never have children. It's not enough. A lot of families need to produce 3 children, and better if there are some with four.. and most people simply don't want that. And that's for the most part not a question of economy.

HerbManic 4mo ago
And there are the increasing infertility rates as well to hamper the efforts. Personally, I would love to have a few kids but after many years of trying and all manner of treatments we have gotten nowhere at all. But that is just how if falls I guess.
ponector 4mo ago
It is as simply as that. Economic support you mentioned is never enough to cover basic needs. Better than nothing, but still require to sacrifice a lot to have an extra kid. More kids means you need a bigger house, bigger car, extra furniture, a part time job for mother to manage kids.
- Tor3 4mo ago
  I specifically mentioned families where the economy is not a burden, and they still don't want many children. Very few will want more than two. Please note that in my country at least, as long as the economy is good enough that there aren't any real problems living, then it doesn't matter if it costs more with more children. That is not the reason.

TheDong 4mo ago

Children cost hundred's of thousands of dollars to raise, and that doesn't even count the opportunity cost of your own career progression as you have to spend a year of sleepless nights and possibly have one or both parents reduce their work hours to care for the child. The Japanese government already struggles to pay out pensions with its aging population, healthcare and pension costs are both rising, where do you propose the money for this comes from? Should the government increase its already high tax rate from up-to-50% to up-to-90% and take money from the childless to give to parents? Should the government replace your salary if you quit your job to raise a kid (since after-all that is a cost of the endeavor)? If you're just talking about "giving birth", I assure you the cost to give birth is already close to free, the government already covers that, and various cities have local parent stipends which make it "profitable" in a sense. But the real cost of giving birth is not the giving birth, it's the millions of yen you then need to spend over the next 18 years to raise and educate the child, not to mention the cost of possibly dying during childbirth.

lmm 4mo ago
> Should the government increase its already high tax rate from up-to-50% to up-to-90% and take money from the childless to give to parents? Yes > Should the government replace your salary if you quit your job to raise a kid (since after-all that is a cost of the endeavor)? Yes > If you're just talking about "giving birth", I assure you the cost to give birth is already close to free, the government already covers that, and various cities have local parent stipends which make it "profitable" in a sense. Yes and no. There are a zillion different support programs where you have to fill out a 4 page form in triplicate and submit to city hall to get $80 3 months later. Childbirth is induced regardless of medical necessity because there's one programme that covers medical costs up to the scheduled due date and another programme that covers medical costs after birth, but if you need medical care after your due date with the baby still unborn then you fall through the cracks. The country badly needs to replace its patchwork subsidy program with simply including childbirth under normal medical insurance.
- Schiendelman 3mo ago
  I will fight tooth and nail against this. Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children.

skeledrew 4mo ago

> It's as simple as that. Not really. Cultural values is a huge factor, and that was seriously upended when the US invaded and occupied them.