>A growing number of towns and villages are hollowing out, with nearly four million homes abandoned over the past two decades, government data released last year showed.
Is this large enough for city / town footprints to start shrinking?
I don't think anyone assumes that the cost of raising children is zero... quite the opposite.
I don't think its key, either. Can say about Japan specifically, but in the West I think it's down to people wanting to have a life, things, holidays instead of having children. It is a choice that is about the whole commitment and sacrifice of having children no matter what.
There are plenty of $10k houses in Japan and all of them are overpriced.
Declining birth rates result in a retreat to city centers as rural and eventually suburban areas become unsustainable. Life in Tokyo (and Madrid, and Rome, and London, and Seoul...) is currently more expensive than it's ever been, while the countrysides are full of very inexpensive housing that can barely be given away for free.
>High living costs, stagnant wages and a rigid work culture deter many young people from starting families. Women, in particular, face entrenched gender roles that often leave them with limited support as primary caregivers.
Hear me out: it takes a lot of pressure for a long time for people to choose annihilation and now the same government that these people believe (rightly or wrongly) has driven them to the point of choosing annihilation is asking them to instead believe that it's there to help them and make their lives better. It's going to take at least a generation to gain that trust back.
People aren't "choosing annihilation". There is no weekly meeting. One Japanese person having 10 kids does not change the headline. Birth rates are a textbook-perfect example of a tragedy of the commons coordination problem scenario. Furthermore, if we believe that social or institutional trust is an input to birth rates, the implication is that Sweden is a low trust civilization and South Sudan is high trust. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
People have fewer kids when the medium-term alternatives are better. This is why desperately poor people have tons of kids and why fabulously rich societies like Japan have fewer. An extremely poor person does not lose opportunity by having children. A rich person does. We fix it by inverting the cost and benefit. If being single and childless has fewer medium term rewards than being a parent, people will become parents.
And the "medium term" is I think an illuminating point to emphasize. Humans, I have noticed, tend to operate on 2-3 year time horizons. If humans operated on a 5 minute time horizon we'd have more kids because unprotected sex is fun. If we operated on a 50 year time horizons we'd have more kids because being 75 years old with no surviving family is for many a terribly lonely thought. I think it's also why so much of the birth rate conversation focuses on childcare, diaper changes, and sleep loss, in spite of the fact that the years involving those challenges are an extremely small portion of the life-long parenting experience.
Hit the nail on the head, this is one of the best explanations I’ve for this phenomenon . People keep regurgitating lines about costs when it’s so much more complicated than that.
>A growing number of towns and villages are hollowing out, with nearly four million homes abandoned over the past two decades, government data released last year showed.
Is this large enough for city / town footprints to start shrinking?
Japanese Cities Are Rapidly Shrinking: What Should They Do? - https://scitechdaily.com/japanese-cities-are-rapidly-shrinki... - October 21st, 2024
Multidimensional factors correlated with population changes according to city size in Japan - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23998083241274381 | https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241274381
absolutely, search for the term "haikyo"
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
To put things in perspective, let's remember that Japan, like many countries, experienced a population boom during the 20th century.
Japan's population was about 44 million in 1900, it is 123-124 million now.
A decreasing population poses major challenges but they are far from "annihilation" or becoming "extinct"...
An observation is because women's unpaid labor is valued at zero people then assume the cost of raising children to adulthood is also zero.
Classic neoliberalism is to add 'without spending money' to questions like how can we reverse falling birthrates.
I don't think anyone assumes that the cost of raising children is zero... quite the opposite.
I don't think its key, either. Can say about Japan specifically, but in the West I think it's down to people wanting to have a life, things, holidays instead of having children. It is a choice that is about the whole commitment and sacrifice of having children no matter what.
Show me the wealth distribution in Japan and I'll tell you why they have no kids.
Declining birthrates mean that at least real estate will finally be cheaper, right?.... right?!
There are plenty of $10k houses in Japan and all of them are overpriced.
Declining birth rates result in a retreat to city centers as rural and eventually suburban areas become unsustainable. Life in Tokyo (and Madrid, and Rome, and London, and Seoul...) is currently more expensive than it's ever been, while the countrysides are full of very inexpensive housing that can barely be given away for free.
[dead]
>High living costs, stagnant wages and a rigid work culture deter many young people from starting families. Women, in particular, face entrenched gender roles that often leave them with limited support as primary caregivers.
Hear me out: it takes a lot of pressure for a long time for people to choose annihilation and now the same government that these people believe (rightly or wrongly) has driven them to the point of choosing annihilation is asking them to instead believe that it's there to help them and make their lives better. It's going to take at least a generation to gain that trust back.
People aren't "choosing annihilation". There is no weekly meeting. One Japanese person having 10 kids does not change the headline. Birth rates are a textbook-perfect example of a tragedy of the commons coordination problem scenario. Furthermore, if we believe that social or institutional trust is an input to birth rates, the implication is that Sweden is a low trust civilization and South Sudan is high trust. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
People have fewer kids when the medium-term alternatives are better. This is why desperately poor people have tons of kids and why fabulously rich societies like Japan have fewer. An extremely poor person does not lose opportunity by having children. A rich person does. We fix it by inverting the cost and benefit. If being single and childless has fewer medium term rewards than being a parent, people will become parents.
And the "medium term" is I think an illuminating point to emphasize. Humans, I have noticed, tend to operate on 2-3 year time horizons. If humans operated on a 5 minute time horizon we'd have more kids because unprotected sex is fun. If we operated on a 50 year time horizons we'd have more kids because being 75 years old with no surviving family is for many a terribly lonely thought. I think it's also why so much of the birth rate conversation focuses on childcare, diaper changes, and sleep loss, in spite of the fact that the years involving those challenges are an extremely small portion of the life-long parenting experience.
Hit the nail on the head, this is one of the best explanations I’ve for this phenomenon . People keep regurgitating lines about costs when it’s so much more complicated than that.