this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51300 readers
2675 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
1
Japan ‘on verge of no longer functioning’ after birth rate plummets to record new low (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 9 months ago by Stern@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rookwood@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I believe Japan has less inequality than the US. Not sure on that, but I think it's true. I think in this case we see work culture playing a role. The only country in the world with a worse work culture than the US is Japan. No one has time to even think about having kids when you are a company man there. It's similar in the US.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Even as economist talk about the Lost Decade (really, two decades) in Japan, the unemployment rate has always been relatively subdued compared to the US:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRUN25TTJPA156N

From about 1.7% in 1990, and then two spikes that just about reach 5.0% in 2002 and 2009. Not only that, but that's the range for people 25-54 years old, which isn't equivalent to the headline number typical in the US. There is an equivalent in published US data, and you can see it's much higher and spikier than Japan:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000060

This doesn't mean everything is OK for the working class in Japan. Housing prices are astronomical, requiring 100 year multi-generational loans. Working culture is also far more stressful. However, I think it's fair to ask who the "Lost (two) Decades" is really affecting.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

requiring 100 year multi-generational loans

This is the first I've heard of this and the fact that it's real is insane to me.

[–] NewDayRocks@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 9 months ago

Because it's BS. It's glaringly fake and calls into question the rest of the claims of the post.

Housing prices aren't even insane, especially outside of Tokyo. And the property prices don't even go up. AND you can get 35 year housing loans at under 1% interest. The main reason housing prices have gone up at all is that construction materials cost have gone up due to inflation, Ukraine war, covid supply and demand issues.

[–] uraniumcovid@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

imagine being so racist that it forces your country to fall apart. they made their own bed, time for some laying in it.

[–] _carmin@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago

Its their country. Let them decide.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The biggest issue that no one ever wants to talk about is ....

... it's isn't about the QUANTITY of life

.... it's about the QUALITY of life.

If people are able to have a comfortable, stable and prosperous life, with plenty of their own free time to enjoy without worrying about losing everything then they'll make time and an effort to have a family and children.

If all our wealthy overlords ever want to do is squeeze every penny out of us all the time, then people will be less likely to want to have children.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It also strongly correlates to women's rights and access to education. The more educated women are, the less likely they are to have a lot of kids.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data

It's why you see a renewed attack on women in some developed countries, especially in the US.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Here's what happened in America.

In the 1960s the "Women's Lib" movement started. They got a lot of press coverage because it was a good stroy, but didn't actually change things a lot.

In 1973 the Oil Embargo hit and suddenly one job wasn't enough for the family to survive. Lots of wives had to go out and look for work to keep paying the bills.

The Right has been lying that women getting jobs is what destroyed the one income family.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Tying the mortgage repayment rate to the median salary of a single individual would go some way towards fixing things then, but that would mean putting price caps on houses which would devalue the currency and also need anti-cartel laws (eg. Laws mandating a maximum amount of homes one can own, as cartels might see artificially low prices as an opportunity to buy up more houses).

Artificially constraining parts of banking and all of residential real estate is likely to have other unforeseen effects on the economy, but may still be worth it.

Another alternative is starting a state bank in which citizens can be part of a rent-to-own mortgage, with minimum but achievable life time repayments. If they don't meet those minimum payments, the house is sold and the profit from the sale is portioned out between the state bank and the mortgage payer in proportion to how much % they paid off.

That's a win win, as theyre probably getting a big cash payment when struggling, and the state bank then gets to relist the home.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The more appropriate fix would be no land ownership by people or countries that don't reside in the US, a banishment of investment companies from purchasing houses, and a hard cap of like 5 properties for any individual or company that can be owned as rental properties.

Far too many people/corporations are being landlords as a big business.

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

We might even expand it to all private ownership, maybe…

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

How do you put price caps on houses? They vary so much in price depending on location. A shack in San Francisco costs the same as a mansion in the middle of nowhere.

No this kind of centralized approach is doomed to fail. We’re much better off with Georgism with a land value tax and the total repeal of zoning laws. People should be able to build what they want, where they want, and the land value tax captures the increases in property values as a result. When a neighbourhood becomes too expensive to afford for single family households it gets converted into apartments.

All of our housing problems come from meddlesome local politicians, their NIMBY supporters, awful zoning laws and easements, and a terrible property tax system which disincentivizes development. A very simple land value tax system along with the total removal of local politicians’ power over housing development solves all of these issues.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Good. We need to depopulate by 50%. The earth can't have 8 billion people. There are less than 30,000 polar bears in the whole world.

[–] _carmin@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

Thats mainly indians and countries around and africans. Why people ignore this small little fact?

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the Japanese want people to work 80 hour weeks (and go drinking with their boss every night) maybe they should make polyamorous marriage a thing. Kids are a lot easier to deal with if you have help.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org -1 points 9 months ago

From what i heard from people and read online, i really don't understand how people even do that. Japanese work etiquette is bananas. But that aside, my job is somewhat high demand, but i draw the line at work hours. I work 42 hours a week and not a second longer. That opens up enough times for some hobbies, enough free time and everything. But if i had kids, most of that would be gone. So if you're a work horse, you're expected to give up everything, except work and raising kids.

[–] GlassHalfHopeful@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago

I hear that welcoming migrants is a great way to address this problem...

[–] 0101100101@programming.dev -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

This problem is not isolated to Japan. Countries all across the world are facing the same issue and have been for a number of years.

Create a shitty, miserable, society with no rights or support, and people do not want to bring children into it.... who'd guess?

The flannel has been wrung dry to the detriment of the working class; there is no where to go, no more water to squeeze from them. This is global society / capitalism falling apart.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] 0101100101@programming.dev -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Isn't it interesting that the more "developed" countries have the lowest birth rates.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's what follows education. It's the largely uneducated areas of the world that still raw dog like there's no tomorrow.

[–] 0101100101@programming.dev -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So apparently under Sharia law, Muslim men can have anal sex with a girl under 8, and vaginal with a girl over 8.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] 0101100101@programming.dev -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And Muslims can openly lie about what is and isn't true under Sharia law???

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, Muslims cannot openly lie about what is and isn’t true under sharia law. Islamic jurisprudence is a thing. It’s pretty important to Muslims to know what they can or can’t do.

There are different traditions (remember - there are Sunnis and Shias as the largest groups, some more obscure splinters, and splinters off of Sunni and Shia). Not everyone accepts the same Hadith, and there are, ya know, like more than thirteen centuries of interpretations and various schools. (Like, people get Islamic law degrees - that’s kinda why the medieval Muslim world was pretty well known for education, you needed the madrassas to be teaching people this stuff)

I have never heard the idea that anal sex was permissible in Islam. The Hadith cited in my link I think are direct enough that basically all traditions would accept them outright.

I don’t understand the 8 years old distinction bit (maybe something to do with the heinous child rape involved in bacha bazi - but that would not be considered permissible by Islamic scholars)

[–] Priditri@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Capitalism is the best we've got. Even North Korea has acknowledged this. With other systems people starve en masse. My hope is that we get over the taboo of regulation. Capitalism fucks up real-estate and wealth distribution. And health-care should 100% be government funded.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Seems super likely that capitalism is going to be a major factor in our extinction. Maybe we could have a bit less of it and actually survive as a species

[–] Priditri@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I actually agree with this. Capitalism presumes infinite resources.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

The major shareholders have voted down your proposal.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It seems like you already understand some of the limitations of capitalism. Look into why regulation has gradually been rolled back in the US since the 70s. Why did politicians start to agree with corporate execs demands for lower regulation. Keywords to look up - regulatory capture.

On a separate point, there's plenty of famines that have occurred in capitalist economies due to capitalist exploitation - that is make more money, at the cost of of creating a famine. Some estimates put the deaths due to famines under capitalism higher than those under socialism. I used to simply know only of the famines under socialism and not know of the famines under capitalism.

Finally the capitalism we live in since the Great Depression is significantly different than the capitalism before it. Socialists, actual Marxists in western counties, yes the US included, were actively involved in the policies that created the welfare states across the west along with the regulatory regime. Some of FDR's economic advisors were Marxian economists.

That was the compromise to save capitalism from imminent worker revolution. The unregulated, no-safety-net version of the system had lead to the conditions for such revolution. The socialist policies that averted the revolution in have slowly been dismantled over time and the system is reverting to the pre-Great Depression state. Faster in some countries than others.

If you want to reform capitalism to the point where it can no longer revert to economic liberalism (free market fundamentalism), you'd have to almost completely eliminate wealth accumulation. You could only do that by changing the ownership of the means of production. E.g. all employees in all corporations become equal owners (or controllers) of the machines and therefore the decisions on sharing the wealth those machines produce, instead of those decisions being made by a tiny number of major shareholders. You'd also have to significantly expand the industries operated by the government. At that point you end up with socialism. And yes socialism doesn't mean central planning and no markets. Capitalism doesn't mean no central planning and just markets. We do plenty of central planning in capitalist economies across governments and large corporations.

I'm not asking you to change your mind today. Just pointing out a few things to look into in case you haven't.

[–] T156@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Even if they did want children, without the support systems, it may not be feasible for them to have kids. Having them might mean choosing to starve or go without a house.

Even if you're in a country with a public health care system, a sick/young child means having to take time off work to care for them.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Exactly its not some mysterious problem no matter how much the government and media try to frame it as one, people of the age to have kids have no time for kids and no money for kids so no wonder they have no desire for kids.

[–] _carmin@lemm.ee -3 points 9 months ago

Should they bring millions of indians, africans and arabs to help them? We are seeing how its working wonderfully in the west.