They are, actually. Japan is a very good country to raise children in. Basically everything from giving birth, to kindergarden to medical care is completely free for kids.

It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous childrens hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.

Both parents can take up to 1 year of combined childcare leave after a birth (part of that at 60% salary).

There’s “Children’s hall” s scattered across the neighborhoods that are basically a free playroom, toy repository and library for kids up to high school age.

Kindergardens have been sprouting up like trees all over the country. I think the last time I read any stats about it there were like 6000 kids on a waiting list in the entire country. And again, free or mostly free.

Housing is relatively small, but also affordable, even in the 23 wards of Tokyo. If you go outside Tokyo you can find really nice houses for dirt cheap.

At least it’s not for lack of facilities/benefits that Japan isn’t having children.

>> It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous children's hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.

Having lived in US and in a few countries with completely free healthcare, I'd have to correct you that the really weird experience is going to a hospital and getting a 6 figure bill.

A $100k+ bill in the USA would be weird too. Assuming you are insured (86%), most people would get a bill for $3k to $10k (including C section and epidural). Legally, the most it could be is $18k.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-li...

Well I guess the remaining 14% of the population are just weird :)

I didn't mean only going to hospital for labor and birth.

> It’s a really weird experience to go to the emergency ward of one of the most famous childrens hospitals in Japan and have the guy say ‘your bill comes to $0’ after.

I would guess that’s only weird if you live in a country with only private medical care.

In a LOT of countries free, at the point of service, medical care is the norm.

I mean, I understand on one level that in lots of places medical professionals would refuse to treat a pregnant woman or a child without a source of funds. On another though it’s seems very alien to me.

I’ve tried to state that in plain, unemotional language but it is a “weird” concept here. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.

> I mean, I understand on one level that in lots of places medical professionals would refuse to treat a pregnant woman or a child without a source of funds. On another though it’s seems very alien to me.

You can't be turned away for lifesaving or critical procedures.

If you go to the hospital in labor, or with a gunshot wound, or an infected abscess, etc; they'll treat you (they're legally bound to). You get your bill after services rendered.

At least in California, you can also go to a myriad of clinics for free-cheap preventative services so your toothache doesn't turn into an abscess.

An obvious blocker still existing is that govt don't allow different surnames. Some couples don't marry due to this until pregnancy. Some right wings dislike the idea and they belong to long running ruling party.

That's interesting. I always thought economics were the number one reason why people don't have more children: it's extremely expensive. Why isn't the birthrate increasing despite all these incentives?

If you want your kids to go to what Japanese people consider good schools (private, extremely hard entrance exam), suddenly things become expensive quite rapidly. Fees for the school, but also tutoring to make them pass the exams in the first place. Then you get to university, and unless you go to a state university, that’s a ton of money again.

This was more to illustrate that it’s not for lack of governmental intervention.

I recently watched this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/_pAJMdx14V0

As an American, that delivery is comparatively cheap and extravagant, but it's hardly free.

Is any country really doing anything of substance like fixing structural problems in their societies?

Maybe France? Generous childcare and parental leave should encourage birthrates.

Also improving the whole idea of what a family is: Want to be unmarried and have a child? Go for it. But have the supports available to make it work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/21/france-populat...

I think elective C-section would help. Force natural births makes a lot of woman scared in an age of internet.

Someone is scared of natural child birth and prefers invasive surgery instead? How does that make any sense?

The recovery for c-section is way longer than natural child birth. They are literally cutting open your abdominal muscles to access the baby.

One is painful. One isn’t.

C section recovery is not painless. Epidurals are a better option if goal is just reducing pain.

People I know personally who have done both said they would never choose natural if they had known what it would be like.

We did elective C-section for both our kids. Recovery was fine. Wife up and walking at the end of the first day.

"Recovery was fine. Wife up and walking at the end of the first day."

So, exactly like a vaginal birth (speaking from my own experience) ;-) I don't understand the big fuss - sure it hurts, but it's endurable. And for the child there are benefits to being born vaginally.

Of course, everyone is free to do as they see fit, but I am very happy and proud of my Klingon birth experience :D

How long were you in labour? My niece was in labour for about 35 hours. Coworkers wife was in labour for over 40 hours before resorting to C-section. Most people I know who went natural had a horrible horrible experience. When you hear stories like that, and the complications, etc. natural sounds crazy scary.

For my wife she was scared of natural birth so we elected for C-section and that was far less scary for her and she smashed through it without complaint. But her friend living in France was forced to do natural. If they have a second she’s flying back to Taiwan for the 2nd because the whole experience of natural and the horrible experience of staff at the hospital put her off wanting to do it there again.

In asia, woman are doled on from the moment they enter the hospital. Natural or surgery they stay for 3-5 days in the hospital. Unlike a lot of the west where people are sent home the next day.

There is no evidence such things work and in fact evidence of the opposite

Your source?

The article states the opposite of your claims:

> The fertility rate is high in European countries where family norms are flexible, women feel free to work, pro-child policies are generous and childcare is well organised – in short, in countries that have come to terms with gender equality.

That's a conclusion the article came to, but cannot substantiate. for example, Turkey's FR is higher than france despite having stricter family norms, and female workforce participation below average. 'Pro-child' policies are quite a bit up for debate. For example, many religious people would say policies banning public drag performances are pro-child; while perhaps certain secular people would disagree. Without something more to substantiate that condition, it's difficult to understand what's being measured.

European countries all have lower birth rates than the US, and poorer people tend to have higher birth rates than richer ones. So it’s not like people are making rational calculations about how much raising kids costs.

It seems like being more religious is more effective at changing minds than any of those policies.

> The fertility rate is high in European countries

"High" is very relative, France is still well below replacement fertility despite all their efforts.

Meanwhile very religious groups like the Amish have much higher fertility rates without any of those interventions.

Maybe a deep belief that god wants you to have kids is just much more effective than any policy?

> France is still well below replacement fertility despite all their efforts.

From the article I quoted:

> Since the early 2000s France has consistently topped European rankings. After two decades of decline, in the 1970s-80s, the fertility rate started picking up again in the late 1990s. Since then the country has registered scores just short of the mythical threshold of 2.1 children per woman, which would secure a steady population. Its fertility rate in 2014 was 2.01.

Isn't that rate disproportionately owed to religious immigrants? Seems to me even France mostly relies on a religious drive to have kids, just an imported one. Among the non religious population, the rate is well below replacement and all the extra welfare barely moves the needle.

This simply isn't true: see Denmark where I live. Nothing appears to work to incentivize families to have kids.

Denmark seems to be doing pretty well compared to its southern neighbours?

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Right, but the point is comparing yourself to a sea of bad is not good. It's still very bad. None of us are actually reproducing above replacement and it's already having massive deleterious effects on our pension plans and when we're allowed to retire with full pension.

If you restrict yourself to Europe sure.

The United States has had a higher fertility rate than France and Europe for many years despite having a notoriously porous social safety net.

The stats may change but whereas Europe has been below 2 for a long time, that's a more recent development in the United States.

Japan is not “98% ethnically homogeneous”; any number you see like that is very out of date and means Japanese citizens, not ethnicity.

That number comes from Japan's own 2018 census, actually.

Not a sound comment, population of Japan on 1873 was estimated to be 35M. Current population of Japan is 100M+

Right, and at the rate they are going their population would "disappear" in 500 years or more. I am sure nothing will change between now and then.

These demographic crises arguments are no better than the population bomb arguments of the 1960s. You can project forward and get all kinds of results but over the decades things change.

"Disappear" should not get in quotes. I once wrote a simple simulation of society with low birth rate and was shocked how fast they all went away to zero.

Had a nice population bulge initially.

This is like the old saying - statisticians will happily tell you how long your nails will be 40 years from now (with the mild assumption that you won't cut them).

A country of 100M people will change its birth patterns long long long before it "disappears".

There are probably subgroups of Japanese people with birth rates higher than replacement. There may also be major advantages to having a child in 2100 that are not evident now (vast tracts of unclaimed land to exploit?).

The only way populations go to zero is in a Children of Men situation, if the city dwelling populations all choose not to reproduce eventually the country will have a lower population by be more comprised of religious cults with high reproduction rates

There is probably some equilibrium number at some point, but might be a lot less than current population.

And therein lies the issue with assumptions.

the government spent some money to build a dating app.