If the birthrate continues to decline, the number of people to support social services will decrease, and older people who have assets may have to shoulder a larger part of the costs for social services.

If the birthrate continues to decline, the number of people to support social services will decrease, and older people who have assets may have to shoulder a larger part of the costs for social services.

Just stating the obvious of things that already happened.

 In Japan, there are currently around 2.6 workers for every pensioner. This ratio has been declining as Japan's population ages and the birth rate decreases. According to a 2016 report from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, in 2016, it was estimated that 2.6 people supported each elderly person, and projections for 2060 estimated that this ratio would drop to 1.2 people per senior citizen. 

OECD average is currently at 4 workers for every pensioner.

https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00998/

https://www.if.org.uk/2011/06/25/intergenerational-issues-in-japan/

Have children to lower the burden on older people! Not an attractive reason to be having children.

Negative NancyToday 08:25 am JST

Have children to lower the burden on older people! Not an attractive reason to be having children.

Well at least it is practical: every child is going to end up being a taxpayer. What is not practical is expecting everyone to have enough savings to cover their retirement.

and older people who have assets may have to shoulder a larger part of the costs for social services.

'm of two minds about this. One, helping to take care of those who cannot or can no longer take care of themselves is a basic part of living in a civilized society. On the other hand, the older folks in Japan kind of did this to themselves. The vast amount of wasteful government spending and failed policies happened during their watch. They have been able to vote for the past 40 ~ 50 years. They are the ones who kept voting in the LDP and their ilk. Absolutely nobody under 20 has ever cast a vote. The older folks are the one who allowed this situation to develop as far as it has.

Or, they could slash the number of government employees and cut useless public works projects. There are many ways to save money. A bit of austerity would work well!

Rapidly aging depopulating societies never 'prosper'

Only hope is some combination of technology solutions and immigration, as the demographic 'die' has been cast, as Japan's oldest country in the world today, with 3JNs set to die this year for every JN birth, it'll be 9 to 1 by 2035

May? OH no! replace MAY with WILL HAVE TO.

BertieWoosterToday  09:35 am JST

Or, they could slash the number of government employees and cut useless public works projects. There are many ways to save money. A bit of austerity would work well!

Ah yes The go to excuse that will magically solve every known political, social problem known to stupid voters.

Meanwhile back in the U.K where austerity was in full swing for the past 14 years.......... But of course, it means cuts for thee, but I didn't mean "ME". In the meantime, putting those people on unemployment means.... you've got another person to blame for all the political and social problems too, because you've now made them UNEMPLOYED. As for cutting useless public works.....Could you tell us which works you would like to cut?

they could slash the number of government employees 

A better idea is to rescind the cut in the corporate tax of several years back, given that the corporate sector has been earning record-high profits and yet refuses to pay wages in line with ther wage growth. Working people would be able to put extra earnings into NISA or IDECO, lessening the burden on the nenkin, kosekin systems.

If the birthrate continues to decline

"IF"? Every prediction shows that this is not an if.

Luckily people take quite a long time to get old. So they should start planning for their old age when they are young.

Just stating the obvious! The evidence is out there!

We know birthrate in Japan will continue to decline, only accelerate, as number of women between ages of 18-39, who've been decreasing for decades, the prime age for childbirth, will drop rapidly after 2030 as will births.

Japan had approx. 600K JN births in 2024 not 720K, if eliminating gaijins and births abroad to 1 or 2 JN parents, by 2035, Japan lucky if it's even 300K, as deaths jump due to boomers passing and median age increasing etc.

Social services will not be improving, only question of how much tech. innovation and immigration to help mitigate

Negative NancyToday  08:25 am JST

Have children to lower the burden on older people! Not an attractive reason to be having children.

If sustaining a country's existence, like Japan, is not an attractive reason, pray-tell, then what exactly constitutes an attractive reason to have children, or do any exist?

Assume you're childless and seeking to justify this status, but please share to help enlighten policymakers!

"Assume you're childless and seeking to justify this status, but please share to help enlighten policymakers!"

Whether her opinion is shaped by lack off or having children is irrelevant. Those are personal preferences, after all almost all policy makers have capable aids well versed with various policies. Sometimes what we do here is just make some noise

The mentality behind this quote is exactly the problem and a big reason why all efforts to boost the birth rate will fail.

Thriving societies invest the bulk of their resources into the young and into infrastructure that builds a better future for the next generation. What is Japan wringing its hands about? “How can we get more young people in order to feed and care for old people?”

Care for the elderly is important. However, when the main reason urged by society to have kids is to care and pay for old people, it’s no surprise that young people are disinclined to oblige. “My greatest life legacy is caring for someone who died of old age when I was middle-aged,” said no one ever.

Well at least it is practical: every child is going to end up being a taxpayer. What is not practical is expecting everyone to have enough savings to cover their retirement.

It is most decidedly not practical. The current situation shows how impractical it is. Burdening youth with the debts of the previous generation depresses society. Births fall, and the debts go unpaid. It’s a selfish and wicked generation that passes debts and not a generous inheritance on to their children and grandchildren.

The problem is also not just about savings. It’s also about time. The elderly cannot care for themselves, and the time that the elderly demand is lost to other activities…like having and raising children.

Lucky we have a univedsity to waste money on studies to tell usxwhag we know since 30 years. And still their predictions are way off.

i agree that part if the solution is certainly to cut administration, bureaucracy, number of politician elected, close underused facilities, schools, universities, and abuse of social services.

money raised now must be better spend and corruption better controlled.

mmikeylikesitToday 02:39 pm JST

Well at least it is practical: every child is going to end up being a taxpayer. What is not practical is expecting everyone to have enough savings to cover their retirement.

It is most decidedly not practical. The current situation shows how impractical it is. Burdening youth with the debts of the previous generation depresses society. Births fall, and the debts go unpaid.

Nobody is currently choosing not to have kids because their taxes are too high.

It’s a selfish and wicked generation that passes debts and not a generous inheritance on to their children and grandchildren.

Yeah, well, a lot of people are passing on nothing. In any event, nobody knows for certain what the children will get until the person is dead.

The problem is also not just about savings. It’s also about time. The elderly cannot care for themselves, and the time that the elderly demand is lost to other activities…like having and raising children.

Nobody says that people absolutely have to be caregivers for their parents although there better be other people being brought in if that isn't the case. No elderly person is going quietly iow.

If sustaining a country's existence, like Japan, is not an attractive reason, pray-tell, then what exactly constitutes an attractive reason to have children, or do any exist?

Assume you're childless and seeking to justify this status, but please share to help enlighten policymakers!

Firstly, your assumption is incorrect, I am very pleased and proud to be a father. Raising children is a challenging but wonderful joy, and the best thing I've ever done.

Sustaining the national existence by adding to the population is not a normal thought process when you're having children unless 1) you live in the third world and you need help with physical labour, or 2) you are the Emperor and you're trying to make a male heir!

If the birthrate continues to decline, the number of people to support social services will decrease, and older people who have assets may have to shoulder a larger part of the costs for social services

Better that than destroying your culture. Just print more until it balances out in 50 years, which it will do. Stuff the IMF, world bank and the globalists won’t tell you in these fear propaganda pieces.

The solution is very simple, and we all know what they are. The problem is, corporations and politics who have tasted sweet nectar of "population bonus", now when it comes for their turn to fork out the money, they don't like that, nope, it has to be cheap-labor immigration, the cheapest solution for no-one except themselves.

If sustaining a country's existence, like Japan, is not an attractive reason, pray-tell, then what exactly constitutes an attractive reason to have children, or do any exist?

Assume you're childless and seeking to justify this status, but please share to help enlighten policymakers!

Firstly, your assumption is incorrect, I am very pleased and proud to be a father. Raising children is a challenging but wonderful joy, and the best thing I've ever done.

Sustaining the national existence by adding to the population is not a normal thought process when you're having children unless 1) you live in the third world and you need help with physical labour, or 2) you are the Emperor and you're trying to make a male heir!

Fair enough "Nancy", again assuming, you're a girl Dad!?

As they like to say, "Down Under", have one kid for yourself, one for your spouse, and one for your country!

Besides, why would anyone want to have kids if they didn't believe in the future of their given country?

The guy is right. Said in 1995.

From a time traveller. You're welcome.