The cost of education for one child through college is said to be more than ¥10 million, which makes me cautious about getting married and having children.

How does this stop you from getting married? One step at a time brother.

No need to wait until college, even families in Japan with babies now need suffer with high price. What JGovt has done so far?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/29/business/economy-business/baby-products-price-inflation/

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2023/08/a5ab91062795-families-with-babies-in-japan-facing-steeper-price-hikes.html

So in other words this guy is a selfish person who would rather only think of himself and not have a family!

Sensationalist, selfish nonsense. Of course children cost money, but they're worth it. Some people, unfortunately, just have no understanding whatsoever of the genuine joys of being a parent. Your life absolutely changes, and you lose aspects of your old life, but its a step forward to have children, not a step back. These people are just scared of moving on in life.

The cost of education for one child through college is said to be more than ¥10 million

Yes and no. Yes if you are foolish enough to sign your kids up for every naraigoto and juku and kumon and sports team..... you can find. Ditto if you want them to go to private schools. No if you use common sense.

School uniforms? Most neighborhoods have a used uniform "market" where people just pass them around, especially for the PE clothes. Same with recorders for their music class. Naraigoto? I only let my kids do one at a time. Gave them time to be kids and us time to be a family. They could change after one year if they wanted to try something new. Juku? When my kids needed help with math, we found some great videos on YouTube for nothing. Tons of free educational videos and websites. Learning experiences? There are tons of free taiken classes at museums, libraries, science centers...almost every weekend. We got flier from school on a regular basis. If you spend 10 million yen educating your child, you need a few lessons in finance.

Until I got kids myself I never really realized how expensive education is in Japan. Kids are all worth it, but you really need a well paid job for all the litte extra fees in school (uniforms, lunch fee, school trips), prep schools and then university. 10 million per kid is probably on the low end.

And the cost of not having kids at all? Let’s put a monetary figure on that!

¥10 million is a drop in the bucket. That same child will earn far more in less than five years in the workforce.

This prevalent pessimism toward the future is Japan’s undoing.

He's not wrong and he's been very realistic about the fact of having kids. People calling him selfish for been realistic are the same people who will be calling on him "people like this shouldn't be allow to have kids" if things went south in the future.

mikeylikesitToday 01:15 pm JST

Are you under the impression that kids think it is okay to pay for their parents? And you have to be lucky and support for a long time to reach them being self sufficient.

One of the solution is to let this 31-year-old man in Kanagawa Prefecture keep his entire wages devoid of paying income tax. As long as the advertising company is paying corporate taxes. That way he will have enough savings for his family.

So in other words this guy is a selfish person who would rather only think of himself and not have a family!

Terribly obvious this is not even close to be accurate, someone selfish would not care about supporting a child through college, they would simply have children and if there is not enough money for them to be whatever they want to be as adults then "too bad". This person is simply not irresponsible enough to have children without being able to support them.

Sensationalist, selfish nonsense. Of course children cost money, but they're worth it.

They are worth what? not having enough to support them properly? that would be the selfish option. Also if you personally find joyful something that is a lousy argument to prove other people will feel the same, specially when they have to worry with the very real possibility of children having a life full of frustration and problems because of a life without enough economic stability.

Most 31 year olds working f/t in advertising will have quite big salaries and have come from well off families. Were he to marry in a year's time and have a child two years later, he's looking at 52 by the time the kid goes to college, with grandparents who are likely 80. That's plenty of time for him to save up, and for gramps to reach an age where they should be thinking of passing on money. With people having kids later and living longer, the issue of passing on money between generations should really shift from inheritances to gifting money to your kids and grandkids when they need it. I suspect most parents would like to receive an inheritance while still raising kids so they can struggle less and do more things with them, not just get a big wad when their youngest is 23. Its not going to be "life changing" at that time. For context, the Boomer generation dieing off is the biggest transfer of wealth in human history. There is money in the world, its just not with the people working and raising kids.

As a parent, I doubt a single guy who is 31 has much idea about what assistance is available to families and how much people actually pay. As collegepark says, real life parents are resourceful people and not just trotting down the shops to pay full price for everything some clickbait lists in its "OMG! Kids so pricey!" reporting.

kohakuebisuToday 03:57 pm JST

I suppose in exchange for transferring their bank account, the grandparents can expect to receive infinite care in an elder care home? Then you have the matter that they still need food and housing until they need that.

So Virusrex, what if this guys parents had the same worries and decided not to have him. He was born after the bubble, so it was not the easiest time for families, but they went ahead and had their son and raised him the best they could.

Most 31 year olds working f/t in advertising will have quite big salaries and have come from well off families. 

That is not true, advertising jobs have a relatively high average salary (around 5 mil yen a year for his age), but that is because of the huge salaries paid on big companies (like Dentsu or Hakuhodo), but if he is working on a local company he is only making a fraction of that, and obviously he is not coming from a rich family. If that is the case he is not going to be able to save enough without a wife working full time in a position that pays at least the same and that would require a lot of social support that may not be there.

A rule I came up with a few years ago is “if someone says they don’t want to have a child or don’t want to be married, they’re right.”

So Virusrex, what if this guys parents had the same worries and decided not to have him

What about it? nobody would be here to complain about it.

He was born after the bubble, so it was not the easiest time for families, but they went ahead and had their son and raised him the best they could.

Even if his family had a hard time around his birth (not something that happened universally), that would only mean that he had to deal with a lot of difficulties and that would explain why he doesn't feel like imposing them into his children, not exactly something difficult to understand.

Related to the cost of raising kids the main problem I think is unstable income or employment.

If one is stable financially, even if not so well off, I think one would be more open and confident having kids.

Govt need to address unstable employment and income

"So in other words this guy is a selfish person who would rather only think of himself and not have a family!"

It is his choice, nobodys business if he doesnt want kids or family becuase of too expensive cost.

It is certainly not selfish to have kids without being able to pay 10 million yen (or whatever the cost) for the best education... Who would believe that having a child is selfish? It's totally baffling to me, and probably any other parent. There's nothing selfish about taking care of one or more small children 24 hours a day.

Terribly obvious this is not even close to be accurate, someone selfish would not care about supporting a child through college, they would simply have children and if there is not enough money for them to be whatever they want to be as adults then "too bad". This person is simply not irresponsible enough to have children without being able to support them.

It is certainly not selfish to have kids without being able to pay 10 million yen (or whatever the cost) for the best education

10 million yen are not even remotely enough for the "best education", it is what is necessary for what is considered the standard education. A minimum to give them a fighting chance to find their own happiness.

Who would believe that having a child is selfish?

People that have seen selfish people never worrying a bit about their children having terribly difficult lives and still demanding care from them when reaching an old age.

There's nothing selfish about taking care of one or more small children 24 hours a day.

That is the thing, not being able to take care of the children but having them anyway. You can find examples in the news with tragedies that happen when parents are too busy working to take proper care of the children or raise them in terribly bad conditions.

If a person recognized not having the capacity to raise a child then it becomes irresponsible to do it any way. Making an effort and failing as expected is going to be hard for the parent, but does nothing to compensate the difficulties the child will have to endure.

This is a separate issue. Of course, many selfish people do have children, but having a child is not a selfish thing itself (no matter your financial condition).

Think of another extreme. Do you truly believe that all poor parents are selfish people?

People that have seen selfish people never worrying a bit about their children having terribly difficult lives and still demanding care from them when reaching an old age.

This is a separate issue. Of course, many selfish people do have children, but having a child is not a selfish thing itself (no matter your financial condition).

The arguments that you failed to address clearly support this conclusion, just saying you think differently is not the same as proving it with arguments.

Think of another extreme. Do you truly believe that all poor parents are selfish people?

No, many are just desperate to make a family, ignorant of the possibilities, unreasonably optimistic, etc. etc. But the main point is that when someone make an analysis of their situation and decides that having children would mean not giving the minimum to give them a fair chance to success in life, then they can validly claim their choice is born for a desire not to be selfish. They are the ones that make that determination and just baselessly claiming they are wrong do nothing to refute it.

Now you're arguing with me about something that I never even mentioned. I don't think deciding not to have a child (whatever your financial status) is a selfish decision.

No, many are just desperate to make a family, ignorant of the possibilities, unreasonably optimistic, etc. etc. But the main point is that when someone make an analysis of their situation and decides that having children would mean not giving the minimum to give them a fair chance to success in life, then they can validly claim their choice is born for a desire not to be selfish. They are the ones that make that determination and just baselessly claiming they are wrong do nothing to refute it.

Education needs to be free at source for all students from their first year until they graduate from university, college, or training school. Some countries in Europe offer free education to international students.

Now you're arguing with me about something that I never even mentioned

You claimed there is nothing selfish about having a child, yet the quote of the article clearly says this is what justifies the decision of not having a child, are you now arguing you are discussing something completely unrelated to the quote?

I don't think deciding not to have a child (whatever your financial status) is a selfish decision.

But you dismiss this decision as wrong saying that having a child is never, ever selfish, even when a person decides not to have a child precisely because of that reason.

It is not that you consider selfish the decision, but that you consider it wrong, that is where you are mistaken.

Yes, you got it now. I'm arguing with what you said, not what the article headline says. If you look, you can see I quoted you...

So I don't understand what the rest of your post is about.

You claimed there is nothing selfish about having a child, yet the quote of the article clearly says this is what justifies the decision of not having a child, are you now arguing you are discussing something completely unrelated to the quote?

Yes, you got it now. I'm arguing with what you said, not what the article headline says.

And what I said was that it would be irresponsible, selfish to have a child well knowing that they would be terribly disadvantaged and have extra difficulties, so the quote in the article is correct and justified. You have not demonstrated this to be wrong. Just pretend that not thinking about it or not realizing it (even if clear) makes a person not selfish, in reality you are just explaining how people can make a selfish decision even if they don't realize it.

It might be considered a little irresponsible by some, but you said "selfish", which I disagree with. For it to be selfish, the child would have to be better off not being born(?)... How can you reasonably determine that a child who lacks access to good education would have been better off not being born?

And what I said was that it would be irresponsible, selfish to have a child well knowing that they would be terribly disadvantaged and have extra difficulties, so the quote in the article is correct and justified. You have not demonstrated this to be wrong. Just pretend that not thinking about it or not realizing it (even if clear) makes a person not selfish, in reality you are just explaining how people can make a selfish decision even if they don't realize it.

IIt might be considered a little irresponsible by some, but you said "selfish", which I disagree with. For it to be selfish, the child would have to be better off not being born(?)

First, as long as the person is doing it something mainly to benefit without caring for the consequences for others it becomes selfish, that is the only requirement, to do things focused only on the self and if others have difficulties because of that is of no consequence (for the parent). There is no "what if" that can negate this, but yes, some of the children do feel it is better not to be born and there are tragic consequences for that.

I'm saying that it's impossible for a parent (or anyone else) to know whether a child is better off not being born. As long as a parent tries their best to bring up a child (no matter their financial state), having one shouldn't be considered selfish.

Aside from parents who need workers for their farm, i cannot imagine anyone who would believe having a child is a good financial return on investment, lol. Many people carelessly have kids, but I can't imagine many do selfishly.

First, as long as the person is doing it something mainly to benefit without caring for the consequences for others it becomes selfish, that is the only requirement, to do things focused only on the self and if others have difficulties because of that is of no consequence (for the parent). There is no "what if" that can negate this, but yes, some of the children do feel it is better not to be born and there are tragic consequences for that.

I'm saying that it's impossible for a parent (or anyone else) to know whether a child is better off not being born

But you can' argue for this claim, you just repeat it, any rational person can easily see a situation where the child is going to have difficulties and hardships and decide not to be selfish and prevent that situation from happening.

As long as a parent tries their best to bring up a child (no matter their financial state), having one shouldn't be considered selfish.

For many people "trying their best" means not having the child in the first place, and once again being selfish only mean focusing in the self benefit and give no importance how much this affects others, that means that doing your best when well knowing this is not going to be enough to prevent serious difficulties still means being selfish, there a many situations where this happens, a violent man that can't control himself but still gets married and brings misery to the poor wife will still be selfish for doing it even if he tries his best. The not selfish option is not subjecting someone to something that he can't control.

Aside from parents who need workers for their farm, i cannot imagine anyone who would believe having a child is a good financial return on investment

Reducing benefits to the purely economical aspect is very myopic and would indicate more about yourself than the problem, people can be selfish because they want company, the status of being a parent, the safety of having someone to support them in their old age, etc. etc. Being self centered do not mean only trying to get money.

10,000,000 JYen? That's all? That's USD 69,180.-

In the U.S. tuition alone per year;

Public Universities.....USD 49,840. But if you're out of State then USD 103,068.

Private Universities....USD 60,000. 4 years = USD 240,000.

Need to add aditional USD 20-25000 for housing etc ;per year.

OssanAmerica,

My higher education set my Mother and Father back close top £360,000 including accommodation additional literature, accommodation, They through their lifeisavings at my education.

I was lucky I found a job, secondary income that paid well, able to reimburse them back even when they refused to accept.

"Prevent that situation" means preventing a child from existing. If you think you (or any parent) can make this kind of judgement call for the unborn child, then there's nothing to argue about.

But you can' argue for this claim, you just repeat it, any rational person can easily see a situation where the child is going to have difficulties and hardships and decide not to be selfish and prevent that situation from happening.

"Prevent that situation" means preventing a child from existing. If you think you (or any parent) can make this kind of judgement call for the unborn child, then there's nothing to argue about.

This is something that happens routinely all over the world every day, pretending a person that does not exist somehow deserves human rights is deeply irrational, that would make it understandable that you can't find how to argue for it, you are recognizing it makes no sense to hold this position even if this is the fundamental part of why you find it unacceptable that people can stop having children because they don't want to be selfish.

These are selfish expectations of the child, which is different. Anyone can have them, no matter their level of wealth. My point is it's irrational to claim someone is being selfish merely for having a child, just like it's impossible to claim they are being unselfish, because we have no understanding of the unborn child's preference.

Reducing benefits to the purely economical aspect is very myopic and would indicate more about yourself than the problem, people can be selfish because they want company, the status of being a parent, the safety of having someone to support them in their old age, etc. etc. Being self centered do not mean only trying to get money.

So if the person that doesn't exist doesn't have human rights, how can it be deemed as selfish to have him or her?

This is something that happens routinely all over the world every day, pretending a person that does not exist somehow deserves human rights is deeply irrational, that would make it understandable that you can't find how to argue for it, you are recognizing it makes no sense to hold this position even if this is the fundamental part of why you find it unacceptable that people can stop having children because they don't want to be selfish.

These are selfish expectations of the child, which is different.

No they are not, "expectations" is just another way to call selfish reasons to have a child. That anybody can have them in no way refutes the fact that it means the person is focuses solely on his own benefit, so they are selfish. Your myopic point was that you could not think of any reason above economic to be selfish, it was very easy to disprove this. A different thing is that a person do not have the economic means to guarantee a minimum of wellness for the child, so any of the other selfish reasons are not justified.

My point is it's irrational to claim someone is being selfish merely for having a child,

It is not when it is done by selfish reasons (or expectations as you want to call them). That is the meaning of the word "selfish".

just like it's impossible to claim they are being unselfish, because we have no understanding of the unborn child's preference

Completely possible, rational, justified when a rational and careful analysis demonstrates that the person is thinking more on the lack of wellness of the children so he refrains from having them. His reasons not to have the children are unselfish. "Maybe the child would have liked being malnourished, sick, uneducated and propense to a miserable life" is not the argument you think it is.

So if the person that doesn't exist doesn't have human rights, how can it be deemed as selfish to have him or her?

Because the one making that decision is a real person that exist and it is considering the repercussion of his actions and decisions. This is not exactly high level logic, A real person is refraining from an action that if done would result in a miserable person. This action is then justifiably called unselfish.

What you are trying to argue in the other hand is that the same decision have negative consequences for the person that was prevented from existing in the first place. That makes no sense, as a logical consequence every condom/pill/headache would also represent a "judgement call for the unborn child", that should make it easier to see how it makes no sense. This is precisely why you gave up trying to argue a deeply illogical position.

I'm not saying this action is unselfish, although you keep repeating it. I'm just saying the opposite is also unselfish. I'd prefer people don't judge every poor parent as "selfish". Obviously we disagree, so I'll stop here.

Because the one making that decision is a real person that exist and it is considering the repercussion of his actions and decisions. This is not exactly high level logic, A real person is refraining from an action that if done would result in a miserable person. This action is then justifiably called unselfish.

I'm not saying this action is unselfish, although you keep repeating it. 

And I am proving with argument this action is unselfish, because it results in the prevention of negative consequences thanks to not prioritizing the person own benefits.

I'm just saying the opposite is also unselfish.

Which makes no sense, because the opposite results in negative consequences for someone else because the person makes a decision focused only on his own benefit. That is not unselfish, it is terribly selfish, as you yourself recognized when you accepted the justification for doing it "selfish expectations". Disagreeing is not the problem but disagreeing in spite of clear arguments that refute your position.

So I guess you really do believe that poor people are selfish to have children, because they should realize that their children are destined to be miserable. Otherwise I have no idea what we're arguing about. It's a pretty bleak interpretation, and I hope it's not a widespread one.

And I am proving with argument this action is unselfish, because it results in the prevention of negative consequences thanks to not prioritizing the person own benefits.

They could be, or the same as before they could be ignorant, exaggeratedly optimistic, desperate, etc. etc. That is very different from making a careful assessment and taking the selfish option willingly. As invalid as saying you would stop only to continue.

Thank you for clarifying your belief. It's a bit narrow-minded to me, but at least I understand it now, so I really will stop. :)