231–240 of 367 posts
Clarifying point: this is the Tokyo local government not a national policy.
And even in Tokyo it only applies to metropolitan (roughly, state) workers, not the ward (roughly, city) governments. According to the data below, there's anywhere from 33k to 161k metropolitan employees depending on where you draw the line. https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/tosei/hodohappyo/press/2024/01...
Sounds like office workers only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enjoyed the DINK life for some time but eventually we decided to start a family and my only regret in life is we didn't start it sooner and have more kids. In the end all the fancy restaurants, nights out, fancy vacations with first class airfare, etc were nice in some ways but pretty vapid and unimportant when looking back. I won't value those years very much compared to the years with children in the house. The e…
Just to provide a counter point you don't hear. I have two kids and very much wish I didn't. I love my kids. I sacrifice for them. There are many moments of great joy. However, I don't really have a life any more. I would rather spend my time traveling, visiting friends, playing music. I would rather have more money. I would rather be healthier. I would rather have time for my hobbies. Being a good parent is a lot an…
How does this even work in Japan after this change. There's so many stories of corporate overwork. Does the entire country just desperately want to work for the government?
When the US government adopts an employment policy private companies usually follow. Either because they do business with the government and have to comply, or it affects so many people there's a shift in norms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually that life is too good for childless people, especially when they're wealthier. Take a DINK couple with high paying jobs, say an engineer and an attorney. Without kids they can have a nice house or condo, regularly take great vacations, and still be saving enough to have the option of retiring in their 40s or 50s. But with kids, that mostly goes out the window. The societal expectation is that you should…
I entirely agree. And when you lather on the tidal wave of endless "entertainment" and options available to most people they end up framing everything in their minds as "having fun" vs "having kids". I also know many women who say they don't want to "do that to their bodies" so ... where is this all going. And honestly I agree with the "if you are single you should pay more taxes" as a motivator to either get you to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The opportunity cost of having children has never been higher: you give up leisure, hobbies, rest, social life, and income. Those things are given up because parenting-time is up 20-fold from a few generations ago. From the 1960s back, kids needed parents a few hours a week. But we reduced kids' roaming area from many sq mi to just their own property . At the same time, we instituted 24/7 adulting. Most of those ho…
I think it's a mistake to project changes in US society onto that in Japan. Kids there are still largely free range.
stopping a career and foregoing 18 years of promotions cost how much?
governments are just mucking about with the garnishings and ignoring the meat of the matter.
but then maybe they cant afford it, either. hah.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree and think that this is a huge growing cultural expectation - "you have to live for your children". I don't think it used to be the case. Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids but you're also gonna limit the number of parents if that's the new normal.
I actually think it is good for kids to have exposure to: - entertaining themselves - working/providing for themselves - having to do things that they don’t want to do - being told no, and dealing with unfulfilled desire All with balance, I am not proposing that kids are just left to fend for themselves. Caring for your kids materially and emotionally is important, but so is living your own life and making them live…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree and think that this is a huge growing cultural expectation - "you have to live for your children". I don't think it used to be the case. Well OK sure I get that that would be good for kids but you're also gonna limit the number of parents if that's the new normal.
I actually think it is good for kids to have exposure to: - entertaining themselves - working/providing for themselves - having to do things that they don’t want to do - being told no, and dealing with unfulfilled desire All with balance, I am not proposing that kids are just left to fend for themselves. Caring for your kids materially and emotionally is important, but so is living your own life and making them live…
I feel like it's been a long time fretting over falling birth rates and this is the first time I've seen anyone float the idea that making life better for people might make them a bit more inclined to make more people.
Financial incentives for giving birth have been around in some countries for decades. In France it's called "prime à la naissance". This is on top of delivery being almost free.