• iridaniotter [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      They would need around 50 million immigrants by 2070 to make up for their low birth rates. This is possible if they wanted to, although the tendency for human birth rates to fall is a global phenomenon, so it’s just kicking the can down the road. It’s probably only solvable with communism. Fun fact: if China tried to stop their population decline, by mid-century they’d need 10 million immigrants a year. So the only real solution for them is to figure out how to reverse the fertility trend.

      • SuperZutsuki [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        As someone who will never have children, the only way I could see that changing would be universal free daycare, free education at every level, free healthcare (including dental, vision, prescriptions), 4 day/32 hour workweek, cities built around humans instead of cars, housing/food/water as rights, climate Stalinism, and LGBTQ protections at least on par with Cuba. I would not subject a child to the horrors of neoliberalism under any circumstances.

        • iridaniotter [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          That might be enough, but we may also need to abolish the family. shrug-outta-hecks

          Come to think of it, reproduction rates can stay pretty low if humans lived indefinitely. That would also allow for the abolition of retirement. Very good for capitalists… thinking-about-it

          I doubt bourgeois science and public health can achieve that though.

        • wtypstanaccount04 [he/him]@hexbear.netM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          cities built around humans instead of cars

          Japan is actually well on its way there in that department. There is lots of train service and the sidestreets are only as wide as they need to be. There are no sidewalks but that’s ok because humans clearly come first.

          • SuperZutsuki [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’ve thought about trying to get into Japan but I’m blue collar, no degree, which makes me essentially unemployable. I just want to run a hostel in Hokkaido and ride my bike in the mountains.

      • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        I would totally move to Japan and have kids there if it were more affordable, and if they gave me a break for neither being Japanese nor speaking Japanese. Fuck ethnostates but I’d do it though.

        Probably will have to move soon due to rent increases anyway, better Japan than a van.

  • joaomarrom [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ll move there and be the shame lightning rod at a company. I’ll be the asshole who arrives late every day to make everybody look professional in comparison. I’ll leave half an hour early so that overworked salarymen don’t have to feel embarrassed if they need to go home to their family and don’t want to be the first one to clock out. And then, when my work is done, I’ll simply stop working. I’ll go to the office and do nothing, playing chicken with the company’s no-firing policy, until I lose and repeat my good deeds somewhere else.

  • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    sneaking into japan so i can live in some random abandoned house on top of a mountain and collect food from the local haunted forest

  • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    Under Japan’s tax policies, some owners often find it cheaper to retain the home than to demolish it for redevelopment.

    And even if owners want to sell, they may have trouble finding buyers, said Hall, from Kanda University.

    Something the Government could do

  • Rom [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe they could try not being such a capitalist hellscape so people can have the time and energy to actually have kids and fill those empty homes.

  • Greenleaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    A reminder that “low birth rates bad” is false, at least by itself. It’s bad for capitalists (who need constant economic growth) and for welfare systems operating under capitalism. What’s bad is if there’s people who want a family but can’t afford it.

    A declining population under socialism isn’t a problem so long as people are having as many or as little kids as they want.

    • Ericthescruffy [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe I’m wrong but this seems a bit overly reductive? Capitalist or Socialist: if your workforce is aging out and there aren’t people to replace their roles and automation hasn’t got it handled yet that’s probably still an issue you need to address…although I agree socialism is much much better equipped to do so on account of planned economy if nothing else.

      • MovingThrowaway [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah it’s not bad but it is a problem, in the same sense that any social, economic, environmental, whatever change is a problem that needs to be adapted to. Planned proletarian economies are just the ones best suited to meet these problems head on instead of weathering, externalizing, profiting from, or collapsing because of them.