Once again, I apologize for the political and social current affairs.
It has become a controversy in the Diet, and various opinions are flying around in the streets. As a parent of a child who is approaching middle age, and as a citizen involved in recruitment, let me say a few words.
The government's policy of giving away small sums of money to support child rearing will not make change a lot. Why we are going declining birthrate? Certainly, economic growth in recent decades has paled in comparison to other countries. But compared to 50 years ago, our daily lives are much more convenient and richer.
Then why do you hesitate to give birth and raise children? Of course, financial reasons must be the most concerning issue. But it existed in the past, and it will exist in the future. A major concern is the sustainability of Japanese society. Japan's food self-sufficiency rate and energy self-sufficiency rate are among the lowest in the OECD. Geopolitical risk to disasters. widening inequality. It is the postponement of problems represented by taxes, the distribution of deficit-covering national bonds, and expressway tolls. It is extremely irresponsible to say, "Free will be postponed until 2115." Politicians and celebrities who show off their Parent-Gacha.
From the point of view of the general public, this is the essence of the declining birthrate problem: "We can not expect the next generation to be happier than we are." If you think about it normally, avoid the chain of poverty and the birth of victims of the 5080 problem.
So what we should show is sustainability. This level of countermeasures against the declining birthrate is not effective, it is a drop in the bucket. The only way to maintain the population is to drastically change the immigration policy. (PlanA). If we can't do that, we'll rebuild it into a society that can sustain itself even with a population of 80 million. (PlanB). I can only think of these two options. As for Option 1, it will be impossible to realize the intended immigration policy in the current situation where Japan is declining from an industrial country and a wealthy country because it has neglected education that can respond to globalization such as English, multiculturalism, and diversity.
If so, option 2 is more likely. Historically and looking around the world, tens of millions of social states are the limit of Homo sapiens. So if the population of Japan is reduced to two-thirds, there is possibility to retain sustainability. However, the road will be extremely difficult. Because it is necessary to "throw away" various things. Nuclear power plants, linear bullet trains, barely used roads and bridges, members of the Diet and local governments, useless civil servants, declining industry, zombie company, Galapagos personnel system etc, The list goes on and on. In addition, it is necessary to tackle the problems of vacant houses, aging housing complexes, and agricultural land. But we as a citizen can not be have no strong voice on Option 2. Also we can not expact the politician to raise the proposal. This is because the interests, profits, and assets of the rulers are subject to a scalpel. This is because it would destroy the model of the construction nation. Will a hero come out and take the initiative to solve the problem? Will catastrophes and wars wake you up? sit and wait to die? These are possible route. In any case, policymakers and the media should study behavioral economics in addition to discussing finance and finance.