SINGAPORE (CNN) -- Teeming populations have long been synonymous with Asia. But in Hong Kong, schools and nurseries are closing because there aren't enough children to fill classes. And governments from South Korea to Singapore are trying to encourage women to have more children.
In downtown Tokyo, Eriko Tanji drops off her two pre-schoolers at childcare before heading off to her job as a human resources manager at Johnson & Johnson. Tanji is something of a rarity in ***an in that she has children and a career.
But Tanji is helped by Johnson & Johnson who pay her extra to help with childcare to help keep a valued worker.
***an's government also paid Tanji when she had each of her children.
But in a competitive work environment, Tanji can understand why many ***anese women are choosing to remain childless. She thinks it makes a woman's life so much harder.
"I'm not sure if it's appropriate to say this or not," she says. "But I think in a way, it's a huge risk."
And many women throughout Asia believe it's a risk not worth taking.
South Korea's government is listening. In the face of a depleting tax base, it is now considering proposals to pay women to have babies.
That's largely because South Korean women are marrying later and choosing to have fewer children. It's a growing trend across Asia's former "tiger" economies.
Several decades ago Singapore had a "Stop at Two" policy to prevent overpopulation.
But it has been 25 years since the birthrate in Singapore has been so low and the government is actively involved in trying to get its people to have more babies.
State-run Websites like www.lovebyte.org.sg are aimed at encouraging Singapore's young people to get married and have children. The site gives tips on dating and how to behave in a relationship.
It is one of many attempts Asian governments are making to turn around a problem they see as having far-reaching economic effects. They fear too many aging citizens will be dependent on a declining tax base from fewer and fewer young people.
Singaporean economist, P.K. Basu, says the Lion City is being sensible in acting before a potential problem becomes reality. But he says countries like ***an should have started work on the problem about ten years ago.
Going by the numbers it is generally accepted that each woman needs to produce 2.1 children to ensure population growth.
In less developed Asian economies, like the Philippines, over-population remains a concern as women there produce an average 3.4 children each.
But as economies improve, birthrates decline. In ***an the average birthrate is 1.3 per woman. In South Korea it is only 1.17.
John Bacon-Shone from the University of Hong Kong says this decline in baby making can be directly attributed to the emergence of well educated, career-minded women with financial independence.
They are the ones who control fertility, he says.
In countries like ***an and Singapore, governments are acknowledging it is in the national interest for women to be able to balance a career and a family.
And for women like Tanji, that means taking the big risk out of being a productive female, as well as an employee.
hmmmmmmmmmm
Remember the chart we looked at recently folks ?
country pop. dens. area population
(/km²) (km²) (2002-07-01 est.)
Macau (PRC) 18,000 25 461,833
Monaco 16,000 2 31,987
Hong Kong (PRC) 6,688 1,092 7,303,334 Singapore 6,430 693 4,452,732
4th most densely populated country and they fear UNDERPOPULATION now ?
Aint that odd ? VC, FNG, what do ya'll think about this ?
Stealthycat ,
all they fear is a loss of revenue . You can't spend more and more each year without taxpayers to milk . One of the execs at my company explained that they have to spend all of the money they are alloted on the budget every year or next year their portion of the budget will get reduced . Goobermint spending works similarly .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
We have too many people, lets cut back reproduciton ... uh, now we have too few people (for various reasons), lets pay people to have more children even though we told them to not have them.
Location: The place that Harry Henderson calls home....
Posts: 1,672
RE: underpopulation problem ??
Stealthy,
What you are not realizing, or seemingly taking into consideration, is the population density of a nation.
True, it is #people/square kilometer. But understand, that when calculating that you need to take into consideration the percentage of non-sustainable habitat.
China & India & Russia are good examples. Millions of kilometers of land, but how much is uninhabitable due to mountains or arctic temperatures. That criteria is not taken into acount... Look at the population density of NY...NYC accounts for what, almost 3 million people that live basically on an a small island. However, when taken into account for overall state population density numbers, you can understand how one small land mass area drastically skews statistical numbers..
Any population ecologists will tell you, you need to analyze population density at the smallest possible area to get a true understanding of habitat, environment, and sustainable levels of habitation.
Also, although the land may be able to sustain the food and space for that number of people, does not imply that the country or world for that matter, can handle the wastes generated by that same number...
I'll say this time and again, having done multiple statistical analyses for many years...I can correlate the surface area of the moon with the number of hairs on my back...but it doesn't mean a damn thing. All one needs to do is look at a satellite image of the world at night to get a full understanding of population density. The entire Atlantic seaboard looks like a giant lantern, while most of the Midwest is clouded in darkness---severly different population density patterns...
This is not a black & white issue...
__________________
"The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight." Theodore Roosevelt
Strut&Rut - I addressed that a bit in my other post. Almost any place in this country can be turned into livable areas. You could plant a city in the plains of texas, the prarie of South Dakota, the hills of Kentucky, the desert SW ..... anywhere.
People in cities stack on top of one another more and more. Cities grow up, down, and out and pack more and more people into them and the city limits rarely change. NY city could add another 20 million people .... it'd be more crowded of course, and everything that comes with it, but its a real possibility that could happen.
Strut&Rut - I addressed that a bit in my other post. Almost any place in this country can be turned into livable areas. You could plant a city in the plains of texas, the prarie of South Dakota, the hills of Kentucky, the desert SW ..... anywhere.
People in cities stack on top of one another more and more. Cities grow up, down, and out and pack more and more people into them and the city limits rarely change. NY city could add another 20 million people .... it'd be more crowded of course, and everything that comes with it, but its a real possibility that could happen.
No, you did not simply discuss the viability of human habitat. You discussed the issue of population vs. quality of living...and made the same sort of illogical, nonsensical assertions in the process.
underpopulation problem ??
