Let's Distribute 'Detached Houses' to Young People: A Proposal for Unprecedented Measures Against the Declining Birthrate

The Machu Picchu of Yamanashi

There was an interesting video on YouTube.

'[Construction Cost 4 Billion] The Sky New Town Beyond the Giant Elevator' (Negishi's Exciting Social Studies Field Trip)

This is the title of the video, which was uploaded a month ago and is popular with over 600,000 views.

It is an introduction to a new town called 'Comore Shiotsu' located in Uenohara City, Yamanashi Prefecture.

The video focuses on a giant elevator that transports residents from the nearest station, Shiotsu Station on the Chuo Main Line, to the new town on the hill (also called the Machu Picchu of Yamanashi).

An era where people have 'given up on detached houses'

While the video itself is interesting, what caught my attention was the history of this new town.

This massive new town with over 1,000 households began development during the bubble era of the 1980s.

At the time, land prices were soaring due to the bubble, and the dream of owning a 'detached house' was becoming distant for ordinary people in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Therefore, they decided to develop this mountainous area, which is 70 minutes from Tokyo via the Chuo Line, to create a commuter town with affordable detached houses.

The Machu Picchu on the mountain was the final form of the ordinary person's dream of a 'detached house'.

However, 1991, when the residential land was completed and sales began, was just when the bubble burst.

It seems sales were strong at first, but the trend shifted to 'rather than forcing yourself to buy a distant detached house, a condo is fine,' causing sales to slump and prices to fall.

Because of that, it was thought that this new town would be finished, but once the prices became reasonable, it began to be bought by the younger generation in local Yamanashi rather than commuters to Tokyo, and it is currently maintained as a quiet residential area of about 3,000 people.

Contemporaneity with the declining birthrate

Having lived through that era, I understand this trend surrounding real estate very well.

In particular, I clearly remember the establishment of the "condominiums over detached houses" trend since the 1980s.

In my father's generation, a life goal for salarymen and others was to own a "detached house," and that was possible during the period of high economic growth.

However, in the 1980s, when I started working as a salaryman, it changed to "real estate is too expensive, so a detached house is impossible" and "at least a condominium."

Along with that, I feel that people's preferences for pets also changed from large and medium-sized dogs (which once served as guard dogs) to small pet dogs and cats that can be kept in condominiums.

That 1980s period was also when the current trend of a declining birthrate began. From around this time, people stopped getting married and began to refrain from having children.

That is when I thought about it.

Is there any connection between people giving up on detached houses and the declining birthrate?

If you don't have a "home," you don't (really) feel like raising children.

I think there might be a connection.

Of course, there are many households that have children and raise them in public housing complexes or condominiums.

Especially in the early stages of the high economic growth period, many young couples lived in public housing complexes. However, in the Showa era, I think there was an aspiration to move to a detached house once the children grew up, and in fact, that was achievable.

When that changes to the idea that a detached house will be impossible in the future, and that living spaces might even get smaller, I think it is natural that the birthrate would be curbed.

As a country becomes developed, the required standards for a child's upbringing environment also rise. Through high economic growth, Japan has also seen an increase in the middle class, a rise in university enrollment rates, and exposure to a "first-class" lifestyle.

In poor environments, conversely, the number of children increases. Homeless people in India have many children (as shown in a Netflix documentary). For people who have nothing, children are assets that can be created from nothing and become hope for the future (though there is also the tragic reality that those children are kidnapped and trafficked).

In developed countries, on the other hand, children can sometimes be seen as negative assets, equivalent to long-term debt.

People in wealthy countries, though this may be a gross oversimplification, might not feel like raising children unless they have an environment spacious enough to keep a large dog.

It is not just a matter of the environment for raising children.

In Japanese, referring to a family as 'ie' (house/household) is likely not just a metaphor.

I believe that having a 'house' is how a family is inherited and passed down.

It is said that even the wealthy cannot maintain real estate due to high inheritance taxes, but only the wealthy can afford to buy the real estate that is sold, so land is simply circulating among the wealthy.

If one remains in a state of 'no house' or 'temporary housing,' it is difficult to build a family.

Furthermore, if the cost of buying a house is too high, people will use their life resources for other things. Even if a young couple gets married, it is natural for them to want to spend money on their own enjoyable lives rather than taking on an unreasonable loan to buy a 'house' and raise children.

Moreover, in the Tokyo metropolitan area, even used condominiums have become ridiculously expensive. Even the wealthy cannot afford detached houses, so they satisfy their desire for status with 'tower mansions'.

One might be able to acquire a house in depopulated areas, but it will not be a major solution unless it can be acquired in densely populated areas.

The soaring land prices in cities are a common problem in developed countries, and I wonder if that is related to the same issue of the declining birthrate.

The circumstances that prevent providing a 'house'

Of course, people smarter than me must all be aware of such things.

Therefore, if we are talking about unprecedented measures against the declining birthrate, it would be better to give young couples houses rather than money.

But that cannot be done.

Because the Japanese government's policies are strictly within the scope of 'new capitalism'.

Giving away real estate is an idea based on the nationalization of land, and that would turn into socialism.

A capitalist state can raise incomes, equalize them, and recently, even encourage ordinary people to invest and distribute corporate ownership, but it cannot distribute land.

This is because 'private ownership of land' is the crux of capitalism, while 'common ownership of land' is the core of socialism. Capitalism can distribute money, but it cannot distribute land.

An unprecedented solution by distributing 'homes'

How can people have children when they don't even have a home? Or, it is so difficult to own a home that people cannot have children. Shouldn't we be talking about this more?

The vast majority of our ancestors were, at some point, driven away from where they lived, or had to start paying 'rent' at some point. Originally, land belonged to no one (and in the first place, it does not belong to humans alone).

History is generally depicted as a process of people fighting over political power, but I believe its essence is the struggle over land. History textbooks should be written from that perspective. In Japan, the Imperial Family and the state were called 'ooyake,' but that actually means 'the great landlord.'

For historical rulers, winning fights was important, but they must have spent much of their time adjusting disputes over land. That is likely still the case today (as seen in Ukraine vs. Russia).

In particular, capitalism was the process by which the vast majority of us were driven off the land through so-called enclosure and became 'laborers.'

Perhaps the current declining birthrate in developed countries indicates the limits of this 'land expropriation' by capitalism.

It may be the result of humanity being too detached from nature (land), and essentially, it might be an environmental issue.

The topic has become quite broad, but it is certain that distributing homes is better than distributing money in small amounts.

Instead of taking the 'cash under the mattress' of the common people, if we take the 'real estate under the mattress' of the wealthy and distribute it to young couples, wouldn't the declining birthrate be solved in an unprecedented way?

Let's go ahead and put wealthy single people living in large mansions into high-end nursing homes.

It sounds like a socialist revolution, but that would be a result of the measures against the declining birthrate, just a consequence.

Even if it is socialism, I don't mean distributing a corner of a housing complex like in the former Soviet Union, but rather gifting a detached house outright.

However, while the Soviet housing complexes were cramped, they also gave citizens 'dachas' (country cottages with gardens). It is said that this still helps with the food self-sufficiency of the Russian people today.

Putin, who currently has a terrible reputation, is said to have succeeded in Russia's measures against the declining birthrate; while they didn't go as far as gifting detached houses, they did have a policy of providing housing acquisition funds to mothers who had a second child.

In any case, simple nationalization and redistribution of real estate will not help with the inheritance of a 'home.' Even in China, where the principle is that land is nationalized (basically, it is leased from the state), real estate prices have soared and a declining birthrate is occurring.

As long as a house is provided, it is meaningless unless it becomes the 'private property' of that family. Furthermore, if people do not know when their home might be taken away, they will not be able to build a stable family.

Well, it is like a temporary 'public land, public citizens' system. I don't know the difficult details regarding this, but if it is an emergency and there is no time for measures against the declining birthrate, we have no choice but to do it for now.

<Reference>