4 ms·

It's surprising. That's what the article is getting at, and that's the thing implicit in most of the comments. Not necessarily why they did it? But that they wo

It's surprising. That's what the article is getting at, and that's the thing implicit in most of the comments. Not necessarily why they did it? But that they would do it at all. Just seems a bit Quixotic. Especially for a country with much larger issues to worry about. If your country is dying, you'd think you would be rolling out high tech, or innovative solutions to that problem first.

djsumdog 8y ago
What do you mean by dying. Are you referring to low birth rates or other factors?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Yeah. The fact that they are going to be at about 85 million in 2050, down from 125 today, is pretty alarming. Well, I guess "alarm" isn't the right word, since everyone knows that it's happening already. But you would think there would be more concern about it?
  - magduf 8y ago
    How exactly is not building up industries going to help out a country that has negative population growth? What do you want them to do, stop being productive industrially, and just make babies like various 3rd-world nations that have no industry and lots of starving people?
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    I honestly think more countries should be encouraged to go this route. Do we really need more people on this planet? Shoudn't being more sustainable involve having fewer children, less consumption and having more productive work and more people in the automation industry?
    - Yetanfou 8y ago
      The only way such a move would have the desired effect is if those countries also took up Japan's extremely restrictive migration policies. That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries.
      - adventured 8y ago
        > That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries. That is already happening in most western nations. Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example. It was a policy mistake that will not benefit their nation at all and they aggressively reversed course. Denmark has mostly followed Sweden in restricting its briefly loose immigration policies, because the results have been very poor. Australia has implemented an extremely strict immigration system that locks almost everyone out unless you meet their merit requirements. Canada has had a strict merit system in place for a long time. They have no plans to change that, because they know the damage it would do to their very nice welfare state. Norway and Finland never relaxed their immigration policies in the first place. Merkel's immigration flood exploded in her face with massive backlash politically. Germany was forced to turn back against that approach as it was politically untenable. France has seen zero economic benefit from its loose immigration policies over the last two decades. When I say zero, I mean their immigrants have high unemployment and low education levels, the economy has not expanded at all, productivity is not expanding, GDP per capita has not expanded, and median wages have not expanded. They thought it would bolster their economy, it did the exact opposite, it's now a massive drag on each person in France that has to support the high immigrant unemployment rate. Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. The US has dramatically expanded its welfare state over the last 30 and 50 years. The US now spends as much on its welfare state per capita as Canada. You can't combine increasingly shifting to a very expensive welfare state system with unfettered low skill immigration that can't pay its own way (and in fact does the opposite, it drowns the system). Bernie Sanders, to use one prominent example, understands how this combination has to work economically. It's why Finland only has 5 million people and isn't in a big hurry to get to 10 million (they could open the gates tomorrow and allow in millions of people; it's clear why they don't do it). You can have sustainable immigration in an expensive welfare state only if it pays for itself. All the best nations - highest standards of living - on earth follow this model for obvious reasons.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Japan having 85 million people in 2050 is no more alarming than France having 67 million today. Why would it matter whether Japan has 100, 80, 60, or 40 million people? They're at no risk of literally disappearing and 85 million is still a lot of people for that island to support. Ideally you want your population to contract, while you increase per capita well-being through productivity gains. Each person gains, while the society eases up on the pressure it exerts via resource demands. There are few exceptions, perhaps countries like Estonia which are already tiny and still contracting (where a stable population might be preferable). Adding people is one of the worst things most nations can be doing at this moment in history. Overall economic growth (almost always the argument used to push for expanding population at any cost) is not inherently valuable, it's the per capita growth that is the best measure. You want greater output per capita and to accomplish it using fewer resources. Just ask France and the UK. They've added 10 million people to their collective population since 2006. They've produced zero per capita economic growth in all that time. Their citizens are wildly unhappy about what's going on as one would expect. The elites have done well, while most people have seen their wages and standards of living stagnate for decades. That path isn't going to sustain much longer given the current climate. It's going to require a refocusing on per capita well-being, instead of trying to grow the overall economy at any cost. Most developed nations, including the US, are in the same boat.
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
You’ve been manipulated by very obvious “open borders for Japan” propaganda. Why doesn’t it bother you when people manipulate you like this?

djsumdog 8y ago

What do you mean by dying. Are you referring to low birth rates or other factors?

bilbo0s 8y ago
Yeah. The fact that they are going to be at about 85 million in 2050, down from 125 today, is pretty alarming. Well, I guess "alarm" isn't the right word, since everyone knows that it's happening already. But you would think there would be more concern about it?
- magduf 8y ago
  How exactly is not building up industries going to help out a country that has negative population growth? What do you want them to do, stop being productive industrially, and just make babies like various 3rd-world nations that have no industry and lots of starving people?
- djsumdog 8y ago
  I honestly think more countries should be encouraged to go this route. Do we really need more people on this planet? Shoudn't being more sustainable involve having fewer children, less consumption and having more productive work and more people in the automation industry?
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    The only way such a move would have the desired effect is if those countries also took up Japan's extremely restrictive migration policies. That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries.
    - adventured 8y ago
      > That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries. That is already happening in most western nations. Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example. It was a policy mistake that will not benefit their nation at all and they aggressively reversed course. Denmark has mostly followed Sweden in restricting its briefly loose immigration policies, because the results have been very poor. Australia has implemented an extremely strict immigration system that locks almost everyone out unless you meet their merit requirements. Canada has had a strict merit system in place for a long time. They have no plans to change that, because they know the damage it would do to their very nice welfare state. Norway and Finland never relaxed their immigration policies in the first place. Merkel's immigration flood exploded in her face with massive backlash politically. Germany was forced to turn back against that approach as it was politically untenable. France has seen zero economic benefit from its loose immigration policies over the last two decades. When I say zero, I mean their immigrants have high unemployment and low education levels, the economy has not expanded at all, productivity is not expanding, GDP per capita has not expanded, and median wages have not expanded. They thought it would bolster their economy, it did the exact opposite, it's now a massive drag on each person in France that has to support the high immigrant unemployment rate. Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. The US has dramatically expanded its welfare state over the last 30 and 50 years. The US now spends as much on its welfare state per capita as Canada. You can't combine increasingly shifting to a very expensive welfare state system with unfettered low skill immigration that can't pay its own way (and in fact does the opposite, it drowns the system). Bernie Sanders, to use one prominent example, understands how this combination has to work economically. It's why Finland only has 5 million people and isn't in a big hurry to get to 10 million (they could open the gates tomorrow and allow in millions of people; it's clear why they don't do it). You can have sustainable immigration in an expensive welfare state only if it pays for itself. All the best nations - highest standards of living - on earth follow this model for obvious reasons.
- adventured 8y ago
  Japan having 85 million people in 2050 is no more alarming than France having 67 million today. Why would it matter whether Japan has 100, 80, 60, or 40 million people? They're at no risk of literally disappearing and 85 million is still a lot of people for that island to support. Ideally you want your population to contract, while you increase per capita well-being through productivity gains. Each person gains, while the society eases up on the pressure it exerts via resource demands. There are few exceptions, perhaps countries like Estonia which are already tiny and still contracting (where a stable population might be preferable). Adding people is one of the worst things most nations can be doing at this moment in history. Overall economic growth (almost always the argument used to push for expanding population at any cost) is not inherently valuable, it's the per capita growth that is the best measure. You want greater output per capita and to accomplish it using fewer resources. Just ask France and the UK. They've added 10 million people to their collective population since 2006. They've produced zero per capita economic growth in all that time. Their citizens are wildly unhappy about what's going on as one would expect. The elites have done well, while most people have seen their wages and standards of living stagnate for decades. That path isn't going to sustain much longer given the current climate. It's going to require a refocusing on per capita well-being, instead of trying to grow the overall economy at any cost. Most developed nations, including the US, are in the same boat.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

You’ve been manipulated by very obvious “open borders for Japan” propaganda. Why doesn’t it bother you when people manipulate you like this?