6 ms·

Yet another article that believes low birthrates of the Japanese nation can be solved by adding foreign people to the Japanese landmass.

_fat_santa 4y ago
While being looser on immigration won't help with their birthrate, it will help ease the effects of the birthrate. Japan really has two problems, with one spurring from the other. Problem 1 is low birthrates and an aging population, that can only be solved by Japan. The second problem that emerges from the first is all the effects of an aging population, like not having enough people to hire, work certain jobs, etc. For the second issue, bringing in foreigners will help. I think that Japan's low birthrate can only be fixed by a shift in their culture. I'm not going to pretend I know what that looks like or how successful it will be, I only know that it will be an uphill battle for the Japanese, and I wish them the best of luck.
kderbyma 4y ago
Yeah it's asinine. They just want to ship people around the world like they stocking shelves....
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  Not really, immigration is a rather natural consequence of people moving around. Japan -heavily- limits immigration and citizenship and creates an artificial issue and then clutches their pearls at the age problem. It's kind of hilarious how they unnecessarily hang on to old societal norms about foreigners in the wake of problems like this. It's hard to feel bad for them.
  - eli_gottlieb 4y ago
    Ah yes, why not just cover over their deep social problems by importing people who have no better options but to work within them?
    - TillE 4y ago
      > importing people who have no better options This is literally how America grew. Mind, you want to actually integrate people instead of running some godawful Gastarbeiter program.
      - neighbour 4y ago
        There's a reason that when most people go to Japan they are in awe of the politeness of the people, the safety felt while walking down the street, and the overall cleanliness of the place. Contrast this to your example, America (I am assuming you mean USA). While seeing rows and rows of homeless people is nothing new, today I saw a video of a homeless person slapping human faeces in the face of another homeless man. There is more to this problem than just trying to maximise growth.
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        >This is literally how America grew. Except Japan is already "grown." That aside, It's better to let the _overpopulation_ problem in Japan solve itself by letting birthrates fall than to continue the issue by importing more people. It's not normal to have cities with population densites of 6,158 persons per square kilometer. Yes, there will be an economic price, but it will be short lived (30 years) rather than something that will continue forever.
        twelve40 4y ago
        and end up in a situation where 80% of the country is over 70 and cannot function? how is that better or short-lived?
        defrost 4y ago
        My father was born in 1935, he's 87 going on 88 and takes a turn on roster once a week to deliver meals on wheels to the old people that struggle to get by. Otherwise he potters on with his meetings on the organisational side of the local bushfire brigade and looking after his 15 km section of a 1,000 kilometre long bushwalking track that runs past not too far away .. when he's not splitting wood, fixing gates, etc. He's not altogether unusual in the area, there's a lot of still active older folk about the place. Can you expand more on how everybody over 70 cannot function?
ronsor 4y ago
That's how the vast majority of countries solve their population crises nowadays.
- nhchris 4y ago
  The combined population of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and the EU is 916 million. Let's be generous and say they're all "solving" their population crises with immigration. The combined population of China, Japan, and South Korea alone is 1586 million. They have negligible immigration. So if "vast majority" is weighted by the number of people (the only sensible measure - Monaco and China should not have equal weight), then no, only a minority of countries are using immigration as a solution - just 37% of the countries I listed, by population.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    I feel like grouping China along with Japan+South Korea is a bit disingenuous. China only recently has stopped their massive population growth and is still #1 in terms of the population count in the entire world. Japan and SK have been on the decline in terms of population for quite a while, and were never close to having a massive population of such magnitude. Just to contrast how meaningless it feels to combine them - if you exclude Japan+SK from your count, the number becomes ~1411mil, barely a -11%.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      China's fertility rate is at 1.7, same as the UK and Netherlands, and lower than the US's 1.8. Their annual growth rate has been <1% since 1994, and they've just had their first year of population decline. Meanwhile the US is still growing (or rather, being added to) at 0.5%/year. So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Sources: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population

_fat_santa 4y ago

While being looser on immigration won't help with their birthrate, it will help ease the effects of the birthrate. Japan really has two problems, with one spurring from the other. Problem 1 is low birthrates and an aging population, that can only be solved by Japan. The second problem that emerges from the first is all the effects of an aging population, like not having enough people to hire, work certain jobs, etc. For the second issue, bringing in foreigners will help. I think that Japan's low birthrate can only be fixed by a shift in their culture. I'm not going to pretend I know what that looks like or how successful it will be, I only know that it will be an uphill battle for the Japanese, and I wish them the best of luck.

kderbyma 4y ago

Yeah it's asinine. They just want to ship people around the world like they stocking shelves....

lost_tourist 4y ago
Not really, immigration is a rather natural consequence of people moving around. Japan -heavily- limits immigration and citizenship and creates an artificial issue and then clutches their pearls at the age problem. It's kind of hilarious how they unnecessarily hang on to old societal norms about foreigners in the wake of problems like this. It's hard to feel bad for them.
- eli_gottlieb 4y ago
  Ah yes, why not just cover over their deep social problems by importing people who have no better options but to work within them?
  - TillE 4y ago
    > importing people who have no better options This is literally how America grew. Mind, you want to actually integrate people instead of running some godawful Gastarbeiter program.
    - neighbour 4y ago
      There's a reason that when most people go to Japan they are in awe of the politeness of the people, the safety felt while walking down the street, and the overall cleanliness of the place. Contrast this to your example, America (I am assuming you mean USA). While seeing rows and rows of homeless people is nothing new, today I saw a video of a homeless person slapping human faeces in the face of another homeless man. There is more to this problem than just trying to maximise growth.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >This is literally how America grew. Except Japan is already "grown." That aside, It's better to let the _overpopulation_ problem in Japan solve itself by letting birthrates fall than to continue the issue by importing more people. It's not normal to have cities with population densites of 6,158 persons per square kilometer. Yes, there will be an economic price, but it will be short lived (30 years) rather than something that will continue forever.
      - twelve40 4y ago
        and end up in a situation where 80% of the country is over 70 and cannot function? how is that better or short-lived?
        defrost 4y ago
        My father was born in 1935, he's 87 going on 88 and takes a turn on roster once a week to deliver meals on wheels to the old people that struggle to get by. Otherwise he potters on with his meetings on the organisational side of the local bushfire brigade and looking after his 15 km section of a 1,000 kilometre long bushwalking track that runs past not too far away .. when he's not splitting wood, fixing gates, etc. He's not altogether unusual in the area, there's a lot of still active older folk about the place. Can you expand more on how everybody over 70 cannot function?

ronsor 4y ago

That's how the vast majority of countries solve their population crises nowadays.

nhchris 4y ago
The combined population of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and the EU is 916 million. Let's be generous and say they're all "solving" their population crises with immigration. The combined population of China, Japan, and South Korea alone is 1586 million. They have negligible immigration. So if "vast majority" is weighted by the number of people (the only sensible measure - Monaco and China should not have equal weight), then no, only a minority of countries are using immigration as a solution - just 37% of the countries I listed, by population.
- filoleg 4y ago
  I feel like grouping China along with Japan+South Korea is a bit disingenuous. China only recently has stopped their massive population growth and is still #1 in terms of the population count in the entire world. Japan and SK have been on the decline in terms of population for quite a while, and were never close to having a massive population of such magnitude. Just to contrast how meaningless it feels to combine them - if you exclude Japan+SK from your count, the number becomes ~1411mil, barely a -11%.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    China's fertility rate is at 1.7, same as the UK and Netherlands, and lower than the US's 1.8. Their annual growth rate has been <1% since 1994, and they've just had their first year of population decline. Meanwhile the US is still growing (or rather, being added to) at 0.5%/year. So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Sources: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population