6 ms·

> Conservative policymakers and a cautious public mean Japan is much more likely to look for internal, rather than external, solutions to the demographic crunch

> Conservative policymakers and a cautious public mean Japan is much more likely to look for internal, rather than external, solutions to the demographic crunch, despite projections pointing to the inevitability of more immigration. Suppose they choose to "solve" it with immigration - what will happen? It will enable their current fertility-destroying system to persist, shrinking their population indefinitely, while supplementing it with immigrants. Social-economic systems that cause below-replacement fertility are in this way much like parasites, feeding off the host nation. Without immigration, eventually this will cause enough of a crisis, or a high enough fever, to continue the analogy, that will allow the nation to shake off the parasite and change their system to something sustainable. But immigration functions as anesthetic and immunosuppressant - keeping the host population just comfortable enough that they go gentle into that good night, and giving the parasite economic system a new host to feed on.

jleyank 3y ago
It's not entirely the economic system, other than women no having careers after giving birth. It's more the social system, and the fact that younger women don't want to seem to want to play anymore. Educated women pretty much anywhere in the world tend to have fewer children, fewer still if the economic costs and penalties increase. The government has to decide that children are desired, the social compact has to be rewritten to improve the position of women (from broodmare/housemother to coequal partner) and then the country needs a bit of good luck. There's still 10's of millions of them there, so they have time to piddle about "deciding and choosing" what to do. Perhaps this is a good example of the downside of social nationalism in a world that intercommunicates so quickly and so effectively?
- yutijke 3y ago
  Aren't countries like Japan or South Korea known for gruelling work hours? I think the economic system itself is not conducive for healthy families where both parents get sufficient time to spend with kids or family. In the past this may have been papered over with the cultural expectation that the woman takes care of the house and family and the man works, but this cultural framework has been broken and done away with without any replacement, cultural or economical.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    In places like Denmark and Norway with good healthcare and childcare, people are still not having kids.
    - SXX 3y ago
      Both countries are still very expensive to live in. And at least Denmark have really high taxes up to ~60%.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        The taxes pay for the healthcare and childcare of course, so even with those benefits if people are still not having kids, it's not the economy but the fact that people simply don't want to.
        slaw 3y ago
        The taxes make having kids even more expensive.
        reacharavindh 3y ago
        Source: lived in Denmark as an expat and had a kid while there. It is common misconception that you pay > 50% tax in DK. It is progressive % just like many other countries. You end up paying high percentages only on the pay that exceeds the average pay scales. Taxes, are still higher, but consider that you get a well educated society(education is free, and you even get paid to go to university), you get a society where healthcare is high quality and free, you don’t see people in the street because they got sick.. and many many more. Having a child is so heavily incentivised in all the right ways. Example(day care for your child is right and not a privilege, and the government subsidises the cost). The social system around families help even setting up a Facebook group of willing parents in your neighbourhood that happen to have similar age group kids. Kids welfare are put to the highest standards. Just writing here to help people overcome false assumptions.
- slaw 3y ago
  Women want to postpone giving birth after they try carriers. Once they succeeds or fails they want to have children, but very often at that time they are too old. If country would give incentive that it covers cost of child rising, many women would probably decide to have children.
epolanski 3y ago
Immigrants eventually become Japanese citizens though when they themselves settle in Japan and have families there. I think Japanese case is very interesting because one would think they have the economy and social stability to show us how it's done.
- Bran_son 3y ago
  > Immigrants eventually become Japanese citizens though when they themselves settle in Japan That's great if you want to preserve Japanese paperwork and populate Japan's geography, but doesn't help the Japanese people themselves.
  - guhidalg 3y ago
    Careful, are you saying that Japanese-ness is genetic or cultural?
    - Bran_son 3y ago
      It's both, and it boggles my mind how so many can (claim to) be so deluded as to say it's entirely the latter. Notably, their culture has changed dramatically over the last ~300 years (as it has for most nations), yet one wouldn't claim they are no longer Japanese on that basis. And the Japanese themselves consider Japanese-ness genetic, so who are you to tell them otherwise?
      - guhidalg 3y ago
        I am a human being who can tell them they’re really bigoted for linking genetics with Japanese-ness. That line of thinking isn’t new at all, and it’s responsible for tragedies like miscegenation laws, eugenics, genocides, slavery, and (clearly) the demise of the native Japanese population for fear of immigration. Of course people can believe that there’s a genetic component to Japanese-ness, and they are free to become extinct as a result.
        3y ago
timeon 3y ago
Not sure if it makes sense to argue around analogy.
jimmygrapes 3y ago
[flagged]
gumby 3y ago
Immigrants labor is the opposite of parasitism. In addition, the "immigrants as parasites" has a long and terrible eugenic history. Perhaps you unwittingly connected to that when making what probably seemed like a clever analogy (as my first sentence above says, I think the analogy points the wrong way).
- Bran_son 3y ago
  Please read my post more carefully, I wrote (emphasis added) "Social-economic systems that cause below-replacement fertility are in this way much like parasites" The system is the parasite, not the immigrants themselves. They are, in fact, its victims, as they will fall under the same below-replacement-fertility trap. Again, as I wrote in my post: "giving the parasite economic system a new host to feed on" - the new host being the immigrants.
  - gumby 3y ago
    Thanks. > They are, in fact, its victims, as they will fall under the same below-replacement-fertility trap. You say “trap”, as if a below-replacement birth rate is somehow bad. Do you actually think that that is the case?
satvikpendem 3y ago
It's not really the economic system, even countries with good labor, healthcare and childcare laws (unlike, say, the grueling work culture of many Asian countries) are having fewer children simply because...people don't want them. This fact is uncomfortable to many and they will try to counter with economic arguments, in my experience, saying that it costs too much, or there's not enough money to spend on them due to paying for healthcare, rent, and so on, but when you control for these factors, you cannot get away from the fundamental fact that people simply don't want as many kids today (or any, even) than in prior times. Now, it may even be that people in the past simply had more kids because they don't cost much more marginally to feed on the farm while in a few years they could provide labor for the family. Women also had less choice of not having kids back then, as well as having no birth control, which caused such a large population increase. But now with people learning more about the costs of kids monetarily, physically, and mentally, and having good birth control, people simply don't want as many kids.
- slaw 3y ago
  These countries with good labor, healthcare and childcare laws are very expensive to have children. We don't have sample developed country where children cost is marginal, to validate it is not because of economy people have less kids.
ryan_lane 3y ago
This kind of comment is why normal people mock HN as being a place for out of touch, far-right techbros. This is very obviously anti-immigrant propaganda, and it's voted to the top of the replies. America, for example, only keeps its population at stasis due to immigration. It's also what drives a lot of its economic output. Immigration is a proper answer to this problem. That isn't to say that Japan doesn't need to fix it's cultural issues, especially around work-life-balance and women's rights, but for the love of god touch some grass.

jleyank 3y ago

It's not entirely the economic system, other than women no having careers after giving birth. It's more the social system, and the fact that younger women don't want to seem to want to play anymore. Educated women pretty much anywhere in the world tend to have fewer children, fewer still if the economic costs and penalties increase. The government has to decide that children are desired, the social compact has to be rewritten to improve the position of women (from broodmare/housemother to coequal partner) and then the country needs a bit of good luck. There's still 10's of millions of them there, so they have time to piddle about "deciding and choosing" what to do. Perhaps this is a good example of the downside of social nationalism in a world that intercommunicates so quickly and so effectively?

yutijke 3y ago
Aren't countries like Japan or South Korea known for gruelling work hours? I think the economic system itself is not conducive for healthy families where both parents get sufficient time to spend with kids or family. In the past this may have been papered over with the cultural expectation that the woman takes care of the house and family and the man works, but this cultural framework has been broken and done away with without any replacement, cultural or economical.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  In places like Denmark and Norway with good healthcare and childcare, people are still not having kids.
  - SXX 3y ago
    Both countries are still very expensive to live in. And at least Denmark have really high taxes up to ~60%.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      The taxes pay for the healthcare and childcare of course, so even with those benefits if people are still not having kids, it's not the economy but the fact that people simply don't want to.
      - slaw 3y ago
        The taxes make having kids even more expensive.
        reacharavindh 3y ago
        Source: lived in Denmark as an expat and had a kid while there. It is common misconception that you pay > 50% tax in DK. It is progressive % just like many other countries. You end up paying high percentages only on the pay that exceeds the average pay scales. Taxes, are still higher, but consider that you get a well educated society(education is free, and you even get paid to go to university), you get a society where healthcare is high quality and free, you don’t see people in the street because they got sick.. and many many more. Having a child is so heavily incentivised in all the right ways. Example(day care for your child is right and not a privilege, and the government subsidises the cost). The social system around families help even setting up a Facebook group of willing parents in your neighbourhood that happen to have similar age group kids. Kids welfare are put to the highest standards. Just writing here to help people overcome false assumptions.
slaw 3y ago
Women want to postpone giving birth after they try carriers. Once they succeeds or fails they want to have children, but very often at that time they are too old. If country would give incentive that it covers cost of child rising, many women would probably decide to have children.

epolanski 3y ago

Immigrants eventually become Japanese citizens though when they themselves settle in Japan and have families there. I think Japanese case is very interesting because one would think they have the economy and social stability to show us how it's done.

Bran_son 3y ago
> Immigrants eventually become Japanese citizens though when they themselves settle in Japan That's great if you want to preserve Japanese paperwork and populate Japan's geography, but doesn't help the Japanese people themselves.
- guhidalg 3y ago
  Careful, are you saying that Japanese-ness is genetic or cultural?
  - Bran_son 3y ago
    It's both, and it boggles my mind how so many can (claim to) be so deluded as to say it's entirely the latter. Notably, their culture has changed dramatically over the last ~300 years (as it has for most nations), yet one wouldn't claim they are no longer Japanese on that basis. And the Japanese themselves consider Japanese-ness genetic, so who are you to tell them otherwise?
    - guhidalg 3y ago
      I am a human being who can tell them they’re really bigoted for linking genetics with Japanese-ness. That line of thinking isn’t new at all, and it’s responsible for tragedies like miscegenation laws, eugenics, genocides, slavery, and (clearly) the demise of the native Japanese population for fear of immigration. Of course people can believe that there’s a genetic component to Japanese-ness, and they are free to become extinct as a result.
      - 3y ago

timeon 3y ago

Not sure if it makes sense to argue around analogy.

jimmygrapes 3y ago

[flagged]

gumby 3y ago

Immigrants labor is the opposite of parasitism. In addition, the "immigrants as parasites" has a long and terrible eugenic history. Perhaps you unwittingly connected to that when making what probably seemed like a clever analogy (as my first sentence above says, I think the analogy points the wrong way).

Bran_son 3y ago
Please read my post more carefully, I wrote (emphasis added) "Social-economic systems that cause below-replacement fertility are in this way much like parasites" The system is the parasite, not the immigrants themselves. They are, in fact, its victims, as they will fall under the same below-replacement-fertility trap. Again, as I wrote in my post: "giving the parasite economic system a new host to feed on" - the new host being the immigrants.
- gumby 3y ago
  Thanks. > They are, in fact, its victims, as they will fall under the same below-replacement-fertility trap. You say “trap”, as if a below-replacement birth rate is somehow bad. Do you actually think that that is the case?

satvikpendem 3y ago

It's not really the economic system, even countries with good labor, healthcare and childcare laws (unlike, say, the grueling work culture of many Asian countries) are having fewer children simply because...people don't want them. This fact is uncomfortable to many and they will try to counter with economic arguments, in my experience, saying that it costs too much, or there's not enough money to spend on them due to paying for healthcare, rent, and so on, but when you control for these factors, you cannot get away from the fundamental fact that people simply don't want as many kids today (or any, even) than in prior times. Now, it may even be that people in the past simply had more kids because they don't cost much more marginally to feed on the farm while in a few years they could provide labor for the family. Women also had less choice of not having kids back then, as well as having no birth control, which caused such a large population increase. But now with people learning more about the costs of kids monetarily, physically, and mentally, and having good birth control, people simply don't want as many kids.

slaw 3y ago
These countries with good labor, healthcare and childcare laws are very expensive to have children. We don't have sample developed country where children cost is marginal, to validate it is not because of economy people have less kids.

ryan_lane 3y ago

This kind of comment is why normal people mock HN as being a place for out of touch, far-right techbros. This is very obviously anti-immigrant propaganda, and it's voted to the top of the replies. America, for example, only keeps its population at stasis due to immigration. It's also what drives a lot of its economic output. Immigration is a proper answer to this problem. That isn't to say that Japan doesn't need to fix it's cultural issues, especially around work-life-balance and women's rights, but for the love of god touch some grass.