4 ms·

There's a lot of gloom and doom around Japan, but I think there are a few counter-points. 1) Yes, the economy is stagnant. But it's interesting to think about

by awongh 3y ago

There's a lot of gloom and doom around Japan, but I think there are a few counter-points. 1) Yes, the economy is stagnant. But it's interesting to think about it from the point of view that Japan disproves the idea that a growth economy is the only way. Here is a country that increases worker efficiency and has a really high standard of living, but doesn't do it in a hyper growth kind of way. 2) Yes, Japan is super, super xenophobic compared to other countries. This is contrasted with it being one of the top tourist destinations on earth. I think things like digital nomad visa could be a small step on the way to closing this dichotomy. It's clear that one of the easy levers Japan could pull to alleviate their economic issues would be to allow more immigration, and I think the world's facination with Japan and Japanese culture is such that they could pull it off.

carlosjobim 3y ago
[flagged]
- drukenemo 3y ago
  Wow, this comment comes across as extremely nationalistic, sorry to say but to the point of being fascistic (and I’m not one for using this term lightly).
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Nationalism was historically the reaction against imperialism. Some empires transformed into nation states, such as Great Britain. Most countries who are independent today are independent because of nationalistic movements against imperialism and colonisation.
    - andrekandre 3y ago
      > movements against imperialism and colonisation. is it possible that nationalism could ironically also feed into new forms of imperialism?
  - nox101 3y ago
    I agree the tone was aggressive but this is arguably a real issue and it's not as simple as it seems at first Israel as a "Jewish state" is arguably a place that would not exist if they let in unlimited immigration because it would soon be majority not Jewish. I see that's in conflict with the idea that people should be/do whatever they want. I don't see how to reconcile the two sides. Radiolab had an episode on this issue WRT to Samoa (https://radiolab.org/podcast/americanish-2306 https://radiolab.org/podcast/americanish-2306) My memory of the episode is the first half they paint the picture of a particular seemingly "racist" local trying to keep non-Samoans from owning any land. Most people are okay with it, then this person whispers in their ear and suddenly they're against it. In the second half they go over why. The reason being rich non-Samoans would quickly buy up the entire island and there would be no Samoa / Samoan culture anymore. I don't know how to resolve that. Part of me thinks they Samoans, Jews, Japan, British, Native Americans, etc... should not disallow immigration. It seems anti-democratic, anti-liberal values. On the other hand, something will be lost, something that seems to have value, which is the cultures of the people there currently.
    - andrekandre 3y ago
      > The reason being rich non-Samoans would quickly buy up the entire island and there would be no Samoa / Samoan culture anymore. isn't this more of a class (rich vs non-rich) issue than an immigration issue? > I don't know how to resolve that. allow only people who live long-term and actually reside there to buy property might be one strategy? > On the other hand, something will be lost, something that seems to have value, which is the cultures of the people there currently. its true but its also true many of those cultures most prized traditions come from the intersection of native and foreign creating something new in the first-place... something might be lost but another gained... -- btw, slight tangent but i think there is also a contradiction with immigration policy in regards to attracting rich foreigners: many countries want them because its supposed that they bring capital/money with them in the hopes of spurring investment and local economy but the flip-side is what you describe where the rich foreigners start owning/dominating things to the detriment of locals... and countries conversely don't want the non-rich to stay long-term because they aren't perceived as high-class/desirable yet they are the ones that work in the 'productive economy' which might help the locals more in the long and short term....i think there is an issue there as well...
- hackernews1134 3y ago
  Immigration != colonization One is implemented with the will of the people (in a functioning democracy) and the other is not. Equating the two and then correlating that to dog whistle terms like “genetic extermination” which has no scientific basis (except in terms of pest control) is disingeuous. Edit: formatting
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    I assure you that there is nothing disingenuous in my comment, and not everything is a "dog whistle". A dog whistle for what, if you mind? No people has ever willed to be colonised (and that was the proposal in the comment I replied to). Immigration is a different matter. The people in history who welcomed being colonised were very sorry for it afterwards. Genetic extermination is the same as genocide, and it has happened countless times, it is happening right now, and it will continue to happen as long as humans are faulty beings.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > Genetic extermination is the same as genocide No, it isn't. Nobody is "exterminating" the Japanese. They're culturally unsustainable. It's not fucking Genocide when you're doing it to yourself. There's no Panda Holocaust either.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Nobody has said that, try reading my comment better: "Colonisation always goes hand in hand with genetic extermination of the natives" I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows. Edit: I think I see what confused you. I wrote "it's happening right now" not referring to Japan, but referring to humanity at large.
        jstarfish 3y ago
        > I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows. And I don't disagree with you. What I'm objecting to is your hyperbole; on further thought I don't care much for your throwing around of this "genetic extermination" term either. "Extermination" implies a third party is involved and has a hand on the gas valve. A more appropriate euphemism would be "genetic extinction." Genocide is explicitly defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The immigrants are not arriving onshore and butchering the natives. Words have meaning and this one does not invite ambiguity. A genetic clique disappearing because of cross-breeding is not goddamn Genocide. It's just Nature. And again, I'd argue they're doing it to themselves. They just handed the title of Miss Japan to a Ukie. Now this. Nobody's making them sell out to foreigners. They could just as easily halve their pointlessly-bureaucratic workweek and subsidize childcare.
- awongh 3y ago
  There's a discussion around the english words for people who come to a country. Some people are "expats" and some people are "immigrants". I was talking about "immigrants" rather than "expats". Of course this dynamic has many facets to it. I've met some people in Thailand who couldn't give a shit about Thai people and just wanted to save 50% on their latte. This is a common "expat" sterotype. There has been, and still is a lot of "orientalization" of Japan, but almost every immigrant you meet in Japan today has a deep love for Japan in some way. (Also because only the truly dedicated would go to the trouble to be able to stay). So if Japan decided to start allowing more people in I feel like they would all fall more on the immigrant side than the expat side.
  - eska 3y ago
    There isn’t really any ambiguity about the two terms. That’s a dog whistle by people who want to see racism where there is none. They usually say something along the lines of “so when black and brown skinned people go to Europe they’re immigrants. But when white people go to Japan they’re called expats?”. The omitted difference being that most white people going to Japan do not stay permanently. The japanese also differentiate between 移民 and 駐在員 (expat)
- rurp 3y ago
  Wait, who is talking about colonization? The Royal Navy isn't planning an invasion of Japan; nobody is forcing anything on the country regarding immigration or demographics. The country has chosen to keep immigration low for decades, as is their right. Now they are facing a demographic crisis and could choose to relax those policies to help alleviate population concerns.
- lawgimenez 3y ago
  My country has been colonized by Spain for 333 years, as far as I know my kind did not go poof. We just inherited all the colonizers language and bullshit.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    You are most probably the product of the colonisers, ie "your kind" did not exist in your country before being colonised. Back to Japan, it is not like there is vast spaces of fertile land there that "needs" to be put under plow by colonisers. It is already a very densely populated country.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  You can try to protect. I will try to take. > Why not leave people alone instead? Because I want their shit. Their land and what’s under it. Their seas and what it gives me access to. And either I’m going to take it or they’re going to let me share. This kind of abject “why won’t you leave us alone” only works on people who listen. Not on people who compete. And the people who listen couldn’t compete in the first place.
remarkEon 3y ago
But not ever place needs to turn into cosmopolitan London. In the same way that Japan showed it’s possible to have a high standard of living without obsessing over growth, I trust that the Japanese can find a path forward that doesn’t default to “just bring in millions of immigrants”.
- niam 3y ago
  Why are we treating a known working and humanitarian strategy as some evil "growth" thing? I feel like we're dragging that term out of the hyper-capitalistic sense it's meant to evoke. People ought to be able to move where they're most happy / productive. One consequence of that may be that a place turns "into cosmopolitan London". But that's hardly a horror.
  - ametrau 3y ago
    The reason people want to go to nice places is because of the people currently there who created them—-not the people wanting to come.
  - noptd 3y ago
    I think the argument against can be boiled down to this hypothetical analogy: A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms. Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite. Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept? Who has the power to make that determination? After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in? --- Personally, I can see the argument for both sides.
    - niam 3y ago
      I feel like the analogy isn't a service to the problem. It's got all sorts of baggage and expectations pertaining to homeownership that don't carry over into migration. I feel it'd just be better to address the problem space directly and ask what specific problems you observe/predict with immigration. The problem I'm inferring from your comment here would also seem to apply to families moving from Chicago to Boston. And what's funny is that people actually do complain about this (our mayor is from Chicago), but it's for nonsensical reasons in my experience.
btbuildem 3y ago
One could argue that when viewed in perspective of a shrinking population, Japan's economy is doing just fine. Just because it doesn't work for hedge fund vampires doesn't mean it's not effective at sustaining a good standard of living for people there.
- timr 3y ago
  Their population has been shrinking for far less time than it's been stagnant. If I had to guess, the causal arrow points the other way.
fb03 3y ago
The xenophobic point hits home, as I've lived there for almost 5 years, and wasn't able to attain a single long/strong friendship with any japanese national. I am glad I had other foreigners there to mingle with, or I'd just be very, very alone. Japan for tourism? Can't recommend further. Amazing country to visit, clean, safe, good food. They will be educated towards you in big cities like Tokyo etc. Japan for living (specially if you're from an economy which they perceive as lower/poorer)? Avoid at all costs, you'll be treated as subculture forever.
Tiktaalik 3y ago
yeah re point 1) All I've ever heard my whole life is how Japan is an economic basketcase and a disaster, and yet after visiting there well, the quality of infrastructure and vibrancy of the cities is high that it makes Canada look like a third world country tbh. And yet Canada is the one that is always out performing Japan in the economic charts, with our numbers going in the proper up and to the right direction. Obviously there's more to quality of life than merely lines on the economic graph...
solarpunk 3y ago
To your point #1: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/kohei-saito-degrowth-communism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/kohei-saito-degr...

by awongh 3y ago

carlosjobim 3y ago

[flagged]

drukenemo 3y ago
Wow, this comment comes across as extremely nationalistic, sorry to say but to the point of being fascistic (and I’m not one for using this term lightly).
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Nationalism was historically the reaction against imperialism. Some empires transformed into nation states, such as Great Britain. Most countries who are independent today are independent because of nationalistic movements against imperialism and colonisation.
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > movements against imperialism and colonisation. is it possible that nationalism could ironically also feed into new forms of imperialism?
- nox101 3y ago
  I agree the tone was aggressive but this is arguably a real issue and it's not as simple as it seems at first Israel as a "Jewish state" is arguably a place that would not exist if they let in unlimited immigration because it would soon be majority not Jewish. I see that's in conflict with the idea that people should be/do whatever they want. I don't see how to reconcile the two sides. Radiolab had an episode on this issue WRT to Samoa (https://radiolab.org/podcast/americanish-2306 https://radiolab.org/podcast/americanish-2306) My memory of the episode is the first half they paint the picture of a particular seemingly "racist" local trying to keep non-Samoans from owning any land. Most people are okay with it, then this person whispers in their ear and suddenly they're against it. In the second half they go over why. The reason being rich non-Samoans would quickly buy up the entire island and there would be no Samoa / Samoan culture anymore. I don't know how to resolve that. Part of me thinks they Samoans, Jews, Japan, British, Native Americans, etc... should not disallow immigration. It seems anti-democratic, anti-liberal values. On the other hand, something will be lost, something that seems to have value, which is the cultures of the people there currently.
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > The reason being rich non-Samoans would quickly buy up the entire island and there would be no Samoa / Samoan culture anymore. isn't this more of a class (rich vs non-rich) issue than an immigration issue? > I don't know how to resolve that. allow only people who live long-term and actually reside there to buy property might be one strategy? > On the other hand, something will be lost, something that seems to have value, which is the cultures of the people there currently. its true but its also true many of those cultures most prized traditions come from the intersection of native and foreign creating something new in the first-place... something might be lost but another gained... -- btw, slight tangent but i think there is also a contradiction with immigration policy in regards to attracting rich foreigners: many countries want them because its supposed that they bring capital/money with them in the hopes of spurring investment and local economy but the flip-side is what you describe where the rich foreigners start owning/dominating things to the detriment of locals... and countries conversely don't want the non-rich to stay long-term because they aren't perceived as high-class/desirable yet they are the ones that work in the 'productive economy' which might help the locals more in the long and short term....i think there is an issue there as well...
hackernews1134 3y ago
Immigration != colonization One is implemented with the will of the people (in a functioning democracy) and the other is not. Equating the two and then correlating that to dog whistle terms like “genetic extermination” which has no scientific basis (except in terms of pest control) is disingeuous. Edit: formatting
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I assure you that there is nothing disingenuous in my comment, and not everything is a "dog whistle". A dog whistle for what, if you mind? No people has ever willed to be colonised (and that was the proposal in the comment I replied to). Immigration is a different matter. The people in history who welcomed being colonised were very sorry for it afterwards. Genetic extermination is the same as genocide, and it has happened countless times, it is happening right now, and it will continue to happen as long as humans are faulty beings.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > Genetic extermination is the same as genocide No, it isn't. Nobody is "exterminating" the Japanese. They're culturally unsustainable. It's not fucking Genocide when you're doing it to yourself. There's no Panda Holocaust either.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Nobody has said that, try reading my comment better: "Colonisation always goes hand in hand with genetic extermination of the natives" I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows. Edit: I think I see what confused you. I wrote "it's happening right now" not referring to Japan, but referring to humanity at large.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        > I'm saying that when people start proposing and planning colonisation of a foreign country, genetic extermination usually follows. And I don't disagree with you. What I'm objecting to is your hyperbole; on further thought I don't care much for your throwing around of this "genetic extermination" term either. "Extermination" implies a third party is involved and has a hand on the gas valve. A more appropriate euphemism would be "genetic extinction." Genocide is explicitly defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." The immigrants are not arriving onshore and butchering the natives. Words have meaning and this one does not invite ambiguity. A genetic clique disappearing because of cross-breeding is not goddamn Genocide. It's just Nature. And again, I'd argue they're doing it to themselves. They just handed the title of Miss Japan to a Ukie. Now this. Nobody's making them sell out to foreigners. They could just as easily halve their pointlessly-bureaucratic workweek and subsidize childcare.
awongh 3y ago
There's a discussion around the english words for people who come to a country. Some people are "expats" and some people are "immigrants". I was talking about "immigrants" rather than "expats". Of course this dynamic has many facets to it. I've met some people in Thailand who couldn't give a shit about Thai people and just wanted to save 50% on their latte. This is a common "expat" sterotype. There has been, and still is a lot of "orientalization" of Japan, but almost every immigrant you meet in Japan today has a deep love for Japan in some way. (Also because only the truly dedicated would go to the trouble to be able to stay). So if Japan decided to start allowing more people in I feel like they would all fall more on the immigrant side than the expat side.
- eska 3y ago
  There isn’t really any ambiguity about the two terms. That’s a dog whistle by people who want to see racism where there is none. They usually say something along the lines of “so when black and brown skinned people go to Europe they’re immigrants. But when white people go to Japan they’re called expats?”. The omitted difference being that most white people going to Japan do not stay permanently. The japanese also differentiate between 移民 and 駐在員 (expat)
rurp 3y ago
Wait, who is talking about colonization? The Royal Navy isn't planning an invasion of Japan; nobody is forcing anything on the country regarding immigration or demographics. The country has chosen to keep immigration low for decades, as is their right. Now they are facing a demographic crisis and could choose to relax those policies to help alleviate population concerns.
lawgimenez 3y ago
My country has been colonized by Spain for 333 years, as far as I know my kind did not go poof. We just inherited all the colonizers language and bullshit.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  You are most probably the product of the colonisers, ie "your kind" did not exist in your country before being colonised. Back to Japan, it is not like there is vast spaces of fertile land there that "needs" to be put under plow by colonisers. It is already a very densely populated country.
renewiltord 3y ago
You can try to protect. I will try to take. > Why not leave people alone instead? Because I want their shit. Their land and what’s under it. Their seas and what it gives me access to. And either I’m going to take it or they’re going to let me share. This kind of abject “why won’t you leave us alone” only works on people who listen. Not on people who compete. And the people who listen couldn’t compete in the first place.

remarkEon 3y ago

But not ever place needs to turn into cosmopolitan London. In the same way that Japan showed it’s possible to have a high standard of living without obsessing over growth, I trust that the Japanese can find a path forward that doesn’t default to “just bring in millions of immigrants”.

niam 3y ago
Why are we treating a known working and humanitarian strategy as some evil "growth" thing? I feel like we're dragging that term out of the hyper-capitalistic sense it's meant to evoke. People ought to be able to move where they're most happy / productive. One consequence of that may be that a place turns "into cosmopolitan London". But that's hardly a horror.
- ametrau 3y ago
  The reason people want to go to nice places is because of the people currently there who created them—-not the people wanting to come.
- noptd 3y ago
  I think the argument against can be boiled down to this hypothetical analogy: A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms. Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite. Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept? Who has the power to make that determination? After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in? --- Personally, I can see the argument for both sides.
  - niam 3y ago
    I feel like the analogy isn't a service to the problem. It's got all sorts of baggage and expectations pertaining to homeownership that don't carry over into migration. I feel it'd just be better to address the problem space directly and ask what specific problems you observe/predict with immigration. The problem I'm inferring from your comment here would also seem to apply to families moving from Chicago to Boston. And what's funny is that people actually do complain about this (our mayor is from Chicago), but it's for nonsensical reasons in my experience.

btbuildem 3y ago

One could argue that when viewed in perspective of a shrinking population, Japan's economy is doing just fine. Just because it doesn't work for hedge fund vampires doesn't mean it's not effective at sustaining a good standard of living for people there.

timr 3y ago
Their population has been shrinking for far less time than it's been stagnant. If I had to guess, the causal arrow points the other way.

fb03 3y ago

The xenophobic point hits home, as I've lived there for almost 5 years, and wasn't able to attain a single long/strong friendship with any japanese national. I am glad I had other foreigners there to mingle with, or I'd just be very, very alone. Japan for tourism? Can't recommend further. Amazing country to visit, clean, safe, good food. They will be educated towards you in big cities like Tokyo etc. Japan for living (specially if you're from an economy which they perceive as lower/poorer)? Avoid at all costs, you'll be treated as subculture forever.

Tiktaalik 3y ago

yeah re point 1) All I've ever heard my whole life is how Japan is an economic basketcase and a disaster, and yet after visiting there well, the quality of infrastructure and vibrancy of the cities is high that it makes Canada look like a third world country tbh. And yet Canada is the one that is always out performing Japan in the economic charts, with our numbers going in the proper up and to the right direction. Obviously there's more to quality of life than merely lines on the economic graph...

solarpunk 3y ago

To your point #1: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/kohei-saito-degrowth-communism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/kohei-saito-degr...