Japan's population falls by record 644,000 to 125.5M in 2021(english.kyodonews.net)
english.kyodonews.net
Japan's population falls by record 644,000 to 125.5M in 2021
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/04/2682851af82b-breaking-news-tokyos-population-shrinks-for-1st-time-in-26-yrs-govt-data.html
472 comments
You talk as if immigration is some kind of switch but Japan has been a mono culture and they don't speak anything but Japanese, so it'll be hard to have that many foreigners to support the population decline.
And then pensions and healthcare become problems.
Cheaper housing means real estate business is going to shrink with many open rooms.
Where is your optimism coming from?
And then pensions and healthcare become problems.
Cheaper housing means real estate business is going to shrink with many open rooms.
Where is your optimism coming from?
The "optimism" is based on the fact that, despite the doom and gloom predictions, Japan's GDP does not appear to actually suffer from an ageing population.
Why do people care so much about GDP, the number is higher now than for my parents generation but it is much harder for people now to buy a home/start a family. A recent thought I had is that less durable consumer goods actually increases our gdp by the same factor that it makes us poorer. If you have to replace a refrigerator every 5 years instead of 10 you are spending twice as much to have a fridge but GDP says you are twice as rich.
GDP is kinda like measuring a programmers productivity by LOC production. It is correlated with productivity when you are not judging based on it but once people start optimizing for it it no longer correlated.
What is it that we actually want from society?
GDP is kinda like measuring a programmers productivity by LOC production. It is correlated with productivity when you are not judging based on it but once people start optimizing for it it no longer correlated.
What is it that we actually want from society?
> Why do people care so much about GDP, the number is higher now than for my parents generation but it is much harder for people now to buy a home/start a family.
That's true everywhere. Inflation has been low for the last 20 years. Consequently interest rates interest rates have been low, and so asset prices have been spiralling upwards for the last 20 years. Spiralling asset prices means the price of a house is a higher multiple of your yearly income. And yes, if you happen to be at the house buying age at this time in the cycle it's downright unpleasant. We all know interest rates will likely rise, and that will cause a great deal of pain to people who maxed out their borrowings when rates are at record lows. Japan is the spiritual home of low inflation and high asset prices so it's been going on much longer there. But this has been happening in most countries, and most of them have growing populations.
I live in Australia. I find Japan's hand wringing about the "our standard of living is doomed if out population density keeps dropping" downright funny. Japan has slightly worse GDP per capita than us (which I would put down to Australia's abundant natural resources). But when it comes to population density, there is simply no comparison:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/japan/australia...
Japan's current rate of population decline would have to continue for over a millennia before it's population density reaches ours.
That's true everywhere. Inflation has been low for the last 20 years. Consequently interest rates interest rates have been low, and so asset prices have been spiralling upwards for the last 20 years. Spiralling asset prices means the price of a house is a higher multiple of your yearly income. And yes, if you happen to be at the house buying age at this time in the cycle it's downright unpleasant. We all know interest rates will likely rise, and that will cause a great deal of pain to people who maxed out their borrowings when rates are at record lows. Japan is the spiritual home of low inflation and high asset prices so it's been going on much longer there. But this has been happening in most countries, and most of them have growing populations.
I live in Australia. I find Japan's hand wringing about the "our standard of living is doomed if out population density keeps dropping" downright funny. Japan has slightly worse GDP per capita than us (which I would put down to Australia's abundant natural resources). But when it comes to population density, there is simply no comparison:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/japan/australia...
Japan's current rate of population decline would have to continue for over a millennia before it's population density reaches ours.
I was using GDP as a shorthand representative of the general economy.
For example, if Japan's population halved, but its GDP remained constant, then each individual Japanese person would be twice as wealthy.
For example, if Japan's population halved, but its GDP remained constant, then each individual Japanese person would be twice as wealthy.
I don't think it works that way, the difference between rich and poor gets bigger though.
Wealth distribution would depend on other factors, not GDP per se.
Yeah. Why are people so obsessed with increase in GDP? Why does it have to grow all the time? I saw somewhere it's referred to as "rich people's yacht money" and that feels correct with everything going on.
The OP misses the fact that if you go anywhere in Japan right now and:
* order food
* shop in a store
* stay in a hotel
* consume healthcare (particularly old-age healthcare)
The likelihood that you're using immigrant labor is 100%. Japan is hugely dependent on immigrants -- particularly those from SE asian countries (e.g. Vietnam), who provide the bulk of the low-wage, low-skill labor.
Visit any hotel in Japan, for example, and the cleaning staff will be almost exclusively non-Japanese. Even the "traditional" inns in the smallest towns usually have "trainee" labor from foreign countries.
* order food
* shop in a store
* stay in a hotel
* consume healthcare (particularly old-age healthcare)
The likelihood that you're using immigrant labor is 100%. Japan is hugely dependent on immigrants -- particularly those from SE asian countries (e.g. Vietnam), who provide the bulk of the low-wage, low-skill labor.
Visit any hotel in Japan, for example, and the cleaning staff will be almost exclusively non-Japanese. Even the "traditional" inns in the smallest towns usually have "trainee" labor from foreign countries.
Found this out because the immigrants are almost fluent in English as opposed to the Japanese who can read/write but not speak. It made for an embarrassing conversation when asking for directions. I implied she was local in my thanks. She was quick to note (although very friendly) that she was in fact not japanese and actually vietnamese.
The government needs people working so they pay taxes that are used for government benefits, such as retirement
Income taxes are one form of government revenue. Sales taxes, VAT, duties, etc, also raise income, and scale with consumption, not population.
Also, many people have pensions that are based on their lifetime savings, investments, etc. Not all pensions are paid from current government revenues.
Also, many people have pensions that are based on their lifetime savings, investments, etc. Not all pensions are paid from current government revenues.
Less people = cheaper land = cheaper lots of other things, including housing, food, etc.
They already can't give away housing in areas of rural Japan that are emptying out.
The value of land is socially created. When there's no one around, no economy, etc, it's basically worthless. Japan is rapidly approaching this point. You'll be able to get cheap land if you want to be a weird hermit, but everyone else is going to continue to flood to the cities, the only places where there will remain any sort of economy.
Not really sure how or why food would get cheaper with less people. If anything the opposite as it's more expensive to make it locally with less workers available.
Less people seems worse all around to me.
The value of land is socially created. When there's no one around, no economy, etc, it's basically worthless. Japan is rapidly approaching this point. You'll be able to get cheap land if you want to be a weird hermit, but everyone else is going to continue to flood to the cities, the only places where there will remain any sort of economy.
Not really sure how or why food would get cheaper with less people. If anything the opposite as it's more expensive to make it locally with less workers available.
Less people seems worse all around to me.
As remote work oppurtunities increase and the younger generation begins to settle down, there will be a natural return to small towns on the outskirts where they can offer their families more for less. Japan does a good job of making their cities liveable for anyone, and commuting in/out is unparalleled.
>Not really sure how or why food would get cheaper with less people. If anything the opposite as it's more expensive to make it locally with less workers available. Automation in agriculture continues to expand. And in my experience most Japanese tend to prefer locally made products despite the higher prices. This was most obvious when I saw the pile of australian steaks sitting next to a much smaller cut of domestic steak that were nearly sold out at the supermarket. Or consider that Seiko make identical watches domestically, and in SEA, but the "Made in Japan" models are only sold in Japan.
There are still ~1MM babies born in Japan every year. They will be fine with a reduction in population. They don't seem keen on expanding immigration anyway, or a demographic shift, so I don't understand the desire to push mass immigration on every nation with a declining birth rate. They're not bothering anyone by wanting to keep Japan, Japanese.
>Not really sure how or why food would get cheaper with less people. If anything the opposite as it's more expensive to make it locally with less workers available. Automation in agriculture continues to expand. And in my experience most Japanese tend to prefer locally made products despite the higher prices. This was most obvious when I saw the pile of australian steaks sitting next to a much smaller cut of domestic steak that were nearly sold out at the supermarket. Or consider that Seiko make identical watches domestically, and in SEA, but the "Made in Japan" models are only sold in Japan.
There are still ~1MM babies born in Japan every year. They will be fine with a reduction in population. They don't seem keen on expanding immigration anyway, or a demographic shift, so I don't understand the desire to push mass immigration on every nation with a declining birth rate. They're not bothering anyone by wanting to keep Japan, Japanese.
> small towns on the outskirts
> commuting in/out is unparalleled.
Choose either one.
> commuting in/out is unparalleled.
Choose either one.
Empty land is wild land, and extremely valuable for the long term survival of human civilization.
The necessity of this might look different in Asia where children are expected to care for their aging parents thus taking the burden off government pension and elderly care costs
What children? The reason the population is declining is because they didn't have children, increasing the burden on the government.
I've been to rural Japanese towns where it felt like there were no young people at all, only elderly, and the largest employers were related to elder care.
I suppose one aspect that might reduce the burden on the government, is that all the savings of these elderly are not going to someone's inheritance, but instead to the elder care institutions.
I've been to rural Japanese towns where it felt like there were no young people at all, only elderly, and the largest employers were related to elder care.
I suppose one aspect that might reduce the burden on the government, is that all the savings of these elderly are not going to someone's inheritance, but instead to the elder care institutions.
Japan's public pension plan is not particularly generous, although it is pay-as-you-go, so less working people = a higher percentage of retirees, true.
Their economic system relies on perpetual growth. They need more working bodies or their economy will continue to decline and profit margins will fall unless they make some major changes.
You say that a country such as Germany taking in skilled workers from European countries and other places in the world don’t make a big difference?
I don't mean that immigrants don't contribute. I meant to show that differences in immigration policy between Japan and (for example) Germany do not appear to greatly affect GDP statistics.
One issue is Japan's aging voting population cares little for policies that impact younger generations:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/world/asia/japan-election...
The young have the deck stacked against them and in turn are opting to not have children.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/world/asia/japan-election...
The young have the deck stacked against them and in turn are opting to not have children.
>“ In Japan, Rural Voters Count More Than Those in Big Cities. It Shows.”
Sounds familiar
Sounds familiar
The problem is that it violates constitutional law that requires equity of vote. The vote inequity is because of rural area population is declining and local politician don't want to take away their electoral district.
The stars at night are big and bright clapclapclap deep in the heart of Texas. Sounds familiar.
> Sounds familiar
Probably because it’s an effort at narrative building from the NY Times.
Probably because it’s an effort at narrative building from the NY Times.
Which states matter in deciding the president? How many of those are there? Where are they? Genuine questions, i don't follow it closely at all beyond the news media chatter about the path to the Whitehouse and so on.
Agree the NYT is getting worse, more establishment Democrat driven now their supporters are who pays them. There is still enough institutional memory that through the naritive hit pieces there's frequently solid reporting of contradictory facts that totally undermine it in the same story.
Agree the NYT is getting worse, more establishment Democrat driven now their supporters are who pays them. There is still enough institutional memory that through the naritive hit pieces there's frequently solid reporting of contradictory facts that totally undermine it in the same story.
It’s not so much which states matter. Larger states generally matter more in Presidential elections. Especially large purple states like PA.
The problem with Presidential elections is small rural states still have outsize influence via the combination of more EC votes than a population-based count AND winner-take-all elections (51% of the vote in. A state and you get 100% of that states electors) in most states.
Turn there’s the Senate. Because it’s not based on population, CA and TX have the same influence as SD and DE. Combine that with arcane super-majority rules and a defective filibuster and it’s a recipe for outright obstruction by the minority party.
The problem with Presidential elections is small rural states still have outsize influence via the combination of more EC votes than a population-based count AND winner-take-all elections (51% of the vote in. A state and you get 100% of that states electors) in most states.
Turn there’s the Senate. Because it’s not based on population, CA and TX have the same influence as SD and DE. Combine that with arcane super-majority rules and a defective filibuster and it’s a recipe for outright obstruction by the minority party.
I’ve seen good arguments that the Senate violates equal protection under the Constitution and should be reformed on that basis. Keep the Senate around with its 6 year and 2/2/2 staggered terms but give Texas and California more Senators than North and South Dakota.
Violates the constitution? I’m not a constitutional scholar, but that sounds like a ridiculous argument. Article 1, section 3: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”
The 14th amendment introduces “equal protection,” speaks specifically about representation, and says nothing about changing the makeup of the senate.
(Edit: And even if it did, the 17th amendment restates that each state gets two senators, and would supersede the 14th.)
The 14th amendment introduces “equal protection,” speaks specifically about representation, and says nothing about changing the makeup of the senate.
(Edit: And even if it did, the 17th amendment restates that each state gets two senators, and would supersede the 14th.)
I am Dutch / European and do not understand why change/amendments of the constitution is not generally acceptable/attractive by the US population.
Surely societal change must and does change the efficacy and context of law over time?
Surely societal change must and does change the efficacy and context of law over time?
They are acceptable (we have 27), the problem is the high bar to enacting one. With our hyper-partisan two-party system, it’s really hard to get anything done. Even basic legislation like the annual budget frequently stalls and we shut down the federal government while Congress pulls its proverbial head out of its arse.
They are. But the super-majority at multiple levels required to do so make them a non-starter for the petty "give my team an edge" and "force the states that aren't on my team to act like the ones that are" stuff everyone wants to use them for.
swing states, Pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, nevada, arizona, are some. Florida used to be one but they've gone full on red (boomer population % has increased drastically over the past 20 years). I hope there is a schism in the republican party soon over Roe and other privacy rights that are under attack by the Magas.
What narrative is that? Is it untrue? I don’t need the New York Times to remind me that North Dakota and South Dakota get twice as many Senators as my very large and populace state.
Their US-centric narrative that all our problems would be solved if people like them were afforded their rightful majority rule, and control over the lives of the rural, the old, et al.
I just want my vote to count as much as anyone else's. You can try to paint that as a nefarious agenda if you like but it squares with the 14th amendment and modern thinking on the issue. The country was founded on only white landowners being able to vote and we've evolved quite a bit since then. I think it's time we evolve some more. It's pretty gross that North Dakota + South Dakota gets twice the representation in the Senate as california.
Tyranny of the majority is a nefarious agenda, yes. It doesn’t square with modern thinking — it squares with the US liberal narrative that if we could just force the wrong-thinkers to conform, our problems would be solved.
“You believe in democracy, you dumb liberal” isn’t the huge own you think it is.
Same in Poland, uk, turkey, USA…
almost all western countries appear to be flattening or decreasing in population. Even the curves in India and China are flattening out
Yeah it does sound like nobody wants the young people that are already on the planet, why bother making more unwanted young people?
Then the young will become the childless elderly majority in a few decades benefiting from policies that they enact.
Nothing better than getting your revenge by letting your anger out on unrelated people.
There is an obvious problem with this. Being bullied makes me feels worse but bullying others doesn't make me happy, it makes me feel even worse.
There is an obvious problem with this. Being bullied makes me feels worse but bullying others doesn't make me happy, it makes me feel even worse.
I hardly think people in your own electorate are unrelated to you.
Also this isn't vengeance. It's the norm that the majority of resources should go to the majority of people. This is compounded in this case as the majority will have earned these resources through a lifetime of labor and in addition be the most in need as they are elderly.
How is this bullying?
Also this isn't vengeance. It's the norm that the majority of resources should go to the majority of people. This is compounded in this case as the majority will have earned these resources through a lifetime of labor and in addition be the most in need as they are elderly.
How is this bullying?
That's how Macron just got re-elected in France.
Mainly because older people aren’t spending their lives on Facebook and twitter, getting spoon fed with massive hate campaigns against the only remaining electable person who isn’t sold to the kremlin.
This seems like a win for once. Hard to believe the youth in France would be duped by the right wing hate of Le Pen and her ilk.
The youth wanted Melechon and then were forced between Macron and Le Pen..
I am confused - could you explain your comment in greater detail?
People 60 and more voted massively in favour of Macron.
Source (FR): https://www.leparisien.fr/elections/presidentielle/president...
The vote for Macron was predominant among the elderly. Number 3 Mélenchon (radical left) got the votes from the 35- (and he was one of the 2 candidates actually proposing something against climate change). Le Pen (#2, far right) was in first place in-between.
It does not mean that everything is explained by age though.
I fail to see why this is an issue. What did we expect, for the human population to grow exponentially on a planet of finite resources? The question should not be "how to get birthrates back up" but how to ensure a decent quality of life for the aging population without also compromising the livelihood of the younger generations. Encouraging couples to have kids artificially is a band-aid solution ignoring a larger problem.
looks like population increase is gonna flatline between 10-11 billion, but we just don't have the resources to support that so I expect that by the end of the century with climate disasters and wars over limited resources we'll be back to 4-5 billion which -might- be sustainable with better technology and wiser decisions and a world government enforcing it which might be possible after the resource and climate disaster that the human population will face. Hopefully it will be patterned after western democracies and not Chinese/Russian totalitarianism.
A declining population may not be a huge problem if it is temporary and it is mostly older people who die. Getting fewer kids cause problems and if the decline just continues for centuries or millenia you may end up with a very, very small population.
Losing 0.5% every year means you lose 40% in a hundred years and 63% in two hundred years.
Losing 0.5% every year means you lose 40% in a hundred years and 63% in two hundred years.
I don't think the way the issue is currently framed is concerned about long-term extinction. All of the low-birthrate articles I read are from the POV of "how do we artificially prop up birth-rates to continue the infinite growth economy". The current "function" is built around optimizing on the wrong parameter. Structure your economy and society around human fulfillment, not infinite growth, and people will be more inclined to reproduce. This is never a point of discussion though because it goes against corporate interests.
Consider the following oversimplification.
Young people grow, old people stop growing. To keep the economy growing, you need to keep the population young i.e. maintain a fixed young to old ratio.
If the young to old ratio drops, then the economy won't grow and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. All you need is an economic model that doesn't depend on economic growth as a bandaid for social problems.
Young people grow, old people stop growing. To keep the economy growing, you need to keep the population young i.e. maintain a fixed young to old ratio.
If the young to old ratio drops, then the economy won't grow and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. All you need is an economic model that doesn't depend on economic growth as a bandaid for social problems.
Even more you need population that is "middle" aged. Old enough to work, not too old to be outside working age. Both children/teens and pensioners need to be supported by those working.
I agree, population stability should be the end goal if we want to survive as a species.
It is an issue because our current capitalistic system is based on infinite growth. Either we change it or suffer the consequences.
We can keep infinite growth by being continuously clever and developing better technologies, methadologies, and sciences. This is what Japan did and is why their GDP keeps pace with other societies.
Certainly. However it will not change, at least it will not change of its own accord. A Declining birth rate is merely a symptom of cultural anxiety and despair.
The post-war generation is enormous and they living longer than any generation ever has. In nearly every developed country they hold the power and the capital, and they are short term focused in every possible way. They plan to drive the bus into the brick wall at full speed to protect the last few minutes they have to enjoy the ride.
Articles such as are a thinly veiled demand for fealty. Why aren't you having more children? Why aren't you buying into the world order we created?
The post-war generation is enormous and they living longer than any generation ever has. In nearly every developed country they hold the power and the capital, and they are short term focused in every possible way. They plan to drive the bus into the brick wall at full speed to protect the last few minutes they have to enjoy the ride.
Articles such as are a thinly veiled demand for fealty. Why aren't you having more children? Why aren't you buying into the world order we created?
Exactly. If you actually want people to reproduce then the economy should be organized to maximize the fulfillment, comfort, and security of individuals. The real issue is they (our leaders and corporations) need an ever-increasing pool of labor to drive the infinite growth economy that they are heavily invested in.
"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."
-- Herbert Stein ("Stein's Law")
-- Herbert Stein ("Stein's Law")
No it's not. Capitalism is a form of universal exchange and nothing more, it has been brought under control in some reasonable countries. American capitalism is a long term guaranteed failure though, but it's a boom and bust cycle and could go on into perpetuity. Doomers always underestimate human ingenuity. Money will move around to different “growth” industries until they collapse (like tech social media is right now, only so much you can grow).
You are confusing capitalism with market economies. The primary goal in capitalism is the accumulation of capital and that obviously requires endless economic and population growth. If there are less people, the need for additional capital decreases which means there is less capital to accumulate.
Capitalism is effectively an insane economic framework where the yield on capital is not allowed to become negative as that would go against the ultimately empty goal of capital accumulation.
If you consider capitalism to be a form of universal exchange then why exactly does the division of labor collapse the moment growth stops? Oh right, because capitalism and free(=freedom) markets are mutually exclusive. The interests of those who own and want to accumulate capital override those who want to exchange goods and participate in the division of labor, that is what a depression is.
Capitalism is effectively an insane economic framework where the yield on capital is not allowed to become negative as that would go against the ultimately empty goal of capital accumulation.
If you consider capitalism to be a form of universal exchange then why exactly does the division of labor collapse the moment growth stops? Oh right, because capitalism and free(=freedom) markets are mutually exclusive. The interests of those who own and want to accumulate capital override those who want to exchange goods and participate in the division of labor, that is what a depression is.
Not the person you're replying to, but I think "current" and "system" in "current capitalistic system" are key here. They weren't railing against capitalism in general, but the current system, which is quite a different thing.
For my part, I'm not opposed to "capitalism" in general, but I have quite a few gripes with the current implementation of it.
For my part, I'm not opposed to "capitalism" in general, but I have quite a few gripes with the current implementation of it.
There is no implentation of capitalism that will ever be unproblematic. No amount of bandaids is going to solve the fact that capital yields can be both positive and negative. When looked at it from this perspective, capitalism is a race to an end goal, not a goal in itself but once people are at the finish line, they don't want the race to finish.
There's no implementation of any political or economic system that's not unproblematic in various ways. Capitalism isn't any different here.
No one ever mentions sex when it comes to conversations about declining birthrates in the western world. Its always very abstract discussions (immigration, free personal time, etc) around the main issue. No sex basically means no babies. It seems there is a latent western sexual crises no one wants to talk about.
No sexual crisis in the west.
But there is a reproduction crisis.
We have gobs and gobs of sex. What we usually don't have are gobs and gobs of children. Whether that's good or bad I think reasonable people can debate.
But there is a reproduction crisis.
We have gobs and gobs of sex. What we usually don't have are gobs and gobs of children. Whether that's good or bad I think reasonable people can debate.
I'm pretty sure I saw some stats that people are having less sex.
Would love some stats on that to be honest.
There are so many people from developing countries who desperately want to migrate to a developed country. Indians(specifically from Punjab state) spend their whole life's earning to migrate illegally to US/Canada/Australia.
Im not sure why so little people migrate to Japan. Is it the policies or the language?
Im not sure why so little people migrate to Japan. Is it the policies or the language?
Japan is not a country open to immigration, your can spend 20 years there, speaking perfect Japanese and still be considered a complete stranger.
This is true for anywhere outside of a select few Western countries, most of the world's population still identifies along ethnic lines. Actually many in the West do too although it isn't official policy in these countries and has become taboo to say it out loud. But a lot of people still think it nonetheless.
Anyway, it's not really Japan specific. I'm not sure why people always say this about Japan when other Asian countries have an even lower immigrant population. In Taiwan it's just over 1%. In Mainland China it's even much lower. Korea has slightly immigrants than Japan but it's no where near levels of Australia or the US. There's a weird obsession with Japan in Western countries and Japanese culture and politics often get stereotyped without people actually understanding much about it. The assumption that it's unusual for a country not to have (uncontrolled) mass immigration is in itself an amusing one to me.
Anyway, it's not really Japan specific. I'm not sure why people always say this about Japan when other Asian countries have an even lower immigrant population. In Taiwan it's just over 1%. In Mainland China it's even much lower. Korea has slightly immigrants than Japan but it's no where near levels of Australia or the US. There's a weird obsession with Japan in Western countries and Japanese culture and politics often get stereotyped without people actually understanding much about it. The assumption that it's unusual for a country not to have (uncontrolled) mass immigration is in itself an amusing one to me.
Aside from the social situation, it's also extremely hard to naturalize as a legal process. It's possible but no small feat. One has to be fully fluent in Japanese, reside in Japan for at least a decade, adopt a Japanese-compatible name written in Japanese characters, renounce their other citizenships, and just generally fully assimilate.
Only a few thousand per year bother. There's actually hundreds of thousands of eligible long-term residents in Japan who could acquire citizenship on paper, but the criteria (particularly the renunciation of other citizenships) are burdensome enough that even some people born in Japan who have lived there their whole lives who could become citizens opt not to.
Only a few thousand per year bother. There's actually hundreds of thousands of eligible long-term residents in Japan who could acquire citizenship on paper, but the criteria (particularly the renunciation of other citizenships) are burdensome enough that even some people born in Japan who have lived there their whole lives who could become citizens opt not to.
You should watch this:
https://youtu.be/PkO8lwHrLZE
In particular, starting at 1m04s, the interviewer says "I hear it's hard to become Japanese". And the naturalized person answers, "the more and more I read about it on the English net, I realized there's so much misinformation about it that you really couldn't trust anything that was written English about naturalization."
He's talking about people like you. He spends the whole video in particular debunking almost every point you made.
In particular, starting at 1m04s, the interviewer says "I hear it's hard to become Japanese". And the naturalized person answers, "the more and more I read about it on the English net, I realized there's so much misinformation about it that you really couldn't trust anything that was written English about naturalization."
He's talking about people like you. He spends the whole video in particular debunking almost every point you made.
We hear a lot about discrimination in America, but I have to wonder if it's even possible for the population of such a diverse country to be more discriminatory than the ones of very homogeneous countries. Perhaps at first glance but not on a closer look.
Because we Americans are told to be loudmouths and squeaky wheels :) . It's one thing we have to be proud of. Being discriminated against? Fuck you man, give me my rights. As it should be. Discrimination is still alive and well and you have to speak up about it. The magas are out there trying to take those rights so we all have to speak up.
It says that there are 3m foreigners living in Japan tho, not insignificant?
IIRC the majority of foreigners in Japan are from other Asian countries and experience varying degrees of discrimination despite many of them being able to at least outwardly pass as Japanese. According to the latest info in Wikipedia, the top countries are China, Vietnam, Korea, Phillippines, and Brazil.
Brazil is an interesting one, because a significant number of "Brazilians" in Japan are supposedly descendants of Japanese who had immigrated to Brazil, but then came back. But even they experience degrees of discrimination despite being ethnically Japanese.
Anecdote, but my Japanese American friend (ethnically 100% Japanese but born and raised in the US, and pretty much culturally 90%+ American) went back to Japan. He too experienced discrimination.
Brazil is an interesting one, because a significant number of "Brazilians" in Japan are supposedly descendants of Japanese who had immigrated to Brazil, but then came back. But even they experience degrees of discrimination despite being ethnically Japanese.
Anecdote, but my Japanese American friend (ethnically 100% Japanese but born and raised in the US, and pretty much culturally 90%+ American) went back to Japan. He too experienced discrimination.
everyone experiences discrimination in Japan - it is a pressure society
Yup, I agree with this. Plus not just in Japan, but other culturally similar East Asian countries such as China and Korea too.
There is lot of pressure to conform to the generally accepted social norms.
There is lot of pressure to conform to the generally accepted social norms.
The US has 47m (2015) at about double the population. US is a outlier though
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects-start/immigration_and_...
More than 20% of people living in Canada are immigrants.
Immigration rates have increased since the data above.
More than 20% of people living in Canada are immigrants.
Immigration rates have increased since the data above.
I think they are well tolerated, but still you are always going to be American/French/Russian there. I've been to Japan and everyone was for the most part very nice, invited me to their homes, etc. However, it felt almost ceremonial (for lack of a better word). I was in Tokyo and surrounding area which I hear is very different from the more rural areas.
The raw number doesn't say anything about the actual experience or why those people are there.
The word they use is Gaijin. It means foreigner and it is based on race.
I’m no linguist or Japanese scholar, but it has long been interesting to me that the full word “gaikokujin” translates to “foreigner” (kanji for “outside,” “country,” “person”), while “gaijin” removes the “country” part, leaving something that could be read more fundamentally as simply “outsider”.
Nerds dramatically exaggerate the significance of this. Yes, if you just look at the kanji, "outsider" is possibly the more literal translation, but at the end of the day what matters is what is in people's heads when they use the word, and not the word itself.
"Gaijin" gets played up in weeby debates -- by people who are looking for reasons to be offended -- as some hugely significant cultural deviation, but it's honestly more like "foreigner" in practical usage. That word can be incredibly rude, or completely innocuous in different contexts. As can 外人. It's more accurate to say that both words mean "foreigner", but 外国人 is the PC version that renders you safe from criticism.
(The irony, of course, is that no matter where you go you'll hear plenty of borderline racist policy talk with the sweetest of language.)
"Gaijin" gets played up in weeby debates -- by people who are looking for reasons to be offended -- as some hugely significant cultural deviation, but it's honestly more like "foreigner" in practical usage. That word can be incredibly rude, or completely innocuous in different contexts. As can 外人. It's more accurate to say that both words mean "foreigner", but 外国人 is the PC version that renders you safe from criticism.
(The irony, of course, is that no matter where you go you'll hear plenty of borderline racist policy talk with the sweetest of language.)
this. I think outsider is both a more literal translation, as well as an accurate reflection of the attitude
Is it like gringo in Spanish or bule in Indonesian?
So maybe the Ninja Gaiden NES game should have been called Ninja Gaijin outside Japan?
If someone has only one Japanese parent are they Gaijin?
No, they are called Hafu. Half Japanese.
Do you know if that is a japanese adoption of "half" or is it based on pure Japanese etymology and just a coincidence it's sounds similar?
my wife is half japanese,has citizenship and has been called a gaijin so yes. the guy was being an asshole so everyone doesn’t necessarily feel that way. but they kinda do
The Japanese press writes on a regular basis about population decline, and about making it easier for immigrants to speak/learn Japanese or live in the country with limited Japanese, so I guess the language does play a part.
Based on my very limited Japanese (about n3 grammar , 1000 kanji, but this is anecdotal), it is indeed very difficult, and I'd clearly try an English speaking country/country where I can work in English first !
Based on my very limited Japanese (about n3 grammar , 1000 kanji, but this is anecdotal), it is indeed very difficult, and I'd clearly try an English speaking country/country where I can work in English first !
Brazil has a large population of Japanese origin, so Japan did a program of taking immigrants from here at the 90's. And well, today our institutions refuse to collaborate with any other such program.
Their society is very closed, allowing immigrants to take only very low paid low value works. Immigrants have almost no possibility of growth, and very a very bad set of labor rights (apparently everybody has this later problem, even though the set of rights for Japanese and immigrants is different, one does not seem to be strictly worse than the other).
The result of the immigration at the 90's was that people came back worse-off than they gone.
Their society is very closed, allowing immigrants to take only very low paid low value works. Immigrants have almost no possibility of growth, and very a very bad set of labor rights (apparently everybody has this later problem, even though the set of rights for Japanese and immigrants is different, one does not seem to be strictly worse than the other).
The result of the immigration at the 90's was that people came back worse-off than they gone.
@akmittal japan is a pretty small country but the third largest economy in the world. Have you considered japan does not need that many people? Just because a nation's population is declining does not mean it should start importing foreign nationals.
Some people just want open space, but that is far from being the most important factor of determining where people want to live. Otherwise we'd expect Africa to be a popular place for immigrants, comparable to the US. And Russia would be far better than either. And Singapore would be utter nonsense.
Actually, the very existence of cities and countrysides goes against this idea (and there is indeed open space in Japan.)
Actually, the very existence of cities and countrysides goes against this idea (and there is indeed open space in Japan.)
> japan is a pretty small country
It's not. It has the 11th most populous country in the world. Sure, it ranks lower in terms of area but it's still much larger than a median nation state. Japan is actually slightly larger than Germany. Nobody ever says Germany is a pretty small country.
It's not. It has the 11th most populous country in the world. Sure, it ranks lower in terms of area but it's still much larger than a median nation state. Japan is actually slightly larger than Germany. Nobody ever says Germany is a pretty small country.
There's massive labour shortage in JP. There's more foreign workers from Asia than ever. But I wager JP will adopt foreign worker model like ME petro states versus immigration model.
I agree with the sentiment, but it’s not small in the sense of population. It has twice as many people as France or UK.
Japan's population is actually relatively small for it's size, especially when you consider how densely populated it is.
Japan has really strict immigration policies and is actually enforcing them (well at least outside of prostitution/trafficking)
IMO this means the demographic problem is nonexistent for japan. If things became critical, all they need to do is loosen immigration policies and there is enough latent demand in the world for citizenship in a stable country that the population can be maintained through immigration.
If immigrants replace Japanese in the country of Japan, is it still Japan?
Why will the Japanese get replaced? Immigrants will just blend in and build a future Japan.
Just like Japan of 2020 is not the same as Samurai Japan of medieval times. Times change, societies change, demographics change. That is just the way things are. It's better to harness it than to reject it to the detriment of progress. See: The story of America becoming a superpower.
Just like Japan of 2020 is not the same as Samurai Japan of medieval times. Times change, societies change, demographics change. That is just the way things are. It's better to harness it than to reject it to the detriment of progress. See: The story of America becoming a superpower.
Not much has really changed in Japan since the fuedal period, in fact, a lot of the policies from the feudal period play a direct role in modern day japan. Anyways Immigration is always an issue with many aspects of Japanese life, without a stable population growth in Japan the japanese people could easily disappear in a similar way that many ethnic groups in America have disappeared over generations or in east europe where several ethnic groups banded together to form larger nationalistic identities such as the creation of the russian "ethnic" group. Japan has suffered a similar fate with the designation of a Yamato people that does not have a true ancestry. Ethnic groups in Japan are unacknowledged as the Ainu people suffer from discrimination on a systemic level in the Hokkaido region. Comments like this show true ignorance on topics in relation to societies. By your logic should we all just die out and let the Indian and Chinese ethnic groups become the dominant and only groups in the world? Is everyone actually just Han Chinese?
> Not much has really changed in Japan since the fuedal period,
Hard to take a comment that starts with this seriously.
Hard to take a comment that starts with this seriously.
Japan had a caste system, but it’s not what it used to be.
compare riding the subway in nyc to the subway in japan and tell me everyone will just blend in and no one will notice
If immigrants replaced Americans in the country of America, is it still America?
The United States is not an ethno-state though. Maybe during its founding and in the past it was, but it has long stopped being so, despite the recent desires of some factions to want to turn it into one again.
Multiculturalism has long become one of the defining characteristics of the US.
Japan (and frankly, many other countries) are indeed ethno-states.
Multiculturalism has long become one of the defining characteristics of the US.
Japan (and frankly, many other countries) are indeed ethno-states.
Comes down to the culture and ideology of the country.
Is the culture thinking being a X is race based or is it based on a way of life, or both?
At least back in the 80s and 90s, my US education and history books say that America is the melting pot of the world, and ideally not race based, but based on the idea of personal and religious freedom. USA as we know now began as a country of immigrants - so by definition, yes, USA still stands regardless of race and ethnicity.
Whereas, the older countries having a more homogeneous race, ethnicity, and culture, that question is a lot fuzzier.
Is the culture thinking being a X is race based or is it based on a way of life, or both?
At least back in the 80s and 90s, my US education and history books say that America is the melting pot of the world, and ideally not race based, but based on the idea of personal and religious freedom. USA as we know now began as a country of immigrants - so by definition, yes, USA still stands regardless of race and ethnicity.
Whereas, the older countries having a more homogeneous race, ethnicity, and culture, that question is a lot fuzzier.
America isn't a several millennia old, monoculture-ish country.
Edit: well, it was.
Edit: well, it was.
That’s essentially my own question. It’s not specific to Japan. Do you want to answer it?
Yes, it's still the same country. And nobody's being replaced if the Japanese are reproducing at lower than replacement rate.
If you replace a country’s culture, it’s still the same country?
Japan's culture has arguably been almost completely replaced several times over. Is it still Japan?
Change is the only constant in nature
That's just called changing culture. This happens at each generation at least.
yes. A country is a series of lines on a map.
also did you mean to imply that culture is essentially tied to ethnicity? because it isn't.
also did you mean to imply that culture is essentially tied to ethnicity? because it isn't.
akiselev(3)
USA with maybe Canada, is rather special case. In general other countries around the world are more or less ethnic, or at least have be big ethnic groups and somewhat shared cultures.
[deleted]
Yes. Japan is a country. It’s a socially constructed set of boundaries and rules. It can be whatever they want it to be.
You’re tiptoeing dangerously near some very questionable ethnic/racial arguments.
You’re tiptoeing dangerously near some very questionable ethnic/racial arguments.
>You’re tiptoeing dangerously near some very questionable ethnic/racial arguments
Is he ? What's so dangerous about liking homogenous cultures and homogenous races ?
I don't want to assume too much about you, but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration and taboofy any discussion of it that views it in negative or critical light. There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land, just like there is nothing wrong about disliking guests in one's own house.
Is he ? What's so dangerous about liking homogenous cultures and homogenous races ?
I don't want to assume too much about you, but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration and taboofy any discussion of it that views it in negative or critical light. There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land, just like there is nothing wrong about disliking guests in one's own house.
> but this smells like the usual progressive tendency to glorify population-importing immigration
That is a massive leap from what I said. I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.
> There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land
When you put it that way…yeah something definitely sounds wrong.
That is a massive leap from what I said. I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.
> There is nothing wrong about disliking foreigners on one's own land
When you put it that way…yeah something definitely sounds wrong.
>I really need you to point out where I “glorified” anything.
The commenter you replied was questioning if a nation could maintain it's character after wholesale replacement of it's population by other people, and you said yes, and implied that thinking otherwise is dangerous.
>yeah something definitely sounds wrong
What is that something ? If I own a car or a house, I can control who gets inside that car or house, and I can exclude people on whatever basis I like, including race and culture. This is not ideal, but that's the reality. Changing it is likely to be extremly hard and violent.
A country is "owned" by it's population, if a substantial majority of it's population don't want to let certain people into it, why is that such a problem ? Do you think those same people who want to immigrate would welcome a country's worth of people into their own land, if that were to happen ? Nearly every single culture in existence values itself more than others, and feels threatened when it's numbers decrease in relation to another.
The commenter you replied was questioning if a nation could maintain it's character after wholesale replacement of it's population by other people, and you said yes, and implied that thinking otherwise is dangerous.
>yeah something definitely sounds wrong
What is that something ? If I own a car or a house, I can control who gets inside that car or house, and I can exclude people on whatever basis I like, including race and culture. This is not ideal, but that's the reality. Changing it is likely to be extremly hard and violent.
A country is "owned" by it's population, if a substantial majority of it's population don't want to let certain people into it, why is that such a problem ? Do you think those same people who want to immigrate would welcome a country's worth of people into their own land, if that were to happen ? Nearly every single culture in existence values itself more than others, and feels threatened when it's numbers decrease in relation to another.
That's a very Western view of what a country is. The current immigration policies of Japan suggest that "they" do not see it that way.
A country is literally a boundary set by a group of people that other groups of people (largely) agree on. It is, by definition, a social construction. There’s no interpretation to be had tbh.
Now the Japanese’s own sense of identity/culture? It’s a deeply personal and subjective matter. But national boundaries? Not at all.
Now the Japanese’s own sense of identity/culture? It’s a deeply personal and subjective matter. But national boundaries? Not at all.
More than a country, I'd say the Japanese are a nation, see meaning #4 of the definitions below. I think America (the US) is nation only in sense of meanings #1, 2 and 3 which are synonyms of country.
country kŭn′trē noun 1) A nation or state. 2) The territory of a nation or state; land. 3) The people of a nation or state; populace. 4) The land of a person's birth or citizenship. 5) A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture. 6) An area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area. 7) The people of a district who are eligible for jury service.
nation nā′shən noun 1) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. 2) The territory occupied by such a group of people. 3) The government of a sovereign state. 4) A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. 5) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. 6) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
country kŭn′trē noun 1) A nation or state. 2) The territory of a nation or state; land. 3) The people of a nation or state; populace. 4) The land of a person's birth or citizenship. 5) A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture. 6) An area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area. 7) The people of a district who are eligible for jury service.
nation nā′shən noun 1) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. 2) The territory occupied by such a group of people. 3) The government of a sovereign state. 4) A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. 5) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. 6) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
The Japanese are indeed a nation. They’re a culture. An identity.
Japan is a country with boundaries that most of the world agrees on. There is nothing innate about its location or composition.
Japan is a country with boundaries that most of the world agrees on. There is nothing innate about its location or composition.
Who is “they”? Cf. ship of Theseus.
The ruling party never been serious for demographic problem. They even don't want to allow different surname for family despite changing surname is annoying and it's blocker to marriage.
Unless, of course, there were some let's say ideology that would make people chose to uphold restrictions on immigration even if it weren't in the rational interest of the country.
> There are so many people from developing countries who desperately want to migrate to a developed country.
Wanting to migrate and actually being ready and willing to integrate in the target country / culture are two very different things.
In Japan, the latter is certainly not easy, and it's unclear how much would-be immigrants are ready and willing to meet that bar.
Wanting to migrate and actually being ready and willing to integrate in the target country / culture are two very different things.
In Japan, the latter is certainly not easy, and it's unclear how much would-be immigrants are ready and willing to meet that bar.
[deleted]
Interesting about the specific state. Why are the numbers greater from Punjab? Culturally they are different but so are other states.
Policy, lack of space... not desire
Policy, lack of space... not desire
Punjab has an unemployment issue as well as they are obsessed with counties like Canada and Australia because they can have much better lifestyle and they can boast to everyone that they are NRI and own big cars
There are poorer states like Karnataka, Mizoram, West Bengal, Nagaland etc. Is there more of a cultural acceptance because others have moved and experienced success?
It’s really difficult to get Japanese citizenship. Rightfully so imo. They have a rich culture and want to preserve it.
Also because their economy is undergirded by an exploitative 'guest worker' program
What is this fascination people have about preserving culture as if that's reasonable or even possible? How many countries across history have preserved their culture (culture meaning food, music, art, political opinions etc). From the Roman empire to today it's the norm for culture to change.
Well I think it’s less about preserving culture in some static form, and more about having everyone on the same page, and working towards the same goals. That doesn’t seem reasonable?
>that doesn’t seem reasonable?
No not really. For starters, who determines what is the “true” culture or what the goals even are?
No not really. For starters, who determines what is the “true” culture or what the goals even are?
When does that ever happen?
"Culture" is a very large and full bag. Some items in it are fundamental to maintenance of civilization, others are entirely superficial.
Civilizational: Respect for rights of minorities, rule of law rather than of the strong, willingness to work and pay taxes, valuing education.
Superficial: Cuisine, dress, artistic taste, ritual formalities of religion.
Few governments have had success splitting immigration policy priorities along these lines, though some have had the wisdom to at least try.
Civilizational: Respect for rights of minorities, rule of law rather than of the strong, willingness to work and pay taxes, valuing education.
Superficial: Cuisine, dress, artistic taste, ritual formalities of religion.
Few governments have had success splitting immigration policy priorities along these lines, though some have had the wisdom to at least try.
Gradual culture mutation is different from sudden culture importation. There is a narrow neighbourhood in the space of possible cultures that is reachable from any given culture in it, this is the space explored by ordinary mechanims of culture change like cultural exchange and new generations.
Mass immigration explores the space very differently, in a way that is sudden and discontinues.I think it's reasonable for people to worry that they're being replaced, because that's actually what's (more or less) happening.
Mass immigration explores the space very differently, in a way that is sudden and discontinues.I think it's reasonable for people to worry that they're being replaced, because that's actually what's (more or less) happening.
> I think it's reasonable for people to worry that they're being replaced
My issue is the entitlement that goes hand in hand with this mentality. Everyone replaces someone. What makes me so special that I get to go, “oh no you don’t, all cultural change ends with me and my friends unless I specifically sanction the change”?
People made room for me, after all.
My issue is the entitlement that goes hand in hand with this mentality. Everyone replaces someone. What makes me so special that I get to go, “oh no you don’t, all cultural change ends with me and my friends unless I specifically sanction the change”?
People made room for me, after all.
European countries have rich cultures too, but apparently do not have the option to preserve that. Go figure.
This is a tricky situation, because "European" culture is much more disseminated throughout the world. How many countries outside of Europe are majority Christian? How many speak Spanish, French and English? How many have large populations who are 1st or 2nd level descendants of people born in Europe?
You cannot influence without being influenced.
You cannot influence without being influenced.
>You cannot influence without being influenced.
Why not? China has massive influence in many countries, and they seem to retain a lot of their culture while suppressing any internal change/dissent. It would seem to me that many European countries have simply decided they would like to be influenced for whatever reason, not that they are compelled to by some universal rule.
Why not? China has massive influence in many countries, and they seem to retain a lot of their culture while suppressing any internal change/dissent. It would seem to me that many European countries have simply decided they would like to be influenced for whatever reason, not that they are compelled to by some universal rule.
How do you know China isn’t being influenced?
(Relatively) Low rates of foreign immigration despite ageing population, strong central goverment with the intention of weakening external and internal influences (See Uyghurs / western chinese territories for an example of internal influences, for external influences the great firewall is an obvious one, but there are many others), and third a general ethno-nationalist mentality from many, but not all Han chinese, encouraged by the central state and the general culture.
I don't think those things necessarily answer the question. Also, how long has China been at extending their influence abroad? How long does these processes take? Obviously, in the case of Europe, this has been going on for centuries. Influence is inevitable because to influence others you have to be open to be influenced. Chinese that go to these countries to make deals, embassies with workers that grow culturally connected, this is the start. Relationships may tighten beyond this. I could go on.
That situation will be as untenable as Japan’s in the long run, as China also has its own looming demographic crisis. The government will likely open up to more immigration from Southeast Asia, at the very least.
[deleted]
They had the option. Nobody ever forced European countries to accept mass immigration. They could have remained closed and avoided outside cultural influence if they had wanted to, but most of them didn’t.
> Nobody ever forced European countries to accept mass immigration.
It came up for a direct vote? Or did politicians who never ran on mass immigration platforms just kinda decide to introduce legislation?
People tend to conflate the acceptance of mass immigration in western countries (by characterizing opposition as horribly racist) with tacit approval by the citizens.
It came up for a direct vote? Or did politicians who never ran on mass immigration platforms just kinda decide to introduce legislation?
People tend to conflate the acceptance of mass immigration in western countries (by characterizing opposition as horribly racist) with tacit approval by the citizens.
Of course in representative democracies not every topic is voted on in a referendum.
The general failure of anti-immigration parties to win majorities in European countries suggests that most people are either pro-immigration or at least willing to accept it.
The general failure of anti-immigration parties to win majorities in European countries suggests that most people are either pro-immigration or at least willing to accept it.
> The general failure of anti-immigration parties to win majorities in European countries suggests that most people are either pro-immigration or at least willing to accept it.
But again, that ties back to the demonization of being against immigration. Is it _really_ reflective of true popular support if you’re going to be labeled a racist if you don’t vote the right way?
But again, that ties back to the demonization of being against immigration. Is it _really_ reflective of true popular support if you’re going to be labeled a racist if you don’t vote the right way?
[deleted]
Well, that’s why voting is secret.
This idea that the population has a say and gets what it wants… This is most fascinating.
In some countries it does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Hungarian_migrant_quota_r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Hungarian_migrant_quota_r...
In fact, they went around forcing their culture upon others. This is historically a fact. Let's see what the HN censors say.
Many did, but many did not, entirety of eastern europe (minus Russia), germany, nordics, balkans, and central european states had no history of colonization or very little, and even then it was not in the regions most associated with migration to europe. Only things besides colonization that come to mind are wars in the middle east, and every country I listed besides germany is too small to matter in that.
They didn't do much colonization because they were too busy fighting wars with each other... For centuries... WW1 and WW2 and even the current conflict is just singular events in long line of internal wars of Europe.
Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups... Destroying cultures around world. It is sad we have not punished them for that and maybe even banned them to protect the future.
Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups... Destroying cultures around world. It is sad we have not punished them for that and maybe even banned them to protect the future.
>They didn't do much colonization because they were too busy fighting wars with each other
No, nearly every one of the countries I listed had simply no intention or means to colonize effectively at a profit, has nothing to do with preoccupation with continental wars.
> Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups
Again, all of the countries I mentioned had very little if not null participation in this, and yet to varying degrees they are being punished for it...
No, nearly every one of the countries I listed had simply no intention or means to colonize effectively at a profit, has nothing to do with preoccupation with continental wars.
> Also something that should not be easily forgotten or ever forgiven is the missionary work by religious groups
Again, all of the countries I mentioned had very little if not null participation in this, and yet to varying degrees they are being punished for it...
Ever heard about Genghis Khan? Mehmed II?
The comment you’re replying to never claimed that Europeans are the only people who have ever imposed their culture on others.
As you point out, that claim would be patently absurd.
The sheer amount of xenophobia and ethnic-nationalism/racism on HN that’s upvoted never surprises. I almost came to this thread expecting a flurry of xenophobic comments, and yup, I found it.
Somehow the same people who get very worked up about "Cultural Appropriation" are so very extremly offended when some people of certain cultures want to preserve theirs too.
I don't have a strong opinion on immigration either way, like anything it can be a force for good or a distaster depending on how it's handled. But if there's one thing I hate, it's taboos and buzz words, mixed with hypocrisy for good measure. There is nothing inherently wrong about opposing immigration or disliking immigrants, your country is like your house, you are perfectly justified on not wanting guests in it, even if it's for 'wrong' (read : racist) reason. This doesn't mean I like or hold those opinons, but they are natural and justified, and people have the right to hold them.
I don't have a strong opinion on immigration either way, like anything it can be a force for good or a distaster depending on how it's handled. But if there's one thing I hate, it's taboos and buzz words, mixed with hypocrisy for good measure. There is nothing inherently wrong about opposing immigration or disliking immigrants, your country is like your house, you are perfectly justified on not wanting guests in it, even if it's for 'wrong' (read : racist) reason. This doesn't mean I like or hold those opinons, but they are natural and justified, and people have the right to hold them.
It’s common to see it everywhere. It’s very common to hear blood and soil rhetoric wrt black people or Native Americans, but it’s called progressive and liberal but not xenophobic for some reasons.
> It’s very common to hear blood and soil rhetoric wrt black people or Native Americans, but it’s called progressive and liberal but not xenophobic for some reasons.
I believe it is called progressive and liberal because African Americans and Native Americans have historically been enslaved or (nearly) exterminated by Europeans in North America.
I believe it is called progressive and liberal because African Americans and Native Americans have historically been enslaved or (nearly) exterminated by Europeans in North America.
I came to ask why it's OK for a japanese to be ethnic-nationalist but it's not OK for a european?
What's wrong with being ethnic-nationalist?
What's wrong with being ethnic-nationalist?
Nothing is wrong with it. Don’t give the idiots who are bleating at it/you even a second of attention.
Europeans are amazing and should be held up high.
They should stop and reverse the importation of the third world and remain European.
Europeans are amazing and should be held up high.
They should stop and reverse the importation of the third world and remain European.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with ethnonationalism for smaller countries it is even good unifying force that can lead to social democracies... Which are relatively decent places to live in sense of quality of live, low crime rates and so on.
Not that this is an option for all countries, specially those that don't have unified history or culture. For example with USA it might make sense for native population.
Not that this is an option for all countries, specially those that don't have unified history or culture. For example with USA it might make sense for native population.
A lot of the immigrants to Europe are ill behaved. No one has problems with Japanese immigrants in Europe.
There's quite a few dogwhistlers here for sure but I'd say it's availability bias - people comment more on threads about things they care about. Id say the community skews libertarian, not far right.
Humans have an obsession with preservation of things as they are. We can certainly learn from history and appreciate it, but fighting to "preserve" things is ultimately a pointless endeavor. We are a tiny blip in the history of the Earth and fighting to preserve everything is just fighting the inevitability of the course of time, fighting nature itself.
At the same time, I absolutely abhor and detest global monoculture.
I went to Vietnam before the pandemic and lot's of hip coffee shops are basically exact clones of something you'd find in Portland.
I went to Vietnam before the pandemic and lot's of hip coffee shops are basically exact clones of something you'd find in Portland.
There might just be a middle ground between "militant racist nationalism" and "global homogenous monoculture".
This seems a remarkably false dichotomy.
This seems a remarkably false dichotomy.
I'd love to hear what you think that is.
There are numerous instances of blended and melding cultures.
These are neither purely traditional nor fully globally assimilationist.
Singapore, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin and San Antonio, TX, Vancouver, Sydney, London, Berlin, Miami, and Rio all come to mind. Those are among the larger cities, there are also smaller and more outlying regions.
People have always moved, migrated, and interacted. Quite often peaceably, as the alternative is extraordinarily destructive.
These are neither purely traditional nor fully globally assimilationist.
Singapore, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin and San Antonio, TX, Vancouver, Sydney, London, Berlin, Miami, and Rio all come to mind. Those are among the larger cities, there are also smaller and more outlying regions.
People have always moved, migrated, and interacted. Quite often peaceably, as the alternative is extraordinarily destructive.
London is a miserable failure, not only in terms of crime and inequality but you've kicked an ancient island people out of their capitol city. Isn't the displacement of indigenous people something we're supposed to feel bad about? Or do the rules change based on skin color. Most of the rest are just US cities which are what he's complaining about. I think there really might not be an in between.
>you’ve kicked an ancient island people out of their capitol city
You need to brush up on your history my friend. The number of times the island has changed hands runs counter to your point, and the current inhabitants certainly aren’t some continuation of an ancient people.
Rome held it, the Britons held it, the Picts invaded from Ireland, the Angles and Saxons had it after beating the Picts and killing the Britons…the list goes on. There isn’t some sacred ancient culture at stake and I’m sure the groups that were kicked out by the current inhabitants would take umbrage with your point if they could speak up.
I’m not even going to dive into “London is a miserable failure.” That’s just another hand wavy talking point. I’m not even sure by what metrics you’d measure how London is a “miserable failure.”
You need to brush up on your history my friend. The number of times the island has changed hands runs counter to your point, and the current inhabitants certainly aren’t some continuation of an ancient people.
Rome held it, the Britons held it, the Picts invaded from Ireland, the Angles and Saxons had it after beating the Picts and killing the Britons…the list goes on. There isn’t some sacred ancient culture at stake and I’m sure the groups that were kicked out by the current inhabitants would take umbrage with your point if they could speak up.
I’m not even going to dive into “London is a miserable failure.” That’s just another hand wavy talking point. I’m not even sure by what metrics you’d measure how London is a “miserable failure.”
That's the case with nearly every indigenous people though.
Yes, which is why I find the assertion not just incorrect but also kind of silly.
Sounds like you’re crying crocodile tears, then!
So, I'm a little unclear here.
Is the problem that immigration drags down economies?
Or that it leads to gentrification?
You know, all those lazy Polish plumbers coming over and stealing all those British jobs....
Sounds like you've found a cause for every problem you see.
Is the problem that immigration drags down economies?
Or that it leads to gentrification?
You know, all those lazy Polish plumbers coming over and stealing all those British jobs....
Sounds like you've found a cause for every problem you see.
A culture so rich, nobody feels like having children.
Or maybe you meant "rigid"?
Or maybe you meant "rigid"?
What a mindset. "Foreigners are coming here to destroy our culture, we can let them work for us but never give them full rights".
[deleted]
The problem with Indian states are that the majority of those applicants come specifically from upper caste families. The US has already run into this issue. In my opinion it would be a bad idea to further caste outside of India and into other countries as well. On the reasoning for the Punjab state, how would you verify that the person was from a specific region do you know anything about them or their culture? I'm sure you must know some of it but things like this can very easily be faked especially with a corrupt system of governance as India. I don't like to be judge jury and executioner but is there really any way of creating a system that limits it solely to a specific region? Especially more so with the information I've just given you?
By not caring what caste a person is, the US is specifically not caring about caste.
In terms of immigration, even in Canada (very open to other cultures, more tolerant of them than the US), to become a citizen, there are tests to be passed, including either french or english literacy.
This is to ensure that all citizens can communication with one another, and also, to understand local laws. And, essentially, local customs.
In Canada (and the US), this means people are expected to not be racist, or biased, and there are laws against this.
One may debate the effectiveness of these laws, however my point is that once here? People caught behaving if there is a caste system here, will be prosecuted.
Beyond this, public schools, TV, movies, etc teach that all are equal. Sometimes, it takes a third generation immigrant to be "fully" localized, but eventually the parent culture is but a distant memory.
This is reinforced by the surrounding culture, which doesn't care about caste systems.
So my point is, we don't care, and we should not care. What we should do, is simply take applicants and be done with it.
You do not have to apply through your government, you can get a job and apply directly.
Now, are there Indian immigrants in the US, with consulting firms or companies, only accepting applications based upon caste?
Well, that's discrimination, has nothing to do with immigration laws, instead employement laws, and can be prosecuted.
And yes, it can be proven.
In terms of immigration, even in Canada (very open to other cultures, more tolerant of them than the US), to become a citizen, there are tests to be passed, including either french or english literacy.
This is to ensure that all citizens can communication with one another, and also, to understand local laws. And, essentially, local customs.
In Canada (and the US), this means people are expected to not be racist, or biased, and there are laws against this.
One may debate the effectiveness of these laws, however my point is that once here? People caught behaving if there is a caste system here, will be prosecuted.
Beyond this, public schools, TV, movies, etc teach that all are equal. Sometimes, it takes a third generation immigrant to be "fully" localized, but eventually the parent culture is but a distant memory.
This is reinforced by the surrounding culture, which doesn't care about caste systems.
So my point is, we don't care, and we should not care. What we should do, is simply take applicants and be done with it.
You do not have to apply through your government, you can get a job and apply directly.
Now, are there Indian immigrants in the US, with consulting firms or companies, only accepting applications based upon caste?
Well, that's discrimination, has nothing to do with immigration laws, instead employement laws, and can be prosecuted.
And yes, it can be proven.
Sadly, none of this is true. Dalits in the US even the small minority that they are experience even worse discrimination in the US than from India itself. India's English speaking caste consists of predominantly members of the upper caste of India. Now you can argue you can punish those who use caste to discriminate but the reality is that it's just not the case in india as the effectively create the barriers through the use of language and restricting the opportunity for those to learn it to only those who have and belong to upper castes. You talk about localization but in several countries this does not occur. We should care and saying we shouldn't is disingenuous and simply misinformative at best.
Sadly, none of this is true. Dalits in the US even the small minority that they are experience even worse discrimination in the US than from India itself.
Where is this happening? I assure you, most non-Indians have zero idea about caste and couldn't care less.
Therefore, I gather that this is happening from other Indians in the US? In other words, you leave India to escape poverty and presumably racism, but then.. decide to live in predominantly Indian neighborhoods where they are racist, do buildness with, and work for, racist people?!
Here is a strong suggestion. Don't live near these fools, don't work for them. Don't move to the US, and then, try to create an Indian culture and neighborhood in the US.
Instead, just become American. Merge with the culture, and no more racist Indians.
Where is this happening? I assure you, most non-Indians have zero idea about caste and couldn't care less.
Therefore, I gather that this is happening from other Indians in the US? In other words, you leave India to escape poverty and presumably racism, but then.. decide to live in predominantly Indian neighborhoods where they are racist, do buildness with, and work for, racist people?!
Here is a strong suggestion. Don't live near these fools, don't work for them. Don't move to the US, and then, try to create an Indian culture and neighborhood in the US.
Instead, just become American. Merge with the culture, and no more racist Indians.
You should probably read Vivek Bald’s book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Harlem_and_the_Lost_Hi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Harlem_and_the_Lost_Hi...
My great grandfather came to the states in 1920 from Kapurthala and he was definitely not an upper caste person. It happened. Get over it.
I dont think you understand anything about what you just said.
Are you Indian, NRI or Someone from west learning about India from the western press?
Edit: You also mentioned that Dalit experience worse discrimination in US than in India! Where did you get that from? I'd just like to understand your overall point of view.
Are you Indian, NRI or Someone from west learning about India from the western press?
Edit: You also mentioned that Dalit experience worse discrimination in US than in India! Where did you get that from? I'd just like to understand your overall point of view.
[deleted]
lol what? I've met tons of Indian immigrants and not a single one of them was "illegal". What are you even talking about?
I'm not sure which country you are from. There are plenty of resources if you search. You are less likely to meet them, as i have heard people take away their passport and make them work in farms
https://m.economictimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/the-cur...
https://m.economictimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/the-cur...
[deleted]
Always incredible when HN's anti-Indian racism comes out from just beneath the surface.
Why can’t you guys just make India not suck and live there?
For the same reason Europeans left their continent and chased distant lands - enterprising people will go anywhere where there is economic activity.
No no no, don’t say that. Your water, roads, sewage, and electricity have not been universally solved. It has nothing to do with better opportunities. It’s a shithole you guys are not committing to fixing.
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30363116
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29362936
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28859357
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30363116
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29362936
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28859357
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I do live in the shit hole called San Francisco. I wouldn't say water, roads, sewage, electricity are a problem here.
'chased' is putting it mildly.
It's easier to move (yourself and your family) to a more favorable country than to change an entire country to be more favorable, especially considering how large and complicated these nations are.
The downside is that the people leaving also tend to be the most capable of producing that change so the brain/skills-drain is self-perpetuating once it starts.
The downside is that the people leaving also tend to be the most capable of producing that change so the brain/skills-drain is self-perpetuating once it starts.
> The downside is that the people leaving also tend to be the most capable of producing that change
Some % of people, yes. But not everyone leaves. As long as enough brilliant people remain and there can be economic and scientific progress breaking the shackles of a millennia of rule, things can become right. These things are slow and take time though.
Some % of people, yes. But not everyone leaves. As long as enough brilliant people remain and there can be economic and scientific progress breaking the shackles of a millennia of rule, things can become right. These things are slow and take time though.
It sucks precisely because there’s so many ppl
In that case, Japan would be even worse, because the Tokio metropolitan area is a human anthill.
Tokyo regularly tops Monocle's most livable city list among other lists of best cities in the world.
Looks uncomfortable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7kor5nHtZQ
That can't be it.
crate_barre(2)
sonicggg(5)
Not really surprising. Perpetual growth is a myth, and there is no silver bullet to prevent climate change. Permanent warming and its consequences are now a foregone conclusion. Younger people see the writing on the wall, and birthdates in developed countries will continue to fall.
Countries should begin to manage the draw down of population rather than see it as calamity. It will happen either way.
Countries should begin to manage the draw down of population rather than see it as calamity. It will happen either way.
Japan has been closed to both tourists and immigrants for over two years. That’s bound to have an effect on population growth.
Some tourists always end up staying and contributing to population growth: meet a local, get married, the usual.
Some tourists always end up staying and contributing to population growth: meet a local, get married, the usual.
> meet a local, get married, the usual
Think that number is incredibly small, only a couple thousand at most.
Think that number is incredibly small, only a couple thousand at most.
And with no roadmap to reopen for the rest of the year at least, and considering they've always treated immigrants and descendants of immigrants a second class citizens, it does look like they just don't want foreigners at all and not because of health concerns.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku
> And with no roadmap to reopen for the rest of the year at least
The PM just indicated otherwise this week.
> don't want foreigners at all and not because of health concerns.
Well, the sentiment is that foreigners = don’t wear mask. And don’t wear mask = health concerns.
Japanese people will be caught with masks in a middle of the forest with no one around for miles. Most of the Japanese population is vaccinated now, but the vast majority of people don’t wear masks, whereas an order of magnitude more of foreigners disproportionately do not wear masks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/uiwit7/getting_t...
> And with no roadmap to reopen for the rest of the year at least
The PM just indicated otherwise this week.
> don't want foreigners at all and not because of health concerns.
Well, the sentiment is that foreigners = don’t wear mask. And don’t wear mask = health concerns.
Japanese people will be caught with masks in a middle of the forest with no one around for miles. Most of the Japanese population is vaccinated now, but the vast majority of people don’t wear masks, whereas an order of magnitude more of foreigners disproportionately do not wear masks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/uiwit7/getting_t...
[deleted]
First tour groups will be allowed in next month, so that's outdated
That sounds incredibly hard in Japan. I would think a lot more dual nationality marriages take the Japanese citizen abroad.
It’s the reverse. The majority of the couples live in Japan.
The most common origin of the foreign spouse is from China (where naturalization is much more difficult if not impossible), followed by Korea and the Philippines (where there are fewer job opportunities).
The most common origin of the foreign spouse is from China (where naturalization is much more difficult if not impossible), followed by Korea and the Philippines (where there are fewer job opportunities).
I am Italian and live in Italy (after ~13 years abroad).
Both Italy and Japan are in the worst possible position, in terms of aging population, than any other "non-small" developed nation.
Some projections from the national statistic institute (ISTAT), which I cannot find online right now, project ~50M people by 2050, down ~10M from current levels.
Both Italy and Japan are in the worst possible position, in terms of aging population, than any other "non-small" developed nation.
Some projections from the national statistic institute (ISTAT), which I cannot find online right now, project ~50M people by 2050, down ~10M from current levels.
I lived in Italy for many years. It's my impression that Italy is losing its young population due to incredibly low salaries. Young professionals see 10x-20x salaries in the US or 5x salaries in Germany, Switzerland, Norway. And they make one obvious choice.
And your taxes and your version of IRS are just insane. We have a relative, a single mother, who is making 15K EUR a year, and they are going after her because her accountant used a wrong category when she paid taxes 5 years ago, so now she has to pay 10K eur fine for that year and 5K for the next (basically a whole year of income).
Another relative is a medical professional making 88K EUR in private practice, but he pays 55% in income taxes.
Another friend was making 14K EUR per year coding C#. He moved to the US since, now making 10x of that.
It's absolutely insane. I have zero surprise young people are fleeing.
And your taxes and your version of IRS are just insane. We have a relative, a single mother, who is making 15K EUR a year, and they are going after her because her accountant used a wrong category when she paid taxes 5 years ago, so now she has to pay 10K eur fine for that year and 5K for the next (basically a whole year of income).
Another relative is a medical professional making 88K EUR in private practice, but he pays 55% in income taxes.
Another friend was making 14K EUR per year coding C#. He moved to the US since, now making 10x of that.
It's absolutely insane. I have zero surprise young people are fleeing.
> Young professionals see 10x-20x salaries in the US or 5x salaries in Germany, Switzerland, Norway. And they make one obvious choice.
If you talk about tech, maybe. But I don't think the salary situation in Italy is that bleak if we look at the whole economy and account for purchasing power parity. Using OECD's number for 2019, household disposable income incl. social transfers in kind, in US dollars/capita at current prices and PPPs for the countries you mentioned are:
Italy: 31.7k
Norway: 40.1k
Germany: 41.0k
Switzerland: 41.1k
United States: 54.9k
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm?co...
If you talk about tech, maybe. But I don't think the salary situation in Italy is that bleak if we look at the whole economy and account for purchasing power parity. Using OECD's number for 2019, household disposable income incl. social transfers in kind, in US dollars/capita at current prices and PPPs for the countries you mentioned are:
Italy: 31.7k
Norway: 40.1k
Germany: 41.0k
Switzerland: 41.1k
United States: 54.9k
https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm?co...
Ah, PPP, so these are adjusted numbers, not actual.
I am talking about young professionals, they make a lot more money than that in Norway, Switzerland, USA. We know a Yoga teacher in Switzerland who makes 150 eur/hr, for example.
I am talking about young professionals, they make a lot more money than that in Norway, Switzerland, USA. We know a Yoga teacher in Switzerland who makes 150 eur/hr, for example.
That's why PPP is so great.
When using it, it doesn't matter if the person makes 150 euros an hour if it costs them that much for a meal but the person in Italy only has to work half as long for a meal.
When using it, it doesn't matter if the person makes 150 euros an hour if it costs them that much for a meal but the person in Italy only has to work half as long for a meal.
That's great when talking about people who spend the vast majority of their wealth on "cost of living" type stuff. But does it work in this case?
If a person in Italy makes just enough to live comfortably, you can compare that to a person in Norway who makes just enough to live comfortably. But if a person wants a new iPhone on top of that, they're gonna be paying around $1250 whether they're in Norway or in Italy ($1295 in Norway, $1253 in Italy).
So it seems to me that the calculation is a bit more complex than just some purchasing power parity factor. Even if $1 in Italy was $2 in Norway adjusted for PPP, I would much rather be making $8000/month in Norway than $4000/month in Italy because the price of luxury goods don't vary as wildly as the price of cost-of-living stuff.
Or is my understanding wrong?
If a person in Italy makes just enough to live comfortably, you can compare that to a person in Norway who makes just enough to live comfortably. But if a person wants a new iPhone on top of that, they're gonna be paying around $1250 whether they're in Norway or in Italy ($1295 in Norway, $1253 in Italy).
So it seems to me that the calculation is a bit more complex than just some purchasing power parity factor. Even if $1 in Italy was $2 in Norway adjusted for PPP, I would much rather be making $8000/month in Norway than $4000/month in Italy because the price of luxury goods don't vary as wildly as the price of cost-of-living stuff.
Or is my understanding wrong?
PPP matters though. There probably aren't many yoga teachers in Italy spending €3000 per month on rent.
Switzerland can be a nice place for people to work hard when they are young and then move back home to start a family (or business.)
Switzerland can be a nice place for people to work hard when they are young and then move back home to start a family (or business.)
Well, 30% more is exactly what you can save month by month and get to retirement with some tranquility.
Absolutely. 30% is not small at all. It's just small when compared with the 500% to 2000% claimed in the parent comment.
Also note that the difference between the US and Germany is also about 30%. Again, nothing to scoff at, but at the same time not remotely high enough to depopulate Germany.
Also note that the difference between the US and Germany is also about 30%. Again, nothing to scoff at, but at the same time not remotely high enough to depopulate Germany.
Ah right. I probably misread the parent, sorry.
The most violent culture shock is the switch from living in Italian tourist bubble to living in Italian societal and economic realities. The moment you realise that people yell and gesticulate not because it looks cute, but because how infuriating is the daily life there.
I found Italian people very friendly, and most of them would try to help me, a foreigner. Most did struggle financially. Most were unhappy with the tax man. Imagine making around the US minimum wage and constantly getting harassed by the IRS.
Nobody pays 55% in income taxes in Italy, the highest bracket is 43©, and of course that only applies to the part of your income above €75k.
Possibly they were receiving 45% net, which is plausible but that is because you are paying for pension and social security, not income taxes.
It is true anyway that IT is vastly underpaid in Italy compared to the rest of the world, and that the agenzia delle entrate is insanely harsh.
Possibly they were receiving 45% net, which is plausible but that is because you are paying for pension and social security, not income taxes.
It is true anyway that IT is vastly underpaid in Italy compared to the rest of the world, and that the agenzia delle entrate is insanely harsh.
Possible that these things are part of the declining population death spiral.
Less people => less economic opportunity => weaker economy => lower wages. Aging population => greater healthcare need, less people => taxes raised to make up the program revenue shortfall.
In Canada the Atlantic provinces through the 90s-00s emptied out for various economic reasons with young people going elsewhere for economic opportunity. It's remarkable to see that their sales taxes and income taxes in the area are much higher than BC, one of the economic powerhouses of Canadian federation.
Very hard to get out of this. I think the only solution really is to open up the taps for immigration. Eventually the relative affordability of the declining area can help this. Nova Scotia just pushed past the $1M mark. The relative affordability of the area, growing acceptance of WFH policies and absurdly stupid expensive real estate everywhere else likely helped.
Less people => less economic opportunity => weaker economy => lower wages. Aging population => greater healthcare need, less people => taxes raised to make up the program revenue shortfall.
In Canada the Atlantic provinces through the 90s-00s emptied out for various economic reasons with young people going elsewhere for economic opportunity. It's remarkable to see that their sales taxes and income taxes in the area are much higher than BC, one of the economic powerhouses of Canadian federation.
Very hard to get out of this. I think the only solution really is to open up the taps for immigration. Eventually the relative affordability of the declining area can help this. Nova Scotia just pushed past the $1M mark. The relative affordability of the area, growing acceptance of WFH policies and absurdly stupid expensive real estate everywhere else likely helped.
Agree with everything you said, and while Italy is one of the worst offender on theses topics, they are unfortunately not the only ones in the EU.
I designed a vastly more simple and fair tax system years ago. As a personal hobby challenge. I dont expect it to ever be adopted by any major real world government, because it would disempower too many grifters, haha. But it always makes me amused when I read any horror stories online about tax problems.
The old William Gibson quote about "the future is here its just not evenly distributed yet."
The old William Gibson quote about "the future is here its just not evenly distributed yet."
Is it another "tax the rich" scheme, where the rich take their money elsewhere and your country's businesses are left without investors?
It's easy to design a tax system, it's hard to predict its long-term effects.
It's easy to design a tax system, it's hard to predict its long-term effects.
This is a challenging transition that all countries should prepare for and debate how to handle.
But ultimately this is good news. Population cannot keep increasing and evidence is that it is unsustainably high now. So Less pressure on the environment, more space, hopefully increased productivity and wealth per capital (by harnessing automation).
Japan specifically is overcrowded (coubtry is not that big and most of it is actually montains with people crowded in coastal plains), so this is an opportunity to increase individuals' quality of life.
But ultimately this is good news. Population cannot keep increasing and evidence is that it is unsustainably high now. So Less pressure on the environment, more space, hopefully increased productivity and wealth per capital (by harnessing automation).
Japan specifically is overcrowded (coubtry is not that big and most of it is actually montains with people crowded in coastal plains), so this is an opportunity to increase individuals' quality of life.
I’m always curious who downvotes these opinions, who looks at a world with 8B people headed to 11B people by the end of the century and thinks depopulation is a problem.
Less people is good for a strained planet, and this sort of population decline is the least harmful option for realizing a more steady state world (versus unsustainable growth).
Less people is good for a strained planet, and this sort of population decline is the least harmful option for realizing a more steady state world (versus unsustainable growth).
> Less people is good for a strained planet.
I do agree with the general sentiment on this, but it's unfortunately kind of ignoring the huge, short and medium term social problems this population decline will bring about.
Specifically, in many places, much of infrastructure (social and otherwise) was designed on assumptions of growth.
Re-engineering entire countries infrastructure to meet these new demographics deals is going to be costly. Even to the "blood in the streets" level in some cases, I believe.
I do agree with the general sentiment on this, but it's unfortunately kind of ignoring the huge, short and medium term social problems this population decline will bring about.
Specifically, in many places, much of infrastructure (social and otherwise) was designed on assumptions of growth.
Re-engineering entire countries infrastructure to meet these new demographics deals is going to be costly. Even to the "blood in the streets" level in some cases, I believe.
Yes it is a challenge but ultimately less costly than the alternative...
Moreover, if you accept that population cannot increase infinitely in a finite world, the transition will have to happen one day. So the sooner the better and rich, developed countries are equipped to deal with it.
Moreover, if you accept that population cannot increase infinitely in a finite world, the transition will have to happen one day. So the sooner the better and rich, developed countries are equipped to deal with it.
In the 1970s the pressing issue of the time was that everyone thought over population was going to mean we were gonna run out of food (see: The Population Bomb, Soylent Green). The troubling slant to the discussion of course was that it wasn't our growth that was the problem but elsewhere in the global south.
Of course we didn't starve to death and this fear was completely unfounded.
The problems we face today of course have nothing to do with that. They stem rather from excessive CO2 emissions, and these emissions are dominated by rich nations with relatively small populations. This could have been limited and prevented in the 1970s but people made other choices.
It's possible that there is some point where over population is a real problem, but that is not now, and we can solve our most pressing problems in other ways.
Of course we didn't starve to death and this fear was completely unfounded.
The problems we face today of course have nothing to do with that. They stem rather from excessive CO2 emissions, and these emissions are dominated by rich nations with relatively small populations. This could have been limited and prevented in the 1970s but people made other choices.
It's possible that there is some point where over population is a real problem, but that is not now, and we can solve our most pressing problems in other ways.
CO2 emissions are only one aspect of the the issue (and they are rising in all developing countries as they develop), which is a global environmental crisis.
This crisi is caused by excessive exploitation of resources, which is still increasing because of a compounded effect: we're rightly eradicating poverty and we're more and more.
So yes we are feeding everyone, among other improvements, but we are destroying the planet in the process.
Even we're the efforts we're making in rich the consumption of resources is not really decreasing while it is increasing in developing countries.
Population is the root cause of the problem.
I don't see why this is controversial. Less people enjoying a better life in a better environment sounds like an ideal world.
This crisi is caused by excessive exploitation of resources, which is still increasing because of a compounded effect: we're rightly eradicating poverty and we're more and more.
So yes we are feeding everyone, among other improvements, but we are destroying the planet in the process.
Even we're the efforts we're making in rich the consumption of resources is not really decreasing while it is increasing in developing countries.
Population is the root cause of the problem.
I don't see why this is controversial. Less people enjoying a better life in a better environment sounds like an ideal world.
The main objection to this kind of arguments is that the earth is enough for everyone but the problem is that the wealth is not distributed. Thus this kind of argument is viewed as a way for wealthy nations to deflect blame.
And while I personally don’t share the more optimistic side of the argument, I’m definitely sympathetic to the second part, specially when I see the moralistic arguments against poor nations trying to create wealth, by those who already depleted their own, and are also mostly enjoying the fruits of poor nations resources in form of cheap goods.
And while I personally don’t share the more optimistic side of the argument, I’m definitely sympathetic to the second part, specially when I see the moralistic arguments against poor nations trying to create wealth, by those who already depleted their own, and are also mostly enjoying the fruits of poor nations resources in form of cheap goods.
> Thus this kind of argument is viewed as a way for wealthy nations to deflect blame.
But it's the wealthy nations that are the ones undergoing population decline. And instead of being praised for their responsible family planning, they are told "No! You must grow! And by 'grow' we mean import people from abroad."
But it's the wealthy nations that are the ones undergoing population decline. And instead of being praised for their responsible family planning, they are told "No! You must grow! And by 'grow' we mean import people from abroad."
I don’t think the people who are defending a maltussian like argument (which is the one I’m criticizing) are the ones also arguing for more population on the first world.
> I’m always curious who downvotes these opinions
The expanionists that recognize some of the ponzi qualities of how a lot of the modern welfare states are stacked. That those systems will begin to fail if populations don't perpetually increase enough. They dread that population decline is going to wreck how the welfare state functions (lie to voters, over promise on entitlements, pray population keeps expanding forever so new workers can pay for retiring workers, kick the can down the road; Japan has done this for two decades for example, the US is actively doing it, and lots of affluent European nations are doing it).
It forces a reckoning with very poor decisions from the past, the bill comes due, and almost nobody likes that.
Predictable population expansion helps politicians paper over a lot of various fiscal mistakes (they rely heavily on fiscal lies to function, telling people things that are irrational fiscally but popular). Britain, France, Japan, the US - four of the world's largest economies, and they all function by using the same scam (pull future potential output forward, eat it / distribute it today, fake the present standard of living for re-election at the cost of the future context). These are things for example Macron has wrestled with frequently in France, and absolutely no politician in the US wants to go anywhere near talking about how the trajectory on entitlements is going to bankrupt the US Government de facto (requiring forever low rates from the Fed, $50t in new debt over the next 30 years, and leading to a raft of bad follow-on things economically).
The expanionists that recognize some of the ponzi qualities of how a lot of the modern welfare states are stacked. That those systems will begin to fail if populations don't perpetually increase enough. They dread that population decline is going to wreck how the welfare state functions (lie to voters, over promise on entitlements, pray population keeps expanding forever so new workers can pay for retiring workers, kick the can down the road; Japan has done this for two decades for example, the US is actively doing it, and lots of affluent European nations are doing it).
It forces a reckoning with very poor decisions from the past, the bill comes due, and almost nobody likes that.
Predictable population expansion helps politicians paper over a lot of various fiscal mistakes (they rely heavily on fiscal lies to function, telling people things that are irrational fiscally but popular). Britain, France, Japan, the US - four of the world's largest economies, and they all function by using the same scam (pull future potential output forward, eat it / distribute it today, fake the present standard of living for re-election at the cost of the future context). These are things for example Macron has wrestled with frequently in France, and absolutely no politician in the US wants to go anywhere near talking about how the trajectory on entitlements is going to bankrupt the US Government de facto (requiring forever low rates from the Fed, $50t in new debt over the next 30 years, and leading to a raft of bad follow-on things economically).
It is not just welfare, but also the healthcare systems.
Older people are, on average, much less healthy and need more medical attention. IDK if this can be solved by medical/nursing robots, but we almost certainly do not have enough living medical professionals to care for countries whose average age climbs over 50.
Older people are, on average, much less healthy and need more medical attention. IDK if this can be solved by medical/nursing robots, but we almost certainly do not have enough living medical professionals to care for countries whose average age climbs over 50.
Many HN readers tend to downplay environmental issues and resource scarcity. Some think religiously it can be be solved by innovation, which is fuelled by growth.
I always wonder as well.
My hypothesis is that population growth is so embedded in the common psyche, from economics to culture and religion, that suggesting otherwise is anathema and rejected by Pavlovian reflex.
My hypothesis is that population growth is so embedded in the common psyche, from economics to culture and religion, that suggesting otherwise is anathema and rejected by Pavlovian reflex.
I think it’s because no one ever bothers to support it.
You declare that we have “too many people” and “need fewer humans” — but don’t demonstrate that’s true. It seems more like an article of faith among a certain crowd.
But to people who don’t think that’s true, saying we need fewer people and enacting policies to achieve that seems dangerous: you’re trying to destroy other people’s families for no reason but your religious beliefs.
You declare that we have “too many people” and “need fewer humans” — but don’t demonstrate that’s true. It seems more like an article of faith among a certain crowd.
But to people who don’t think that’s true, saying we need fewer people and enacting policies to achieve that seems dangerous: you’re trying to destroy other people’s families for no reason but your religious beliefs.
Seconding toomuchtodo's comment, I also take issue with
> saying we need fewer people and enacting policies to achieve that seems dangerous: you’re trying to destroy other people’s families for no reason but your religious beliefs
Trying to conflate a natural (or at least unintended [1]) population drop with some deliberate policy of "family destruction" is the height of dishonesty.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/18/national/social... Japan’s total fertility rate [..] stood at 1.36 [..] The government aims to raise the rate to 1.8.
> saying we need fewer people and enacting policies to achieve that seems dangerous: you’re trying to destroy other people’s families for no reason but your religious beliefs
Trying to conflate a natural (or at least unintended [1]) population drop with some deliberate policy of "family destruction" is the height of dishonesty.
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/18/national/social... Japan’s total fertility rate [..] stood at 1.36 [..] The government aims to raise the rate to 1.8.
> Trying to conflate a natural (or at least unintended [1]) population drop with some deliberate policy of "family destruction" is the height of dishonesty.
Your sibling comments (including the one you support) are arguing that we should continue policies which abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed because we have “too many people”. That would be animal abuse if I did it to cows: intentionally abusing a herd so they were too distressed to procreate.
I think you not admitting that I’m responding to sentiments expressed in this very thread is dishonest.
Your sibling comments (including the one you support) are arguing that we should continue policies which abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed because we have “too many people”. That would be animal abuse if I did it to cows: intentionally abusing a herd so they were too distressed to procreate.
I think you not admitting that I’m responding to sentiments expressed in this very thread is dishonest.
> we should continue policies which abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed
Fertility rate: Finland 1.35, Austria 1.46, Switzerland 1.48, Norway 1.53, Kenya 3.4, Nigeria 5.3, Somalia 5.98: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
Quality of life rank: Finland 11/80, Austria 13/80, Switzerland 1/80, Norway 3/80, Kenya 79/80, Nigeria 80/80, Somalia unranked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index
Quality of life and fertility seem to be very strongly anti-correlated. It does not seem like any sort of "policies which abuse the young" are needed to reduce population - education, gender equality, and some baseline material security suffice.
That the countries least desirable to live in have the highest fertility, and that there is a global ecological catastrophe slowly unfolding, are both well-documented common knowledge, that you became instantly ignorant of when they became inconvenient to your argument.
I would ask you to explain why you think "policies which abuse the young" are what people have in mind, or why they are needed, when obviously what has been shown to work and is popular is raising living standards. But I won't, because given the above, I already know the answer: it's much easier to argue for perpetual population growth if you can pretend the only alternative is "abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed".
Fertility rate: Finland 1.35, Austria 1.46, Switzerland 1.48, Norway 1.53, Kenya 3.4, Nigeria 5.3, Somalia 5.98: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
Quality of life rank: Finland 11/80, Austria 13/80, Switzerland 1/80, Norway 3/80, Kenya 79/80, Nigeria 80/80, Somalia unranked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index
Quality of life and fertility seem to be very strongly anti-correlated. It does not seem like any sort of "policies which abuse the young" are needed to reduce population - education, gender equality, and some baseline material security suffice.
That the countries least desirable to live in have the highest fertility, and that there is a global ecological catastrophe slowly unfolding, are both well-documented common knowledge, that you became instantly ignorant of when they became inconvenient to your argument.
I would ask you to explain why you think "policies which abuse the young" are what people have in mind, or why they are needed, when obviously what has been shown to work and is popular is raising living standards. But I won't, because given the above, I already know the answer: it's much easier to argue for perpetual population growth if you can pretend the only alternative is "abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed".
> that there is a global ecological catastrophe slowly unfolding, [is] well-documented common knowledge
I find it strange you can’t show me actual support for that then, after my repeated requests — are you sure it’s not a widely held dogmatic belief?
> I would ask you to explain why you think "policies which abuse the young" are what people have in mind, or why they are needed, when obviously what has been shown to work and is popular is raising living standards.
Surveys of young people point to financial distress as why they don’t have children.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-havi...
The entire system is set up in a way which is crushing the middle class (in the US and likely other developed nations), causing them to choose not to breed. The evidence suggests that people aren’t having as many kids as they would like due to policies which harm them (eg, high taxes) — policies which people support here despite knowing that they’re driving those outcomes.
> I already know the answer: it's much easier to argue for perpetual population growth if you can pretend the only alternative is "abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed".
This is you creating a strawman to avoid recognizing the negative impacts of your own policy and the harms it’s causing to humanity.
I find it strange you can’t show me actual support for that then, after my repeated requests — are you sure it’s not a widely held dogmatic belief?
> I would ask you to explain why you think "policies which abuse the young" are what people have in mind, or why they are needed, when obviously what has been shown to work and is popular is raising living standards.
Surveys of young people point to financial distress as why they don’t have children.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-havi...
The entire system is set up in a way which is crushing the middle class (in the US and likely other developed nations), causing them to choose not to breed. The evidence suggests that people aren’t having as many kids as they would like due to policies which harm them (eg, high taxes) — policies which people support here despite knowing that they’re driving those outcomes.
> I already know the answer: it's much easier to argue for perpetual population growth if you can pretend the only alternative is "abuse the young to the point they are too distressed to breed".
This is you creating a strawman to avoid recognizing the negative impacts of your own policy and the harms it’s causing to humanity.
> I find it strange you can’t show me actual support for that then, after my repeated requests — are you sure it’s not a widely held dogmatic belief?
Modern extinction rates average around 100 E/MSY. This means birds, mammals and amphibians have been going extinct 100 to 1000 times faster than we would expect. - https://ourworldindata.org/extinctions#are-we-heading-for-a-...
Just under 3% of the world's land remains ecologically intact [..] The study paints a gloomier picture than previous analyses of wilderness areas, focused on human impact on habitat, which estimated that 20 to 40% of the earth's terrestrial surface has been little affected by humans. - https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/world/intact-ecosystems-repor...
I.e. the overly optimistic studies showed that ~70% of Earth's land has been significantly affected by humans.
> Surveys of young people point to financial distress as why they don’t have children.
Clearly young people in Somalia are financially better off then, and we should emulate their policies.
Modern extinction rates average around 100 E/MSY. This means birds, mammals and amphibians have been going extinct 100 to 1000 times faster than we would expect. - https://ourworldindata.org/extinctions#are-we-heading-for-a-...
Just under 3% of the world's land remains ecologically intact [..] The study paints a gloomier picture than previous analyses of wilderness areas, focused on human impact on habitat, which estimated that 20 to 40% of the earth's terrestrial surface has been little affected by humans. - https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/world/intact-ecosystems-repor...
I.e. the overly optimistic studies showed that ~70% of Earth's land has been significantly affected by humans.
> Surveys of young people point to financial distress as why they don’t have children.
Clearly young people in Somalia are financially better off then, and we should emulate their policies.
> the overly optimistic studies showed that ~70% of Earth's land has been significantly affected by humans
Okay — why is that a catastrophe to which the solution is reducing human population?
> Clearly young people in Somalia are financially better off then, and we should emulate their policies.
Sarcasm doesn’t detract from my point that policy and cultural choices in developed nations dominate why people aren’t having kids.
I think you lack a reply now that data agreed with me.
Okay — why is that a catastrophe to which the solution is reducing human population?
> Clearly young people in Somalia are financially better off then, and we should emulate their policies.
Sarcasm doesn’t detract from my point that policy and cultural choices in developed nations dominate why people aren’t having kids.
I think you lack a reply now that data agreed with me.
I think this is demonstrated.
We have a global climate and environmental crisis in a world where most human beings are still quite poor and with population still increasing.
We're being told that we should travel less, eat less meat, this, that, when most people on Earth actually still struggle to afford these things (I.e. consumption per capita is increasing as people leave abject poverty worldwide)
Believing that global population level is fine is not even an article of faith, it simply is denial of reality because it is something some people somehow simply refuse to hear.
Lastly, no-one here suggests that we should kill people or whatnot. In Japan and other developed countries population is decreasing naturally, let's just let it instead of panicking.
We have a global climate and environmental crisis in a world where most human beings are still quite poor and with population still increasing.
We're being told that we should travel less, eat less meat, this, that, when most people on Earth actually still struggle to afford these things (I.e. consumption per capita is increasing as people leave abject poverty worldwide)
Believing that global population level is fine is not even an article of faith, it simply is denial of reality because it is something some people somehow simply refuse to hear.
Lastly, no-one here suggests that we should kill people or whatnot. In Japan and other developed countries population is decreasing naturally, let's just let it instead of panicking.
You didn’t support it at all:
Your entire argument is “an authority told me so!” and from there you treat it as an article of faith.
You’re also ignoring that more people has led to less poverty and the current world is the richest it has ever been — ie, the data which shows more people is good. Global hunger has precipitously fallen, as we’ve had more people and richer nations capable of more aid.
> In Japan and other developed countries population is decreasing naturally, let's just let it instead of panicking.
It’s decreasing as a result of policies chosen which stress the young and cause them not to breed — saying “well, less people is good, so let’s keep the abuse!” is monstrous.
Your entire argument is “an authority told me so!” and from there you treat it as an article of faith.
You’re also ignoring that more people has led to less poverty and the current world is the richest it has ever been — ie, the data which shows more people is good. Global hunger has precipitously fallen, as we’ve had more people and richer nations capable of more aid.
> In Japan and other developed countries population is decreasing naturally, let's just let it instead of panicking.
It’s decreasing as a result of policies chosen which stress the young and cause them not to breed — saying “well, less people is good, so let’s keep the abuse!” is monstrous.
> You’re also ignoring that more people has led to less poverty and the current world is the richest it has ever been
Only if you consider resources are unlimited, and the environment has no value.
If you put available non-renewable resources and the environment on the balance sheet, the result is different.
Only if you consider resources are unlimited, and the environment has no value.
If you put available non-renewable resources and the environment on the balance sheet, the result is different.
> If you put available non-renewable resources and the environment on the balance sheet, the result is different.
Okay — so show me that.
What exactly is different if you account for more people making us the wealthiest, least starving time in history?
How exactly is the outcome negative?
What exactly means that fewer people is the solution to our problems, when historically the opposite has been true?
Again, you’re not showing me that — you’re asserting it as an article of faith you expect me to just believe on your say so.
Okay — so show me that.
What exactly is different if you account for more people making us the wealthiest, least starving time in history?
How exactly is the outcome negative?
What exactly means that fewer people is the solution to our problems, when historically the opposite has been true?
Again, you’re not showing me that — you’re asserting it as an article of faith you expect me to just believe on your say so.
Suppose you're born on a planet that has some amount of natural resources and some characteristic that makes it liveable. Now if you consume part of the resources to produce stuff, and pollute the environment as a side effect, you're richer of the amount of stuff that you produced, but you're also poorer of the non-renewable resources that you consume, and you'll have to pay for the environment at some point too.
For instance, in the case of global warming, there will be migration of populations, raise of ocean level, extreme weather events, all of this will have a cost that we'll have to pay eventually.
All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth.
Putting it another way, we're rich because we were given a huge loan in the form of natural resources and a hospitable environment, but this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth.
For instance, in the case of global warming, there will be migration of populations, raise of ocean level, extreme weather events, all of this will have a cost that we'll have to pay eventually.
All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth.
Putting it another way, we're rich because we were given a huge loan in the form of natural resources and a hospitable environment, but this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth.
> All of this has to be taken into account if you want to assess the merit and sustainability of our production system and demographic growth.
Sure — so show me the actual account.
You’re just hand-waving about possible costs without showing they’re unsustainable on reasonable timelines OR that fewer people would help the problem at all.
That’s not a rational basis to want fewer humans.
> this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth.
Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief — it doesn’t justify anything.
That’s nihilistic fantasy.
Sure — so show me the actual account.
You’re just hand-waving about possible costs without showing they’re unsustainable on reasonable timelines OR that fewer people would help the problem at all.
That’s not a rational basis to want fewer humans.
> this is ending. Unfortunately, there's no perpetual growth in a finite world. This is a mathematical truth.
Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief — it doesn’t justify anything.
That’s nihilistic fantasy.
> Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief
There are plenty of references on the topic. You can start with "The limits to growth" which is 50 years old and which is revisited from time to time.
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-...
Regarding global warming, you can look up "Kaya identity": https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle...
It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines, but it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable and most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades.
There are plenty of references on the topic. You can start with "The limits to growth" which is 50 years old and which is revisited from time to time.
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-...
Regarding global warming, you can look up "Kaya identity": https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle...
It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines, but it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable and most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades.
What supporting citations would you like? There are 121 million unintended pregnancies globally annually. 2.7 millions children in foster/institutional care. 689 million in poverty and destitution. Rainforests are being clear cut, the planet is well beyond its carbon budget (and Herculean efforts will be required to pull us back from 2C), and there is ample evidence climate change is going to cause famines and heatwaves that will inflict suffering on wide swaths of the global population (with the developing world being hit particularly hard). This is not the fiction that religion is, these are verifiable facts (ourworldindata.org, UN reports).
Isn’t it dangerous to have large numbers of people we’re going to just let die when resources are further constrained? It seems a lot safer to argue for family planning for all but the most capable and emotionally invested parents and let everyone else age out with a decent quality of life to responsibly transition to a lower human run rate. No one is arguing for eugenics, family destruction, or similar distasteful policies.
Isn’t it dangerous to have large numbers of people we’re going to just let die when resources are further constrained? It seems a lot safer to argue for family planning for all but the most capable and emotionally invested parents and let everyone else age out with a decent quality of life to responsibly transition to a lower human run rate. No one is arguing for eugenics, family destruction, or similar distasteful policies.
> Isn’t it dangerous to have large numbers of people we’re going to just let die when resources are further constrained?
You haven’t shown anything like this — merely asserted it based on unrelated facts.
You cited raw numbers, but eg, portion of humanity in starvation conditions has gone down as population went up, because the increased wealth of nations allowed for feeding more people.
Neither unintended pregnancies nor a fraction of children in foster care seems like something that is solved by having fewer people. In fact, that will get worse (like hunger) as society regresses and we are less wealthy as nations.
> No one is arguing for eugenics, family destruction, or similar distasteful policies.
You are: Planned Parenthood was founded by a noted eugenicist; the policies to support your vision require massive taxes that stress the young and prevent them from breeding even if they otherwise would want to; etc.
You’re just denying your role in that destruction through social policy based on some kind of religious apocalyptic fantasy.
You haven’t shown anything like this — merely asserted it based on unrelated facts.
You cited raw numbers, but eg, portion of humanity in starvation conditions has gone down as population went up, because the increased wealth of nations allowed for feeding more people.
Neither unintended pregnancies nor a fraction of children in foster care seems like something that is solved by having fewer people. In fact, that will get worse (like hunger) as society regresses and we are less wealthy as nations.
> No one is arguing for eugenics, family destruction, or similar distasteful policies.
You are: Planned Parenthood was founded by a noted eugenicist; the policies to support your vision require massive taxes that stress the young and prevent them from breeding even if they otherwise would want to; etc.
You’re just denying your role in that destruction through social policy based on some kind of religious apocalyptic fantasy.
These posts get downvoted because anti-humanism is a repulsive sentiment.
I don't see any solid evidence that the planet is "strained" or, if it is, that it has anything to do with population. People have been talking about overpopulation since before I was born. I think people who go for that stuff have a dim view of humanity and that's where their beliefs come from, not from any kind of serious empirical analysis.
I don't see any solid evidence that the planet is "strained" or, if it is, that it has anything to do with population. People have been talking about overpopulation since before I was born. I think people who go for that stuff have a dim view of humanity and that's where their beliefs come from, not from any kind of serious empirical analysis.
You said yourself:
> Civilization is humans, who are animals, pretending they are not animals. This pretending is often very hard. — slibhb
Anti-humanism is the wrong characterization. It’s the lack of self awareness and self preservation in aggregate as a species that is repulsive imho.
> Civilization is humans, who are animals, pretending they are not animals. This pretending is often very hard. — slibhb
Anti-humanism is the wrong characterization. It’s the lack of self awareness and self preservation in aggregate as a species that is repulsive imho.
Pretending we're not animals is the right thing to do! Civilization is good and we only have it as long as we pretend we aren't animals.
I don't think it's a serious analysis that predicts that mankind will go extinct due to overpopulation. People who have that view truly are anti-humanists. They view humans as rapacious monsters that inevitably exploit and harm other living things and the planet.
The truth is that we don't know what humans will make of the planet. Maybe the pessimists are right. But it's a higher form of behavior than pessimism to live your life in a way that confirms that mankind is good.
I don't think it's a serious analysis that predicts that mankind will go extinct due to overpopulation. People who have that view truly are anti-humanists. They view humans as rapacious monsters that inevitably exploit and harm other living things and the planet.
The truth is that we don't know what humans will make of the planet. Maybe the pessimists are right. But it's a higher form of behavior than pessimism to live your life in a way that confirms that mankind is good.
I know this is not a comfortable or popular opinion, but I think that for the most part, the descendants of nations need to inherit the nations created by their ancestors (good or bad). Not foreigners, and especially not ones that don't "become" fully integrated with their host culture.
> But ultimately this is good news. Less pressure on the environment, more space, hopefully increased productivity and wealth per capital (by harnessing automation).
I agree with the sentiment of this comment regarding the end state, but I fear the transition will be a disaster. Demographic changes are of course happening at very different stages around the world. Many 1st world countries are seeing dramatically shrinking populations, but many third world countries are exploding - Nigeria is expected to nearly double their population to 400 million by 2050. The shift and resource wars thèse changes will cause will result in a lot of suffering.
> Japan specifically is overcrowded
Not really. A few of Japan's megacities are overcrowded, but tons of other areas have seen rapid depopulation and demographic collapse where there are hardly any young people.
I agree with the sentiment of this comment regarding the end state, but I fear the transition will be a disaster. Demographic changes are of course happening at very different stages around the world. Many 1st world countries are seeing dramatically shrinking populations, but many third world countries are exploding - Nigeria is expected to nearly double their population to 400 million by 2050. The shift and resource wars thèse changes will cause will result in a lot of suffering.
> Japan specifically is overcrowded
Not really. A few of Japan's megacities are overcrowded, but tons of other areas have seen rapid depopulation and demographic collapse where there are hardly any young people.
Immigration could always be opened. That's how the U.S. grows. Plenty of demand for an eu citizenship.
That doesn't help Italy though. People get the citizenship and move on.
You can't think of citizenship in the normal way. You have to think of it within the context of the Schengen. Those people even have an easier time moving on out of the Schengen to, say, Canada or the US.
You can't think of citizenship in the normal way. You have to think of it within the context of the Schengen. Those people even have an easier time moving on out of the Schengen to, say, Canada or the US.
Of course it does. Labor increases production and therefore GDP. If people are leaving war torn or destitute parts of the world and finding available work (perhaps from the government if not private industry) and housing made available and its in supply owing to a shrinking population, social safety nets for once, etc, where would they move to? Germany to spend more for basically the same set of circumstances you'd have living in Italy? America to pay for healthcare and education out of pocket? Italy has plenty to offer a lot of people in this world.
Immigration is quite open in Italy and I personally know a very large amount of people who got citizenship. They are all working elsewhere in the EU, though.
Fortunately there is no shortage of people on the planet, and plenty of younger people who would be happy to immigrate to either of those places. "Not enough younger people in our country" is an easily solvable problem.
Assuming people are interchangeable, sure. But I would imagine Italians are biased towards fellow Italians. They don't view Italy as just a landmass, but as the people living there.
Easily solvable if everyone was fine with cultural homogeneity. Turns out there are still plenty of humans that despise the concept.
Or if everyone was fine with cultural heterogeneity. You just have to agree on one of these.
What is cultural homogeneity?
[deleted]
Closer to an ethnostate.
I think that's the correct term. I don't think there's such a thing as cultural homogeneity. If ethnic japanese start doing weird stuff as judged by "japanese culture", this weird stuff will immediately be considered "japanese culture", thus making "japanese culture" impossible to define precisely.
Yea...it will take quite a lot of societal change before plenty of young professionals would be happy to immigrate to Japan at least. Terrible work culture and "No Foreigners" signs chief among them.
They actually have "no foreigners" signs, or is that more metaphorical?
Are they for jobs, or even for shops/businesses?
Are they for jobs, or even for shops/businesses?
it makes you think for a moment when a central government thinks it would be worthwhile to create a map for citizens showing where they might encounter foreigners [0]
some examples of no-foreigner signs: from 2014 [1], 2018 [2], COVID [3] [4], New Years Eve 2021 [5]
[0] http://thejapanwanko.sub.jp/?p=3255
[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/2014/03/09/discrimination_n_49...
[2] https://twitter.com/altinsiderfy/status/1014099884348092418
[3] https://twitter.com/345triangle/status/1238776189482754048
[4] https://mobile.twitter.com/sanji_kinchan/status/122956825814...
[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/arudoudebito/status/1477052668963...
some examples of no-foreigner signs: from 2014 [1], 2018 [2], COVID [3] [4], New Years Eve 2021 [5]
[0] http://thejapanwanko.sub.jp/?p=3255
[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/2014/03/09/discrimination_n_49...
[2] https://twitter.com/altinsiderfy/status/1014099884348092418
[3] https://twitter.com/345triangle/status/1238776189482754048
[4] https://mobile.twitter.com/sanji_kinchan/status/122956825814...
[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/arudoudebito/status/1477052668963...
For bars often, most often close to US military bases.
I’d be willing to immigrate somewhere at least for a while, but ofc, despite being a valued professional I lack the required papers.
wouldn't this divide the world into 1. population production centers like india/africa 2. population absorption centers like usa, japan.
For a short time, yes.
But even India is heading for TFR under 2.0.
Subsaharan Africa can, on the other hand, reach up to 4 billion people before the end of the century; almost half of entire humanity.
But even India is heading for TFR under 2.0.
Subsaharan Africa can, on the other hand, reach up to 4 billion people before the end of the century; almost half of entire humanity.
[deleted]
Eh honestly this is probably for the best considering Japan is probably not best suited for handling climate change impacts on their country.
Because they're an island nation? Perfectly suited for clean energy from e.g. offshore wind and advanced fission with passive afterglow heat removal systems.
[deleted]
Weather events like typhoons.
Elon Musk has repeatedly said the greatest threat to civilization is population decline [0]. It's such a diametrically opposed narrative compared to what world governments and leaders have been saying over decades now namely that over population is what we should fear.
Surely both those statements cannot be true.
It seems like the answer is of great importance since potentially the fate of humanity depends on it, yet I seldom see it discussed seriously or at least as seriously as anything else like climate change.
[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1483484932961972227?lang...
Surely both those statements cannot be true.
It seems like the answer is of great importance since potentially the fate of humanity depends on it, yet I seldom see it discussed seriously or at least as seriously as anything else like climate change.
[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1483484932961972227?lang...
It’s “only” a problem because all societies and economies are built like a pyramid where the bottom (working age people) is always bigger than the top. It seems like inevitably that is going to invert as countries get richer
Are you assuming as societies get richer and more technologically advanced there is less of a need for labor?
Hasn't this myth been busted repeatedly over centuries since the Industrial Revolution?
Hasn't this myth been busted repeatedly over centuries since the Industrial Revolution?
I think you are conflating two different ideas. The first being that automation destroys jobs, that has been disproven. But automation does increase productivity to the point of one person being able to do the work of ten or a hundred. Meaning that we don't have scarcity the same way we used to. Logically this increase in productivity would lead to a decrease in working hours-- but as the comment you are replying to says, our economy is a pyramid scheme. We aren't able to fully benefit from the increase in productivity because of the pursuit of infinite growth.
When elon musk or jordan peterson say we are going to run out of people, its a dog whistle for we are going to run out of 'white' people, you know the productive kind?
125.5 MM is still a lot of people for a place like Japan with its group of relatively small-ish islands when compared to other places - 350 MM for US and 38 MM for Canada.
Their peak looks like it was 128.6 in 2009, and they're at their lowest since 1993.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population
I do think the WPR's projection is a little weird though. They see almost no change in the birth rate until about 2078... not sure how they concluded that.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population
I do think the WPR's projection is a little weird though. They see almost no change in the birth rate until about 2078... not sure how they concluded that.
[deleted]
I've posted this quote before, but still think the concept stands:
"There's trilemma facing ageing nations, whereby you can have two of the three: ethnic continuity, a thriving economy or a comfortable lifestyle without the huge stress of mixing child-raising and a modern economy. Israel has sacrificed the latter, Japan has chosen to take the economic hit, while Britain’s leaders have given up its ethnic continuity. But that, alas, was a short-term solution, since young immigrants don’t magically avoid the fate of Father Time any more than the rest of us do."
"There's trilemma facing ageing nations, whereby you can have two of the three: ethnic continuity, a thriving economy or a comfortable lifestyle without the huge stress of mixing child-raising and a modern economy. Israel has sacrificed the latter, Japan has chosen to take the economic hit, while Britain’s leaders have given up its ethnic continuity. But that, alas, was a short-term solution, since young immigrants don’t magically avoid the fate of Father Time any more than the rest of us do."
[deleted]
Isn’t declining population a government problem?
Perhaps it’s ok for the human race to reduce in numbers to help heal the planet?
Population reduction is a very strong signal for the government to change its behavior and yet… they still behave the same for decades: long work hours, non-existent immigration policy, lack of support for working women, little job opportunities for young people, etc.
Perhaps it’s ok for the human race to reduce in numbers to help heal the planet?
Population reduction is a very strong signal for the government to change its behavior and yet… they still behave the same for decades: long work hours, non-existent immigration policy, lack of support for working women, little job opportunities for young people, etc.
The idea that the planet is wounded due to too many people and needs to be "healed" is complete nonsense. We aren't close to carrying capacity. You're taking various complaints ("immigration policy," "no support for women," "people work too much") and connecting them to a totally unrelated phenomenon (declining population). People are not deciding against children for rational reasons.
I think it mostly has to do with social atomization. Cultures have always supported marriage and childcare. That's less true around the world. As a result people are getting married less often and having fewer children, often against their own desires.
I think it mostly has to do with social atomization. Cultures have always supported marriage and childcare. That's less true around the world. As a result people are getting married less often and having fewer children, often against their own desires.
> We aren't close to carrying capacity.
Yet I have no trust in any governing body that exists when we do.
Yet I have no trust in any governing body that exists when we do.
The problem is not degrowth but the transitional economic ramifications of demographics that skew increasingly towards the elderly, decreasing labor force participation rate and GDP while increasing the burden on social services.
You see those stories about labor shortage, doctor shortage, lack of teachers, nurses, 30 min elevator music on phone to talk to someone?
Yeah, that is what an ageing society feels like. Only in Japan and Italy, it's 10x worse than other places because they had no immigration for a long time.
As we age and population declines more, we will have to assume that basics of society will become dysfunctional as there just aren't any workers to work in those areas anymore.
Yeah, that is what an ageing society feels like. Only in Japan and Italy, it's 10x worse than other places because they had no immigration for a long time.
As we age and population declines more, we will have to assume that basics of society will become dysfunctional as there just aren't any workers to work in those areas anymore.
The fact that it's a bad thing seems to be implied.
But, and in spite of the clear challenges this already does and will create, ultimately, is it really a problem?
But, and in spite of the clear challenges this already does and will create, ultimately, is it really a problem?
Japan is one of the oldest populations on the planet, getting older. Just about everything in how society runs (in Japan or any other developed economy) assumes that old people get to retire, taken care of by young people. But, this requires a minimum ratio of young to old. Eventually, and Japan may already be getting there, you are putting too much strain on the economy of young people, so they cannot get enough resources to have children of their own, and you enter a downward spiral. You either end up with old people having to work past the time when they can really do so, or old people facing a declining standard of living as there is not enough working population to take care of them.
It is when you structure government funding as its done in most of the world.
"Clear challenges" is somewhat synonymous with "problems". So, yes.
Decent thing is at least in Tokyo, where I live, the fall in population don't really mean anything. There's still children around (not as much as in my home country, but still.) There's still elderly around. All the jobs are full even if they need more. More and more automation is needed.
The countryside sure get it really hard though.
The countryside sure get it really hard though.
Russia lost 1M people last year (they do have a population ~160M so per 100k it's almost the same loss)
People die at a much younger age in Russia on average though.
That's starkly apparent looking at population pyramids. Russia's trails off tremendously with age, but has a large young population. Japan's is immensely top-heavy.
Russia: https://www.livepopulation.com/images/chart_age_russia.png
Japan: https://www.livepopulation.com/images/chart_age_japan.png
From:
https://www.livepopulation.com/country/russia.html
https://www.livepopulation.com/country/japan.html
Russia: https://www.livepopulation.com/images/chart_age_russia.png
Japan: https://www.livepopulation.com/images/chart_age_japan.png
From:
https://www.livepopulation.com/country/russia.html
https://www.livepopulation.com/country/japan.html
Being in the same statistical bucket as Russia... Yikes.
This should be good - less people, more resources (land, fuel, etc) per person
On a positive note, they will have a bit more space to live in the cities. Apartments tend to be very small and stacked together.
Is there a sociological reason why Japanese people are not having children at rates that sustain the population?
The younger generation is staring at their overworked and over-stressed parents asking themselves what the point is. More of them are taking less stable NEET jobs over big corporations in order to get more flexibility with regards to a work-life balance, and they aren't spending that extra time dating.
Worse, I was watching the Japanese news (~6 years ago) which had a discussion where an economist pointed out that while wages have stagnated since the late 1980's, base taxes have gone up from 2.5% to 22%. The younger generations now have elder parents asking why they aren't being taken on trips around the world like they supported their parents, and the answer is simple: no one can afford it, let alone afford to have children.
Worse, I was watching the Japanese news (~6 years ago) which had a discussion where an economist pointed out that while wages have stagnated since the late 1980's, base taxes have gone up from 2.5% to 22%. The younger generations now have elder parents asking why they aren't being taken on trips around the world like they supported their parents, and the answer is simple: no one can afford it, let alone afford to have children.
Anecdote, but for some people, the question is the opposite, why are people having children? I understand that humans have biological desire to reproduce or some people may have a sense of community that may create the desire to generate nest generations. But for people who don't feel these feelings, making babies sound like extraordinary amount of work for questionable gains. I personally can't ever see myself having children.
Just my personal thoughts, this comment is not meant to include any judgement opinion.
Just my personal thoughts, this comment is not meant to include any judgement opinion.
It's an interesting idea. Some personalities will only have children if they're forced by circumstances. This was the norm back when contraceptives didn't exist, and cultures (probably out of necessity), structured themselves to compel people to have children.
Another interesting idea, is that over the long-term, cultures that allow their members the freedom not to have children, may be overrun peacefully or forcefully by those that don't, or that at least, provide larger incentives to have children. Moreover, again over a long enough time horizon, people's who naturally don't have the inclination to have children, will disappear from the gene pool, making having children (all other things equals) the most common and culturally sensible option.
Another interesting idea, is that over the long-term, cultures that allow their members the freedom not to have children, may be overrun peacefully or forcefully by those that don't, or that at least, provide larger incentives to have children. Moreover, again over a long enough time horizon, people's who naturally don't have the inclination to have children, will disappear from the gene pool, making having children (all other things equals) the most common and culturally sensible option.
It's a 18 year long personal project where you get to build/train your own embodied AI, and then let it loose to wreak havoc on the world.
Yes, I understand that can be one reason. I guess I'm curious if it's the reason. There can be negative economic incentives, cultural norms, lack of infrastructure to support larger child populations, etc.
I also know there's a tendency in more developed (or at least wealthier) countries that as they become more prosperous their populations have fewer children. I'm sure there's multiple reasons, but in the US it can be difficult to have children and support them in a single income. Yet at early ages daycare alone can eat into a significant part of someone's takehome salary. That economic equation puts some downward pressure on the # of kids.
I also know there's a tendency in more developed (or at least wealthier) countries that as they become more prosperous their populations have fewer children. I'm sure there's multiple reasons, but in the US it can be difficult to have children and support them in a single income. Yet at early ages daycare alone can eat into a significant part of someone's takehome salary. That economic equation puts some downward pressure on the # of kids.
People are worked to death and the country has been in stagnation for 30 years. Time that could be spent dating is spent working and future prospects seem bleak.
Plenty of first-world countries have birth rates comparable to Japan’s or even lower. The unique thing about Japan among developed countries isn’t its low birth rate, but its lack of mass immigration.
Indians are ready to come work for you, Japan. Just say the word.
Unfortunately, Japan is highly racist in their sponsorship of immigrants. They will take white people over other races every time. I'm not happy to recall the treatment I saw Indian tourists receive during my time in Shinjuku.
I lived in Japan for several years and found most people there to be open and friendly to other races. I had friends from India, Nigeria, China, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Brazil, US and Europe. I don't know that any of them felt particularly discriminated against because of their race. I certainly didn't, except perhaps once when a really old guy tried to hit me with his cane. But that's not to say that it doesn't exist. I just don't think it's rampant everywhere in Japan.
I'm not saying that it exhibits heavily in everyday interactions. I saw discrimination primarily when it came to club admittance and service at bars. But the most easily seen discrimination is definitely in hiring practices and "do I want this person in my country". There's a looooot of HR training and protections that need to exist in Japanese companies and simply don't.
In that case, investing in India might be the next best thing [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/india/japan-pm-kishida-announc...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/india/japan-pm-kishida-announc...
I don't know if this is done in good faith, but perhaps more as a "screw you" to China. India and China don't have the best relations, nor does Japan wish to see that change in the future.
Any country investing in another does so in their own self interest. The reasons are seldom altruistic.
More Indonesians here than Indians in my experience.
[deleted]
I think it's about time their government stopped perpetuating their desire for ethnic purity and start letting some skilled workers in. I can name about every friend on my fingers that wants to live over there instead of the cutthroat, poorly run USA. And these are people learning the language, too.
Part of the reason the USA is cutthroat and poorly run is because of how heterogeneous the population is and the frontier mindset that comes with that. Importing immigrants en masse is likely to cause a lot of social instability and isn't a decision that should be taken lightly.
Think about it, all the hallmarks of Japanese society, tradition, respect, how will those survive if there's a relentless onslaught of foreigners who do not understand or believe in those values. Part of what made Japan was their ability to guard themselves from foreign encroachment and only incorporate elements of western culture that worked for them.
Think about it, all the hallmarks of Japanese society, tradition, respect, how will those survive if there's a relentless onslaught of foreigners who do not understand or believe in those values. Part of what made Japan was their ability to guard themselves from foreign encroachment and only incorporate elements of western culture that worked for them.
> Importing immigrants en masse is likely to cause a lot of social instability and isn't a decision that should be taken lightly.
Look at it as an experiment. See what happens if you allow mass immigration. If you don't like the result, do what you'd do with any other policy - change it. ...Although I guess you'd be stuck with the immigrants you already imported. And they'd probably vote to continue immigration, as they have in the US.. in that sense, this is one policy choice that is largely irreversible.
Look at it as an experiment. See what happens if you allow mass immigration. If you don't like the result, do what you'd do with any other policy - change it. ...Although I guess you'd be stuck with the immigrants you already imported. And they'd probably vote to continue immigration, as they have in the US.. in that sense, this is one policy choice that is largely irreversible.
> See what happens if you allow mass immigration.
Sweden, Canada and others have already done that experiment.
Sweden, Canada and others have already done that experiment.
Sweden, one of the best places to live? Hell yeah dude!
Canada, also one of the best places to live? Also hell yeah dude!
Canada, most expensive housing on earth and 20% GDP per Capita decline in the last decade...
Sweden, constant riots and exponential increase in crime...
Edit - Canada is an OK place to live, it's definitely become far worse in my lifetime though (mainly because of affordability). The plus side is tons of nature, if you're into that (I live in a mountain town but if I leave this town it's for Europe, not anywhere else in Canada).
Sweden, constant riots and exponential increase in crime...
Edit - Canada is an OK place to live, it's definitely become far worse in my lifetime though (mainly because of affordability). The plus side is tons of nature, if you're into that (I live in a mountain town but if I leave this town it's for Europe, not anywhere else in Canada).
Before immigration, was Sweden one of the worst places? And immigrants saw how poorly it was doing, thought to themselves "we must help them", and moved there to do just that?
As far as I know it is, remains, and hasn't changed from being one of the top 5 countries to live on the planet.
It's insane to compare the recent immigration policies of Sweden and Germany to the US. US still has some of the most stringent rules for who can come in regardless of what you hear in the news.
Heterogeneity is not a homogenous quality, it can vary with spikes or with smooth curvature of slow population inflows over decades.
Heterogeneity is not a homogenous quality, it can vary with spikes or with smooth curvature of slow population inflows over decades.
> US still has some of the most stringent rules for who can come in regardless of what you hear in the news
How stringent can these rules be, when the US has 13.7% foreign born population (counting only 1st generation immigrants)? And how stringently can they be enforced, when 11.4 million of those immigrants are there illegally?
Source: https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/
How stringent can these rules be, when the US has 13.7% foreign born population (counting only 1st generation immigrants)? And how stringently can they be enforced, when 11.4 million of those immigrants are there illegally?
Source: https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/
I don't know if a "frontier mindset" comes from a hetereogenous population in general -- the very phrase "frontier" suggests to me it's more likely to come from our history where one kind of people had a "frontier" they were pushing out between them and people they were taking land from by force -- where one society of newcomers was entirely replacing/absorbing another pre-existing society, by force, not just hetereogenous people within a society. Obviously a pretty extreme conflict, that might result in lasting dynamics and mindsets, but the conflict wasn't really the inevitable effect of hetereogeniety alone -- and is of course a very different history than Japan's, and will remain so no matter their contemporary immigration policies.
Plenty of other places in the world are homogeneous but aren't exactly well run either. Having a homogeneous culture isn't the secret sauce.
IMO, and IME, the secret sauce is their education curriculum.
Japanese schoolteachers and the Japanese school curriculum spend a lot of time drilling correct social behavior in the classroom. You are socialized to obey the rules. You are socialized to think its bad to not follow the rules. You are socialized into being cohesive with the group.
I mean there is more to this. Their society as a whole has decided this is an acceptable task for schools to undertake and participate in it actively. But it’s the machine that keeps it going.
Also bullying is a feature not a bug, despite all modern attempts to squash it.
Japanese schoolteachers and the Japanese school curriculum spend a lot of time drilling correct social behavior in the classroom. You are socialized to obey the rules. You are socialized to think its bad to not follow the rules. You are socialized into being cohesive with the group.
I mean there is more to this. Their society as a whole has decided this is an acceptable task for schools to undertake and participate in it actively. But it’s the machine that keeps it going.
Also bullying is a feature not a bug, despite all modern attempts to squash it.
Don't ruin the pet argument of racists with logic.
I'm not talking about turning Japan into a bastion of liberty like the US with "give me your poor, your tired, your weak".
I'm talking about skilled workers that are willing to assimilate. I haven't taught myself Japanese for nothing. I'm not going to go over there and turn it into Texas.
I'm talking about skilled workers that are willing to assimilate. I haven't taught myself Japanese for nothing. I'm not going to go over there and turn it into Texas.
As far as I'm aware Japanese immigration policy for skilled workers is relatively lenient, it's just not generally considered an attractive place to migrate to from places that generate a lot of migrants.
It's lenient for certain sectors--programming, engineering. Niche STEM stuff where English is expected as the uniting language. But for anything else, it can be very difficult to move there.
But that leniency only comes into effect when you prove without question that it's near impossible to source local talent to fill a job, and the Japanese are extremely educated, so you're usually going to find companies will hire domestically before gambling on someone from the west who's used to superior salaries in USD.
Even if you're the world's best, your salary will drop to about 1/2 or 1/3 of what you can make in the US.
But that leniency only comes into effect when you prove without question that it's near impossible to source local talent to fill a job, and the Japanese are extremely educated, so you're usually going to find companies will hire domestically before gambling on someone from the west who's used to superior salaries in USD.
Even if you're the world's best, your salary will drop to about 1/2 or 1/3 of what you can make in the US.
> Part of the reason the USA is cutthroat and poorly run is because of how heterogeneous the population is and the frontier mindset that comes with that.
Is this a typo?
Is this a typo?
In what way is Japan less cutthroat?
Well, you don't see too many homeless people or citizens failing to receive medical treatment or retraining if they fall on hard times. It's a compassionate society when it comes to care. I'm sure it's cutthroat in the business sense, but that's normal. The US is cutthroat in nearly every aspect where we should care for one another and prevent problems from existing--gun control, drug use, unemployment, basic housing, education (this is getting worse the more evangelicals influence it), etc.
> this is getting worse the more evangelicals influence it
So, the problem is the homogeneous white rural population. Immigration is the ideal solution. They are the least susceptible to evangelicals.
So, the problem is the homogeneous white rural population. Immigration is the ideal solution. They are the least susceptible to evangelicals.
> Part of the reason the USA is cutthroat and poorly run is because of how heterogeneous the population is
This is xenophobic at best and borderline racist.
The US govnt is fraught with disfunction not because people look different, but probably because it's a highly capitalistic society that limits the hands of government control over its citizens, which in turn cause the "poorly run" state that you're observing.
This is xenophobic at best and borderline racist.
The US govnt is fraught with disfunction not because people look different, but probably because it's a highly capitalistic society that limits the hands of government control over its citizens, which in turn cause the "poorly run" state that you're observing.
>cutthroat, poorly run USA.
Japan is many things.
Not cutthroat is not among those things.
Japan is many things.
Not cutthroat is not among those things.
They're probably referring to healthcare in Japan. School and business culture is probably fairer and less sexist in the US than in Japan. Korea is similar too. Birthrate is declining. Immigration is kept very low; ethnic identity is important. Healthcare is way better than the US. And school and business culture are cutthroat and pretty sexist.
Correct, my apologies for not fully articulating. USA is extremely centered on "let the individual bear the burden", not "how can our society rise to the occasion".
Sure, we have a better choice of who we see and when as it comes to doctors, but you're also footing the cost more for that privilege.
Sure, we have a better choice of who we see and when as it comes to doctors, but you're also footing the cost more for that privilege.
I am 100% convinced you can have a choice of doctor and also cheaper healthcare. Things like price transparency in advance would already cheapen a lot. Also, I am not sure I would be able to argue that in Germany you have harder time to choose who to see.
Absolutely. You can walk into any medical clinic without having to check networks or get referrals. Procedures are relatively affordable and there is enough supply of local doctors (which from my observation seem to be a lot of doctors who got tired of the hospital grind and “retired”) where small ailments get looked at quickly and affordably.
The only mind-boggling thing about their system is that hospitals close on the weekends. Like…???????
The only mind-boggling thing about their system is that hospitals close on the weekends. Like…???????
Ah I see.
Yeah healthcare is great in Japan. Almost to the point where it’s not an active concern on trying to obtain it. It exists and you pay for it in the way the fire department exists and you pay for it (via taxes
Yeah healthcare is great in Japan. Almost to the point where it’s not an active concern on trying to obtain it. It exists and you pay for it in the way the fire department exists and you pay for it (via taxes
Well, that's just the thing.. We pay for healthcare already.. There's just this middleman in the way (insurance) taking the money instead of allowing us to pay directly to the government.
The more layers you put in between a patient and a rendered service, the more money you're wasting at each tier. Insurance doesn't make sense for anyone except the people selling it, and they've gotten so rich now that they're entrenched and won't dare let that change.
The more layers you put in between a patient and a rendered service, the more money you're wasting at each tier. Insurance doesn't make sense for anyone except the people selling it, and they've gotten so rich now that they're entrenched and won't dare let that change.
What is the government doing to create a desire within the population to start a family and have children?
It's a complex mess of lots of factors. Economically, the CPI is extremely resistant to change over there. Companies apologize for raising prices by even a few pennies. Nationally controlled zoning practices keep residential buildings high in supply, and they're not treated as investments like a home in the US is, so a house will become worth nearly nothing in 30 years' time.
Obviously, there are pros and cons to this. Cheap housing, but no transfer of wealth to later generations through housing. Even if your parents die, the estate they leave you is subject to a death tax, so you lose even more of what wealth they might have built for you.
I think the biggest factor to do with the decrease in birth rates is that school and work are so demanding over there. People can't relax well enough unless they find themselves in the graceful employment of western-style companies. Not everyone is a salaryman, but enough that it makes family life challenging.
Aside from that, you've also got the brain drain of urbanization, where most rural villages are outright dying as people migrate to Tokyo/Osaka/Kyoto/Fukuoka.
All this said, I'd still live there in a heartbeat. You will never live in a more affordable, safe, convenient city as Tokyo. No other city even comes close.
Obviously, there are pros and cons to this. Cheap housing, but no transfer of wealth to later generations through housing. Even if your parents die, the estate they leave you is subject to a death tax, so you lose even more of what wealth they might have built for you.
I think the biggest factor to do with the decrease in birth rates is that school and work are so demanding over there. People can't relax well enough unless they find themselves in the graceful employment of western-style companies. Not everyone is a salaryman, but enough that it makes family life challenging.
Aside from that, you've also got the brain drain of urbanization, where most rural villages are outright dying as people migrate to Tokyo/Osaka/Kyoto/Fukuoka.
All this said, I'd still live there in a heartbeat. You will never live in a more affordable, safe, convenient city as Tokyo. No other city even comes close.
Thank you for writing this out. I was not aware of these issues including the housing depreciation. My mind first jumps to incorporating a more euro centric style of living with six weeks minimum time off in full time positions. But, we see how that is working for the birth rate in those countries.
> I'd still live there in a heartbeat
Do you live there? Why not?
Do you live there? Why not?
It's funny and a bit of a sore subject that you ask. I'm currently waiting on a final offer and COE (for a visa) from a startup founder in Nagano whose company might be imploding right now. I've learned the language, and I have the skills (product design) to live there, but it's very hard to break in unless you're already over there.
Many people will take a crap English teaching job to land there and then interview on that visa to land a job in their desired sector, but knowing the language is crucial. This kind of visa abuse is also highly frowned upon.
So, who knows. I might still end up where I want to work in time, but right now it's been crickets between emails with the founder.
Many people will take a crap English teaching job to land there and then interview on that visa to land a job in their desired sector, but knowing the language is crucial. This kind of visa abuse is also highly frowned upon.
So, who knows. I might still end up where I want to work in time, but right now it's been crickets between emails with the founder.
Indeed. Japan has amazing urban culture, people and food. Language is definitely a barrier. But the lack of options for long term settlement certainly pushes away all but the most hardcore immigrants.
In general, don’t we want the global population to fall a bit?
8-10 billion people are taxing the planet. Climate change, plastic use that ends up everywhere, …
8-10 billion people are taxing the planet. Climate change, plastic use that ends up everywhere, …
What’s special about 8 billion? Granted, it’s a very large number, the largest human population the Earth has ever seen. 50 years ago we were only half as many.
But 50 years ago someone could say (and it’s virtually guaranteed someone did say) that 4 billion is too many. Because 4 billion at the time was the largest number of people simultanously alive on our little planet. It was twice as many as there were just 50 years before.
And I bet in 1922, people were thinking that 2 billion is to many. We had just left behind a devastating war and an even more lethal pandemic. It mustve appeared that the planet just cannot bear 2 billion of us.
So, when you say the world population should go down a bit, do you mean down to 7, to 5, or to 1 billion? Why not 200 million. We were about as many during the Roman Empire and still perfectly capable of astonishing feats of war and devastation.
But 50 years ago someone could say (and it’s virtually guaranteed someone did say) that 4 billion is too many. Because 4 billion at the time was the largest number of people simultanously alive on our little planet. It was twice as many as there were just 50 years before.
And I bet in 1922, people were thinking that 2 billion is to many. We had just left behind a devastating war and an even more lethal pandemic. It mustve appeared that the planet just cannot bear 2 billion of us.
So, when you say the world population should go down a bit, do you mean down to 7, to 5, or to 1 billion? Why not 200 million. We were about as many during the Roman Empire and still perfectly capable of astonishing feats of war and devastation.
8 billion people is the current population that’s why it was mentioned.
Look at all the coal we burn,
Climate change is unavoidable at this point…
pollution of the oceans, encroachment onto wildlife, etc.
Humans have done a lot of damage.
also, we grow chickens in cages, overfish the oceans…
Anyway, I’m really amazed that I have to go into detail… I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet
Look at all the coal we burn,
Climate change is unavoidable at this point…
pollution of the oceans, encroachment onto wildlife, etc.
Humans have done a lot of damage.
also, we grow chickens in cages, overfish the oceans…
Anyway, I’m really amazed that I have to go into detail… I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet
Still, would you be content with 6 billion, or what?
Absolute number doesn't matter, impact does. Economic demand for environmental destruction is easiest to reduce by reducing population though.
> I thought we were all on the same page for the “human footprint “ on the planet
We are on the same page on the some things, but not all.
You say we burn too much coal. I say that too. We are on the same page.
I say we need to burn less coal. You say there need to be fewer of us. We are not on the same page.
The thing is, we already are burning less coal. Much less. The US has burned 1 billion tons annually between 2000 and 2010. Now we burn half of that.
We did not need to reduce our population by half in order to achieve that.
We can achieve lots of similar things without reducing our population.
We are on the same page on the some things, but not all.
You say we burn too much coal. I say that too. We are on the same page.
I say we need to burn less coal. You say there need to be fewer of us. We are not on the same page.
The thing is, we already are burning less coal. Much less. The US has burned 1 billion tons annually between 2000 and 2010. Now we burn half of that.
We did not need to reduce our population by half in order to achieve that.
We can achieve lots of similar things without reducing our population.
Globally we are burning a lot more coal than 20 years ago.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-coal-pla...
40% of electricity globally is generated with coal.
US per capita CO2 emissions are still high. If all 8 billion people got to live like the average American, we’d have an even bigger problem.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-coal-pla...
40% of electricity globally is generated with coal.
US per capita CO2 emissions are still high. If all 8 billion people got to live like the average American, we’d have an even bigger problem.
Fair enough. We need to do something about this. We are fully on the same page.
That does not mean we need to be fewer. Just like the US could reduce its coal consumption by a factor of 2 (and more will come), the rest of the world can do that too. The technology is here. Everywhere you read, they say it's more economical to build a new solar power plant than to operate an existing coal plant. That may be an exaggeration, but solar is getting very competitive. Coal is on its way out.
That does not mean we need to be fewer. Just like the US could reduce its coal consumption by a factor of 2 (and more will come), the rest of the world can do that too. The technology is here. Everywhere you read, they say it's more economical to build a new solar power plant than to operate an existing coal plant. That may be an exaggeration, but solar is getting very competitive. Coal is on its way out.
Nope. The facts clearly show you are wrong. Good luck with climate change.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265507/global-coal-consu...
Solar is 3% of electricity
https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265507/global-coal-consu...
Solar is 3% of electricity
https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/
No, overpopulation is a myth.
It really isn't unless looking at the world through the eyes of a "everything exists to be consumed by humans, preferably me and my family/friends" entity. Shortcut to dystopia, this.
Yeah, I know at least a handful of people who would take every last bit of this at face value. Even early gems like "The world must be covered with beautiful, black asphalt." and "1.2 Why asphalt? Simply put, everything else sucks." would not throw them off.
Just last week, I was told that if we were to place the entire human population next to each other, we would take this and this insignificant space on just one continent.
Apparently, overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by a shadowy group championed by Bill Gates himself, and they are the ones responsible for my disagreement with the fact that "they" (said group of global elite) are trying to reduce the population in order to control the world.
Just last week, I was told that if we were to place the entire human population next to each other, we would take this and this insignificant space on just one continent.
Apparently, overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by a shadowy group championed by Bill Gates himself, and they are the ones responsible for my disagreement with the fact that "they" (said group of global elite) are trying to reduce the population in order to control the world.
Yes this exactly, but also produce. Remember, production comes first, stuff we want doesn’t (mostly) grow on trees.
some humans populations are growing rapidly.. almost fifty percent of the entire population is under 25 in some groups, right now.. it happened during the same years that these IT and JP populations fell.
Without elaborate socio-political analysis, falling back to simple biology, one model says there are "K"-type populations and "N"-type populations.. it explains a lot right there.
Without elaborate socio-political analysis, falling back to simple biology, one model says there are "K"-type populations and "N"-type populations.. it explains a lot right there.
Where is the evidence that it's taxing the planet?
>and start letting some skilled workers in
Why is third world brain drain the only palatable solution to population decline? What about programs that encourage native reproduction?
Why is third world brain drain the only palatable solution to population decline? What about programs that encourage native reproduction?
I'm not saying it's the only solution. This is an interim improvement that helps their country in the short-term while giving foreigners a nicer place to migrate and assimilate into.
Obviously, this problem is more systemic than what immigration outright fixes. As to what steps are needed to rectify it, I couldn't say, nor would I dare to as a third party gaijin.
Obviously, this problem is more systemic than what immigration outright fixes. As to what steps are needed to rectify it, I couldn't say, nor would I dare to as a third party gaijin.
> third world brain drain
> native reproduction
You really are a piece of work!
> native reproduction
You really are a piece of work!
[deleted]
[deleted]
dominotw(1)
However, Japan's GDP growth is not too different from that of similar OECD countries that have much greater rates of immigration. Many European countries also have similarly ageing populations, but their more relaxed immigration rules don't seem to make a big difference to economic growth.
So if Japan's productivity is maintained, I don't really see that a falling population is a major concern. In fact, it could even conceivably have a pay-off in terms of reduced environmental burdens and cheaper housing.