Anti-foreigner sentiments are on the rise as Japan faces a population crisis
Outside a train station near Tokyo, hundreds of people cheer as Sohei Kamiya, head of the surging nationalist party Sanseito, criticizes Japan’s rapidly growing foreign population.
As opponents, separated by uniformed police and bodyguards, accuse him of racism, Kamiya shouts back, saying he is only talking common sense.
Sanseito, while still a minor party, made big gains in July’s parliamentary election, and Kamiya's “Japanese First” platform of anti-globalism, anti-immigration and anti-liberalism is gaining broader traction ahead of a ruling party vote Saturday that will choose the likely next prime minister.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/anti-foreigner-sentiments-politicians-rise-japan-faces-population-126139879Open linkView original on lemmy.nz464
Comments274
I keep hearing racist nationalists say stuff like this worldwide, and not matter how hard I squint it remains a non sequitur.
I mean, "we have a population crisis" and "don't let people come here" seem entirely contradictory unless you are... well, a supremacist.
Which they are, it's just the leap that gets me. So obvious, so rarely called out and never addressed.
Without getting into discussion about how right or wrong they are those people are primarily worried about the identity of their country. They believe that sustaining the population growth by letting in big numbers of foreigners will destroy their culture. They prefer to suffer the consequences of population crisis than live in a country with different values and traditions. Is it supremacy? Sure it is. But it's also logical.
Logical if you believe your race/identity are superior to others, which is an illogical starting premise and the root of why conservatives are always on the wrong side of history.
Doesn't have to the superior, but one of personal preference. You like the current cultural values and know other cultures don't necessarily share them and so fear a cultural shift.
In this case though I think you're right that there's a strong superiority aspect.
What's illogical about it? How can you even apply logic to personal values and opinions?
Recognize that it is an opinion that some people may disagree with, not a fact that everyone has to accept, and act accordingly. In this case, that means not using the force of government to persecute people who disagree with your opinion.
You're still talking about how they are wrong but not how they are illogical. You can still apply logic to lies. It doesn't make them true but it also doesn't make it illogical.
Wut?
No, I'm not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.
If you're looking for a utilitarian reason to behave the way I am suggesting, I would say that when you start taking tangible objective actions against everyone who doesn't agree with your particular subjective preferences you will give people with a variety of different subjective preferences something in common (i.e. that they are being oppressed by you) and that will eventually make them work together to stop you. On a long enough timeline, tyranny is always a losing strategy.
That's just something you made up. Logic doesn't start from objective reality and preferences. It's just a tool.
If A then B. If B then C. Therefore if A then C.
I don't have to know what A, B and C are in some objective reality for this rule to be true. I can see you struggle to understand that logic is abstract and separate it from facts you want to apply it to but that's just what logic is. You're basically confusing logic with truth. To decide what is true you have to start with some objective reality and apply logic to it but you can apply logic to anything. You can apply it correctly to Harry Potter or to invalid facts. You will not reach truth but you're reasoning can still be logical.
In what world is "I rather die in squalor and let the entire country suffer than see people that look different than me on the street, eat some food I don't recognize", logical?
In a world where someone would prefer that. You can't apply logic to preferences. When I got to a dentists for a filling I ask them not to give me local anesthesia because I prefer the pain to the numbness. 99% of people I know don't agree. It doesn't make my choice illogical, it just means I have different preferences.
that is a flawed analogy making it a strawman
the equivalent would be that, instead of the numbness, you rather die in 10 years from this very preventable death... the outrageous extreme of this decision flagship indicator of irrationality
It is only logical if you're... well, a supremacist.
I mean, it requires a mental framework of how culture and identity work that is fundamentally supremacist.
Culture works by aggregation, it's entirely unrelated to borders and it is in perpetual shift. This assumption requires misunderstanding culture from a very specific perspective.
So no, not logical.
Internally consistent, yes: make women into reproductive vessels and men into the defenders of a fossilized culture enforced through violence. That's a consistent worldview.
But not a logical one if you apply it to reality. The difference matters.
It matters if we're arguing who's right. If you just want to understand their mental jump it doesn't. Of course those people are ignorant, misinformed or have ulterior motives but their believes are often logical. It's like not vaccinating your kids because you believe vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Or course it's wrong but if you really believe it, being anti-vax is logical. Where it stops being logical is in the MAGA movement. They want to drain the swamp by voting for a criminal and want to fight pedophiles by electing one. It's just a cult, there's no logic there. The far right movements in Europe/Japan are build on misinformation but still need to invent logical arguments.
Sure, but that's taking the concept of what's "logical" to absurd extremes. Any sort of paranoid delusion is logical if you accept all of its premises.
Is being antivax logical? Not at all. It requires amazing mental gymnastics to ignore centuries of scientific research. Things that are "logical if you believe them" is a great way to describe things that aren't logical. Vaccines do not, in fact, by all available measures, cause more dangerous issues than the diseases they prevent. If your "logic" requires a rejection of the entire epistemological framework upon which shared scientific kknowledge is established it's not "logic", kind of by definition.
This is the same thing. Its internal consistency isn't "logic". It can be shown to not be logical. If you suspend yourself from that conversation, deny the parameters of anybody who disagrees with you and cherry pick your values to specifically support your instinctively desired conclusion, then it doesn't matter how well you can through your train of thought, it's still indefensible.
I think that's why the MAGA thing stumps you a bit. Their train of thought isn't any better or worse than this. It's, in fact, identical. Information that supports it gets magnified, information that disrupts it is ignored. They are fun about it in that they add this cool temporal dimension, where that selection is applied regardless of how it was applied before, so they're all for free speech when people tell them to shut up, all for limiting speech when people criticise them. But that's not different to the fundamental contradiction of being concerned about a population crisis when you are trying to turn women into walking incubators but concerned about the massive influx of people when you're trying to be racist.
It's a lot of things, but it's not logic.
No, it's just what logic is. Anti-vaxer doesn't have to know the science. Not knowing something doesn't mean my reasoning lacks logic. I can invent some facts and then apply logic to them. Logic doesn't have to operate on true statements. "All unicorns are pink and all pink animals eat clouds hence all unicorns eat clouds".
That's... not how that works when you make statements about the world. Your unicorn example is all well and good in a universe where there are only hypothetical animals, but you're eliding big chunks of that chain. "Unicorns are pink" is a valid statement in the abstract, but if you're arguing about animals in the real world that's not where the chain starts. The chain goes: unicorns exist, unicorns are pink, all pink animals eat clouds.
And of course in this situation you need to evaluate each statement. Unicorns exist is going to be a big fat FALSE, which means you can't claim all unicorns eat clouds and argue it's a logical statement. It's a meaningless statement by itself because it depends on a false assumption.
Which is my exact point. You are claiming the argument is logical because you're assuming the only requirement is that it is internally consistent when all their premises are accepted. But the premises are false, so it's not. I appreciate that you're getting stuck when the chain of statements they cherry pick changes over time (see the free speech example), but they're not meaningfully different. If you let them cherry pick the clauses they need to verify and ignore everything else they can make a consistent argument in the moment about anything, including vaccines and flat planets and jewish space lasers.
I mean, no they can't because they suck at this. But still, they can make something close enough to one that if they speak fast and loudly enough on the Internet they can get more morons to follow their channels than to block them, so... here we are, I suppose.
"I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are MORE dangerous then disease so I don't vaccinate my kids" - that's a logical statement.
"I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose A". That's logical.
In this case, to change the outcome you need to attack the facts. You have to prove that vaccines are in fact LESS dangerous and then, using the same logic, the person will conclude that he should vaccinate his kids.
"I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are LESS dangerous then disease so I don't vaccinate my kids" - that's illogical statement.
"I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose B". That's illogical.
In this case you're not going to argue the facts. The person already thinks that vaccines are LESS dangerous but his logic is wrong. You have to fix theirs logic and they will arrive a the correct conclusion.
The original case of anti-foreigner sentiment is the first case. The logic is valid, the facts are wrong. For some reason you're not getting the difference.
Logic is based on facts, ie: if you jump into a pool > you will get wet.
Believing that logic is not factually-based is absolutely off-base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content.
Looks at pile of dead cultures in textbook.... No, that's not logical. That's Jingoist dumbassery.
Like, if you start with the premise that they are right and you are wrong I guess it would be illogical to disagree with them, but that's just a completely meaningless argument that doesn't tell us anything too interesting about abstract reasoning nor does it have any substantive connection to factual reality that I can see
Many cultures adapt for the better / become more humanist with open migration. Think of it as enhancing your identity (which is likely just mid at best in its current form if we're being real)
I think you missed the part where I'm not saying immigration is bad. I'm just explaining how people who oppose immigration think.
Sorry but in the case of Japan, it's definitely not logical. At best, they have an argument against over-tourism. But the Sanseito party acts like foreigners moving to Japan are creating a spike in crime. They literally have young women weeping through a megaphone on the street, crying that foreigners are rapists. But that's simply not backed up by statistics. Crime per capita has not increased, and the demographic committing the most serious crimes in Japan is predominantly native Japanese.
So they are lying but their argument is "foreigners cause crime which is worse than demographic issues so we don't want foreigners" which is logical. Logic != truth.
Pff OK if that's the argument you want to go with, I don't think we need to continue.
Yes, I also think that my factual statement accurately pointing out how your reasoning is flawed and how I'm right is a good way to end this discussion.
If your culture can't stand up to outside influence was it really that great? Also, the door to the world has been opened. There's no closing that one it's been open. So they'd rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?
Yes, exactly. That's a perfect summary.
Japanese people are being fed the same kind of propaganda as UK citizens and Americans. People say ridiculous things like "What if the number of foreigners increases to 20% of the total population? Then women will be sexually assaulted." Instead of immigrant gangs taking over apartment buildings and eating the pets it's foreigners buying up all the land to build compounds for foreigners to live in and pooping in the streets.
But there is also a feedback loop where nationalists in Japan make the news, and it's repeated by right wing foreigners who don't know Japan but admired their idealized, racially pure Japan where everyone is polite and orderly and this would never happen, and then that gets repeated to Japanese people as if it were large numbers of foreigners warning them not to let immigration ruin Japan as it has ruined those other countries. Most of the Japanese people in this loop don't understand English, and the right wing foreigners don't understand Japanese. The reality isn't always faithfully translated in either direction, and the language barrier makes it harder for people to realize the discrepancy.
I'd like to clarify that I had never hardly ever pooped on a street.
Is there nowhere in the world now that fascist racists are not on the rise?
It feels like we are barreling towards another world war.
I wonder if economics has anything to do with this trend worldwide. When people have to worry about their next meal every day they tend to get frustrated and finding something or someone to blame, rightly or wrongly,is a way to vent that frustration.
With more and more wealth concentrating at the top 1% it stands to reason that the population that feels frustrated is increasing quickly.
it's a direct result of global economies. When things are bad financially the scapegoats are ALWAYS immigrants and the poor. always. every single time. "Things are tough for you? well it's that group over there...it's their fault!" and collectively our society in their infinite wisdom consistently fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
However unlike other countries Japan isn't pumping out kids regardless of the scape goats. So compared to other places this rhetoric coming from them is extremely idiotic. And if a Japanese person believes this is the way forward then I hold them in lower regard than your average MAGA cultist. I didn't think you could have a population more stupid than MAGA but Japan, good job, you proved me wrong.
Yeah the consistent and ever growing wealth gap as corporations continue to grow more profitable and people have more trouble affording food and housing is at the core of a lot of it. People are angry, but the corporations/1% are spending billions on social media, lobbying, funding certain political campaigns etc to convince people that their anger should be directed towards others around them. It’s the fault of foreigners, immigrants, minorities, women, LGBTQ, the young, the old, etc etc.
And on the other side of that, Russia has been working to stir up division in a ton of nations since the 90s and has gotten much better at it with social media, so these two groups have homogenized.
Then on the third level, the super rich billionaires like musk and Thiel want dark enlightenment, which is the collapse of society so they can create neofuedalism and run their own techno-slavery-kingdoms, so they want it just as bad.
What's that "T" for again?
Ah yeah, sorry, wrote that rant while on the verge of falling asleep, thanks for the heads up
like how WW2 followed ten years of great depressioning
Of course: the more people feel the system isn’t working for them, the more they’re willing to vote for nontraditional candidates who promise to burn it down. More often than not, those candidates are right-wing demagogues.
Inequality breeds resentment, it's hardwired in our brains. And resentful people are easily led to blame minorities, something hateful and/or power hungry can use for political gains. The ones causing the inequality are more than happy to help this process asking as it usually keeps them from being blamed.
And as in the current political and economic system the inequality globally can only increase, blame and hate is what you get.
Its so depressing, swap just a few nouns around and it reads exactly like an article about the UK
Come on up to Canada, amigo.
Just don't acknowledge Alberta and it's all good
You mean USA-light?
That's because our elected leaders are barreling us towards a war. It's good for the economy..
Mariana trench.
The global collapsing of communism was always inevitable.
There has always been 1 of 2 choices countries would make when it finally arrived.
Abandon the system of capital and embrace socialism
Quintuple down on all the worst aspects of capitalism by fully embracing fascism and dooming your society to total collapse
Yes. This is a Western capitalism thing; Chinese politics has only recently discovered rightwing nationalism and there are plenty of non-Western thriving democracies in, say, South America.
This has to be one of the most absurd claims I've seen in a while. You go on to contradict yourself in your second sentence. And still get it wrong. China didn't just discover bigotry. They've been dealing with it since before the founding of the United States or capitalism for that matter.
South America full of thriving democracies? Are we talking about the authoritarian one Trump is paying to torture innocent undocumented. Or is it the fascist one Trump is talking about sending 20 billion to bail out their flailing populist leadership. Or is it the one that got lucky and woke up enough last minute to unseat their burgeoning fascist and take him to trial? But still chock full of the descendants of nazi german expats. Or was it all the tiny ones around them. That have to deal with all of them and the narco cartels. Regularly having elected leaders slaughtered. Hell even Mexico is struggling with that. And I'd say their leadership is far better that what we have here.
It's got nothing to do with the west or capitalism. Though the West and capitalism has done very little to actually help the situation. Tribalism and xenophobic bigotry are basic human nature unfortunately.
Good thing I didn't say "bigotry," then, I said "rightwing nationalism." Also I think it was clear I was referring to the modern PRC, not past Chinese polities. It's no coincidence that the Uighur genocide, an aggressive posture towards Taiwan and budding pro-natalism all came within the same general time period. China will eventually have to deal with fascism, but they're not barreling towards it like Western capitalist countries are because their history under capitalism is shorter and fascism hasn't had time to metastasize yet.
Again literally not what I said. I said there are plenty of thriving democracies in the world, and gave an example of one place where they exist. The existence of non-democratic countries in South America doesn't contradict this statement.
Yes, that one.
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Like, at all. What's even your point here?
Fun fact: Homicide rates across South and Central America has been decreasing hard this last decade. Sure the cartels are a massive problem, but they're a massive problem that's getting better
Authoritarianism has nothing to do with the West or capitalism, but fascism specifically is a phenomenon that requires established capitalism.
The fact that you didn't use the term does not change the fact that it's what you're describing.Even if you choose to call it something, it isn't.
We are not here to play Calvin Ball with you. It's also quite obvious that people are getting irritated by your kayfabe.
It literally is. Nationalism is a relatively new idea, emerging during the late 18th century. The concept of a French nation or a Chinese nation is a very recent thing, and either way I was very clearly talking about the modern PRC not the fucking Qing dynasty.
... and just like the USA, it's all populism, rage baiting and ZERO actual solutions
As it turns out, we are all human and are all vulnerable to the same psychological manipulations. No country is immune without active resistance.
yes but the more ignorant a population is, the easier the target
It's very easy to judge from the outside looking in. Every country has a version of MAGA. But there are probably people around the world who also sees the entire USA as MAGA, in the same way this post sees Japan as dominated by racists.
I was comparing the racist japanese candidate with the trump clown show
Yes, that's how these things manifest. I don't disagree. When I said "this post", I didn't mean yours, but the post in general, with all the replies. Some are saying the Japanese hate children, or they wouldn't go there anymore because of the anti-foreigner stance, or that everyone is overworked.
It's social media, if you get a half assed knee jerk reaction you got lucky... there are no intelligent discussions going on here
Japanese people are extremely racist. They genuinely put republicans to shame.
The open secret of most Asian societies!
I've known several people who are half Japanese and whose grandmothers would never forgive them for that fact. They'd love all the cousins and shit on them. It's really sad.
Japan's population crisis is caused by its young people being too overworked and overcharged to want to have children. Their population by age is becoming very top-heavy which means that the young are paying a lot to keep the old alive.
The solution to this (apart from don't get into such a situation) is to import young workers to even out your population spread and to raise wages in line with the cost of living and raising a family.
They appear to be shouting "Damn foreigners! Coming over here and making all our elderly live longer than we can economically support them! Overworking our breeding generation so they don't want kids! Curse those foreigners!"
(overworks and robs an entire generation to death)
"Why would foreigners do this?"
Also I'm almost getting tired of posting this brilliant illustration but sheesh, if the jingoistic authoritarian entitlement clan isn't using the same playbook every. Time.
It really is the best illustration of exactly what's happening.
I'm not sure I like this comic because it suggests:
I think both assumptions are actually copes by a middle class who, afraid to look at its own complicity in neoliberalism, find's easier to condemn the common people as racist and intellectually deficient.
In actuality I think the working class is intuitively aware that their disfranchisement is directly connected to policies like immigration. Along with the opening up of global markets which had a disruptive affect on wages the policy of open immigration has kept wages low and fractured communities and a common sense of culture.
Statistically and visibly just how it is. Those dudes work two jobs that are both really bad to live in a shithole, because they have no choice.
'Member WWII, or WWI, or the various imperial wars before that? I 'member. The prejudices are intuitive alright.
I think not acknowledging that both are true and happen over and over again is a cope. The subset of middle class people who realise what's going on are that way, because they're basically working class people, but for whatever reason are privileged enough to spend time actually learning and understanding.
So you dislike it because it's real and accurate? I don't understand, it could not be more accurate and straight forward for a comic
I think the cookie represents entitlements or government services granted to citizens.
The wealthy person has oodles of subsidies and tax breaks, but is trying to scare the working person by talking about the immigrant seeking equality.
That is literally the messaging from corporate media sources. The comic doesn't really get into whether the working person believes it or not, to me it's more about the messaging used by the wealthy.
I don't actually think global markets or immigration are inherently bad things. It's vastly superior to nationalism and rigid borders. The problems are entirely caused capital and the exploitation of workers, hence the plate overflowing with cookies. The wealthy are the problem, not immigrants.
The cookie could just be stuff in general. Rich people have lots for no reason, workers have a little or none depending on whether their ancestors were from a lucky region.
No, the cookie is just employment (money for work)
Then why does the rich bald guy have so many? He doesn't do shit.
nepo baby
Funny math. Here's a pretty nice explainer.
TBF it's not a universally agreed on theory, but it's plausible and can produce the exact real distribution of wealth with minimal changes.
Boomers of the world consumed all resources and pulled up all ladders behind them. American Boomers are especially oblivious to their roles in creating the current world, and seemingly oblivious to concepts like basic empathy. Their entire worldview is a function of how they can best benefit. "Generation Me," was the perfect tag.
Got mine, fuck you
Its basically the exact same issue happening everywhere in the western world, Japan is just a few steps further a long.
While this may be a contributing factor, there is obviously more to it. Japanese workers actually work less than the OECD average hours per year. Take a look at a handful of countries such as: Mexico, South Korea, United States, Finland, Germany, and Japan (generally representative of their respective regions and income levels)
Then compare those country's hours worked to their fertility rate
Mexico works the most hours of any of those countries by far, only behind Colombia in terms of hours worked, yet has the highest fertility rate of any countries I listed
South Korea works a lot of hours, second highest of those countries, just above the US. They have by far the lowest birth rate. A bit over half that of Italy and Japan, the 2nd and 3rd lowest birthrate countries, yet both Italy and Japan work far less hours than South Korea
Germany and Finland, famed for their quality of life and lower working hours, both have relatively low fertility rates. Far less than the US and Mexico, countries with far more hours worked, and far fewer legal protections to workers - especially pregnant women
In short, when comparing different countries, I don't see a substantial correlation between hours worked and fertility rate
Basically, a shrinking population is good for the people, because there's fewer people among which to divide the resources that the land can provide, so on average that should mean more resources for people, in other words a lower cost of living (since cost of living depends on resource availability). And it also means that there's less supply of human labor on the labor market, and by the rule of Supply and demand that means that the prices for human labor (wages) are gonna go up, i.e. people are gonna get paid better for what they do.
That intuitively makes sense, because if your country has 10 million people instead of 100 million, then your CEOs and companies are better gonna treat your workers better or they're gonna strike, and since there's fewer other people to replace those workers, their strike would have greater impact and therefore more power.
on top of that, you can't just assume that there will be a high demand of human labor in the future. You have to assume that automation is going to reduce jobs, so if you don't also reduce the number of workers, you're gonna face an unemployment crisis, and that can be very bad for the workers.
More humans = more demand for labor, because there are more needs.
And humans are a resource too, a very important one nowadays. And more humans = more specialization.
Japan will be the test case for declining populations. They will be the first to show us the consequences and the right and wrong ways to deal with the issue.
Short of Malthusian disasters, I don't think any sort of economy in human history has had to deal with this.
The nazi party is funded by Russia btw and there's so much propaganda in Japan rn its insane. One major piece still making news is that foreign tourists dont pay their hospital bills and losing "Japan so much money". The amount of unpaid bills was 400k usd that year and foreign tourists revenue was 58 BILLION usd. That's 0.00069% loss of total revenue.
This constant propaganda around the world is so depressing and not because its there but because truth is right next to it and nobody's looking.
That much is obvious. Japan only has miniscule amount of foreigners compared to other countries but somehow managed to also have been stoken up with anti-foreign sentiment. It's all the dark money flowing into social media algorithms brainwashing people. And the truth is that data is the new gold. Personal information is not only commodified but also weaponised. However, as you said, the truth is next to it but nobody is looking.
Here's a bit of a rant.
Japanese people have notoriously been xenophobic, racist, or ignorant... but they also tend to be quiet and polite since the war, so they've really cleaned up their image.
They've also had their egos constantly stroked with all the TV networks showing stupid shows where all the foreigners are SO AMAZED by Japanese culture. Same with all these social media content. It's really annoying. Being proud of your culture and heritage shouldn't need recognition by foreigners and it certainly shouldn't need belittling of others.
Not saying that everyone is a racist. Not by a long shot. It's just that this kind of self-centered, xenophobic ember had been kept alive in a non-negligible number of people. And I feel like now, there is this perfect environment for which the shitty few to really have themselves heard for maximum exposure and influence. It sucks.
They are really hell bent on self destruction.
that headline brilliantly conveys the absurdity of the situation
Exactly my thought. It's crazy.
It's actually scary how quick they're rising. I live in Japan, and I once heard them at a intersection nearby on a car giving a speech. I hated how they speak. They sounded like they were heavily appealing to the emotion and used a lot of sentence final particles like ne, in a tone that sounded half-aggressive and also... very conservative in a way. They were talking some shit about how Japanese people should come first and that we should "protect Japan", as if there was some sort of foreign force trying to tear Japan down to pieces. What's worse was that there were actually people cheering for them. I actually wanted to go downstairs to shout at them but I restrained myself from doing that. I still sort of regret not going there to shout at them.
Their society will collapse from this racism in a generation or so. No point in correcting people who can't see the writing on the wall. As much as the current regime tries to deny it, immigrants have been the strength of the US.
That party is minority. So yeah, fuck them. But what about the rest of the people in the country? There are many well intentioned folks in Japan, some of them have some xenophobic beliefs, but that doesn't mean they'll all never learn.
But they haven't learned.
I know for a fact that there are well meaning Americans too. But, sadly, they elected the current fascist regime.
They're scared. If you believe the info out there, population collapse is imminent. Someone shouting out patriotism, rallying the people, is probably a comforting thought to them. They need someone to blame, the outsiders are easiest.
When people don't feel they can afford the time and money to have kids, populations break and noone is addressing it. The world could probably stand to have some population regulation back down from 8bil, but this isn't the way :(
The first sign of a feeble mind.
Alas, it's so ubiquitous :(
It's absolutely horrifying how effective it is to stand in front of a group of people, name their fears and then suggest ill-concieved solutions to the fears. They're so desperate for someone to come along and solve their problems that they don't want to think critically about what is being said. Humanity as a whole is just so easy to control.
More people need to raise hell about this group because they also have members who deny the Nanking Massacre.
So do Japanese history school books, they call it the Nanjing incident and divide the numbers of murdered by 10-ish
Japan is also led by a right wing government, just not as anti-immigration as these guys
I can't say for sure regarding the textbooks because my kids aren't old enough to have learned about it, and I grew up in Canada.
And yes, you're definitely right about the government as well. At least they care about how they look to the world. Sanseito, on the other hand, don't give a shit.
They are having a population crisis ... an aging boomer generation that just won't die and their many children who will add to the aging population while the generations after these groups had fewer children. The population is now full of old people with very few young Japanese to take care of them.
It won't matter how nationalist they want to be ... they're stuck with the problem of having a huge aging population and far too few young people.
Whether they like it or not, if they want to maintain the country's current level of development, they're going to need young people from somewhere else to fill the gaps.
Or they could fix their sex problem
That is a solution .... but you have to wait about 50 - 70 years to see the result
Racism and xenophobia aside, how many humans do we need? Our poor earth. A declining population is probably an ok thing. I think it's the capitalist class ringing the alarm bell as they see their profit forecasts take a blow. How many hundreds of millions should that island hold?
I'm all for persons voluntarily opting to have fewer (or no) progeny. Certainly, that is my intent.
But, Malthus was wrong on so many levels, and regulating reproductive activity even with the best of intent is going to be abused by eugenicists for genocide.
The already posted SK vid explains how the current social systems in most countries need at least replacement birth rates. It might be possible to have a society that could survive less-than-replacement birth rates, but I don't see how.
Tax the F out of the rich and give it to child-bearing families. The amount is based on the rate of decline. Hand it out as a monthly stipend, and enforce checks for kids' quality of life.
Free government-staffed daycare.
3 Months Paid Paternity/Maternity, guaranteed jobs.
Free Fertility Clinics.
It's going to be expensive AF for a generation or two.
That's not how to survive with less-than-replacement birth rates, that's how to get higher-than-replacement birth rates (possibly without immigration). (I will admit that I was unclear that I meant "I don't see how" to long-term sustain population decreases.)
But, absolutely, to get more birth, you need to have lots of support for child-raising, so that it is seen as more joyful than it is stressful. I know SK is having problems getting the political (or even democratic) will to implement those things, and even if they did all of that today AND birth rate immediately soared, they'd still have a "demographic squeeze" that their current economy can't sustain.
I don't think Japan is facing the demographic squeeze, yet. I don't think you'd find much support for these "COMMUNIST" ideas among Kamiya's followers, tho.
It's tunable. You don't need to exceed, you can run at 99.95 and slowly back down.
Still going to have the geriatric problem, but that seems more approachable.
I want to add that historically, in the US from 1680 to 1880, the population has grown by approximately 3% annually. Source
(In the table, since the growth rate given is per 10-year interval, you have to divide it by 10, roughly, to get 3% annual growth)
This suggests that it should be possible (at least in theory) that the population can shrink at the same speed, i.e. 3% annually. This would mean an average fertility rate around 0.66 children/woman. Currently, in most western nations, it's around 1.4, while 2.1 would be "replacement levels", i.e where the population numbers stagnate.
The reason why i think you can have a 3% annual population decline is because it's kinda symmetric: instead of a surplus in children (which eat and consume resources but don't contribute through their labor power), you have a surplus of old people (which, mostly, also consume resources but don't work). So, the situation is kinda symmetric, and that's why i suggest that it should be possible.
That's not what I've been told, but I'm not an expert.
I imagine part of that is due to an interaction with economics, particularly inflation. A 3% inflation is considered healthy, but a 3% deflation is almost certainly a monetary system in a death spiral.
This vid explains the situation better than I can (it's about South Korea but Japan is basically in the same boat)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
From a higher abstraction vantage point, you are not wrong, but you are basically advocating for entire countries to disappear
If the entire country wants to enact policies and cultures that would lead to their disappearance then who are we to tell them otherwise?
rational people?
But you are being disingenuous here... it's not the entirety of Japan, same as the entirety of Murica did not choose to swim in the sewer with MAGA... yet they are forced to by a loud minority and a push over majority
I think we should at least warn them; perhaps they don't have enough information to connect that outcome to their currently preferred policies. I.e. they don't actually "want to enact policies and cultures that would lead to their disappearance". Preventing persons from unintentionally harming themselves seems like a good thing.
Preventing persons from harming others (unintentionally or not) seems like a moral imperative. And, I think there are probably SK citizens that don't consent to the current policies that will be harmed.
But, at the end of the day, I don't have any action items. I see it mostly as a cautionary tale to drive my own policy preferences.
Welcome to the era of Misinformation
Why do you think we are here? getting people to vote against their own benefit is how we get Billionaires and eventually devolve into fascism before we step into another WW
Yeah, the hostile information environment is ... tough. But, until we figure out how to navigate it, we won't have a truly global society, and I'm not sure that separate, non-hostile communities/associations/syndicates are a stable configuration.
Critical thinking skills are part of that, but exercising them as a defense in that environment is not something you can sustain indefinitely. Everyone needs time to rest and everyone is going to make mistakes.
In biology, a species is considered threatened if there's fewer than 200 individuals of that species around.
Here's your short reminder that south korea has 52 million people, so even if people almost stop having children for a generation or two and the population stabilizes at 5 million people, which is 1/10 of what it currently is, it's still very far away from extinction.
ugh... watch the video and then come back once you ditch the pedantry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
if a country of 52 is reduced to 5, they would literally roll back to per-industrial living
It's a delicate feedback loop. Statisticians say that once you reach a certain decline rate, you end up exponentially shrinking and lose most of your middle-aged population in a couple of decades. The lower ages continue to decimate, and the geriatrics end up living in poverty.
Especially in Japan where the reproductive numbers are already barely sustaining.
Taxes have to skyrocket to keep things running, the economy and real estate go fallow. It's a particularly nasty downward spiral they paint. Supposedly, even if you try to recover, people won't be able to afford to have kids and they'd need to be having a LOT of kids each. Could be some horrible forced breeding shit if a few generations just to keep us from dropping to unsustainable levels.
Ideally, you evenly distribute the young, working people that are available on Earth. Japan has too few, Africa has gobs. (Although I don't even know if the trickle of foreigners they're taking in are from high-birth places)
Unfortunately, whatever the local majority group is is against whatever group isn't, and that's how you get history, and history happening again.
I'm not sure how many people Earth will hold in the future, but we can look at historical data. Source
We know that worldwide human population was around 300 million for most of the medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD). That was sustainable, i.e. people lived like that for a thousand years without incurring some ecological catastrophe. I'm not sure whether it's needed to return to these numbers, but it's certainly possible.
Is it possible there wasn't much census data between 500 AD and 1500 AD in the regions we're seeing a big explosion of people?
There's indeed not much data for the medieval age, at least not in Europe, but we know data from the roman empire and the modern age, and we can interpolate what happened in the thousand years between.
Well it's also the pension system that will become hard to financially sustain. Generally you want the population to at least kind of replace itself to avoid economic upheaval.
While true, that's an inherently unsustainable model. Pensions need to be self-sustaining, rather than relying on the next generation to pay for them. It's ridiculous that one generation basically got a free generation and now every generation afterwards is paying the previous generation's retirement
There's the quantatitve thing of currency, but also simply the reality that people actually have to work to provide the things the retired people need. In this case the money issue is modeling a more intrinsic issue. With fewer young workers the retirement age has to go up to maintain a viable ratio of non-workers to workers. Yes technology and such can also help things for the better, but roughly that's the state of things.
It's good that people consider the reality behind the fiction that money is. Money is literally paper, it's made-up literature. Reality, however, is real.
Yes, as people are disabled through aging, they eventually stop "producing" more than is necessary to sustain them. People with excess "production" have to transfer it to them. This can take various forms, but both a "self-sustaining pension" and a U.S. style "social security fund" use money as this method of transfer; the former is a bit more abstracted since interest / market gains (rather than direct contribution) are used, but it's still the same flow. Making disabled care a cultural norm is even more direct, but also has a lot of coordination problems, and the people with excess production are often geographically (and socially) separated from the people with production deficits.
Of course, the ideal is not just about discontinuing labor participation due to disability, but because we actually want some time insofar as we can afford it.
A mark of, ideally, a bit of 'overproduction' is that we can work fewer hours and/or fewer years. If our ambitions and capabilities allow us to work 32 hour workweeks for a decade and then nope on out on retirement in our 30s for the rest of our lives, that would be a pretty good economic state to be in. A fantasy in practical terms, but a concept to keep in mind as a hypothetical if we ever do manage amazing 'productivity' without enough 'ambition' to consume it all.
I think that if that ever comes, it will be because "retirement" is/becomes a time when you still have excess production but you aren't maximizing production, or that instead of 32hr/wk for 10 years, we do 8hr/wk for 40 years, with 3-5 years in there for pivot+retrain or relax+restore+refocus.
I doubt I'll live to see it, tho.
Another fair point, that we could be targeting a more distributed "retirement" instead of taking it all at the end. How we model it so that we are comfortable with the concept wild be interesting.. when and if we ever get there
you're wrongly assuming that pensions have to be paid by labor taxes. there is no natural law of the universe that forces that. introduce taxes on the rich and pensions will be easily paid for.
I think you may be underestimating how much pensions cost on a yearly basis. In the Netherlands it totals over 50 billion euros each year, half of which is paid through labor taxes. I'm not sure we could easily squeeze that amount out of the 1% every year 🤔
A better question is if you can name a country that isn't "anti-foreigner" or don't have a significant % of the population that's anti-foreigner. This is a widespread problem everywhere you go, even supposedly "woke" European countries (especially those countries, really).
Sweden is becoming pretty bad in that regard too, they recently cracked down on immigration because old white people don't like people of color.
In defence of Sweden, they did mismanage a lot of the post-2016 migration by ignoring migrants and refugees once settled, and taking a pretty relaxed approach to integration.
Vietnam seems very accepting, even towards Americans and French.
What in the fuck is happening. I'm disgusted that we have this plague of racism in 2025.
A better question would be is anyone making a list of the people financing these candidates. Id bet anything if you follow the money trail, there's a common denominator.
Billionaires who want the working class divided against itself. Some of them might even be from other countries, but I strongly suspect any foreign influence is dwarfed by local oligarchs.
My list so far:
But... I expect there are a lot more.
Wait... wait Your list is mild.. let me add these and feel free to look up each on youtube and wikipedia:
Canada : against Indians , Africans, Arabs + others
Germany : against Romania , Turkish + everyone thats not white
Norway & Sweden : against Romania and Syrian and Iraqi regufees.
Netherland & Italy: againat Gypsies, Romania & Africans
France : against Moroccons & Lybia & Africans
Australia : againat Indians and nonwhite
Irland & UK : against Indians, Pakistan, Arabs and others who are nonwhites
... And here more are some unexpected ones: Developing and 3rd world countries:
Thailand : against Mynamar & Lao + others
India : against Bangladesh and Nepal.
Bangladish : against Myanmar (Rohingya).
Pakistan : against Afghans
South Africa : against migrants from Zimbabwe, Mozambique + others
Kenya : againat Somalis and Nairobi.
Nigeria : against Niger, Chad, and Cameroon.
Lebanon: against Syria and Palestine
Kuwait: against Eygptions and Syria, Lebanese + others
Ethiopia : against Somalia and Eritrea
Honduras : against El Salvador and Guatemala.
Venzula : against Columbia
And... that's why xenophobia and socio-economy leave me speechless because I'm pretty sure I have not listed all. It's really just worldwide , and they all cry about forigners hiking up housings and rents, and taking our jobs.
I was hoping to get some additions, thank you.
China, against Japanese and Koreans.
In addition Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, France, UK, Germany off the top of my head .
I think the list of pro immigration non racist countries is smaller. Spain is sort of accepting I guess?
At any point they can start giving people a UBI and they will have the option to quit their jobs and raise a family.
The old ways of systemic slavery will not work as human societies progress, especially in our post scarcity world.
Scarcity is coming back, buckle up
there is a difference between natural scarcity and artificial scarcity.
Natural scarcity is one that is simply there for natural circumstances. Such as, your population grows, and now suddenly you have 7 kids to feed, so you have to work harder to farm enough food. That's natural scarcity and everybody understands that you have to work to live through it. Another example would be natural disasters, or maybe if you develop a new technology and now you want to build a factory to produce a new type of product. You have to invest a lot of hard work to build that new factory, and everybody understands that. People are generally fine with that, and pull through with it.
Artificial scarcity is one that is purely man-made, for no underlying natural reason. Examples are when the rich siphon all the wealth away from society and people don't have enough resources to live anymore. We live in a time with enormous productive capabilities, but those don't reach the people because somebody mindlessly steals them. People are told to work 60+ hours/week, and that's not because of some natural circumstances but because rent is made so expensive by nonsensical policies and greedy landlords that your wage doesn't pay for it anymore. That's artificial scarcity and people are not ok with it; in fact it makes them very angry.
That is why you have to distinguish between natural scarcity and artificial scarcity. People are largely ok with natural scarcity but NOT with artificial scarcity; and in fact artificial scarcity should be held small at all times; i believe.
As the population ages out of the work force, and fewer replacements are coming in, where's your tax base to support UBI? And if you say tax the rich, they won't be rich long with no workers to leech off of.
If the disparity in wealth is reduced thanks to UBI and taxing the rich, then they can pivot towards taxing workers who will now have more money to pay said taxes.
It literally does not make sense to avoid taxing the wealthiest citizens when the disparity in wealth is as bad as it is. Unless you're an idiot.
A UBI is a necessity for societies going forward.
Basically, wealth inequality is so bad now that our economies and societies no longer serve the majority of people's needs.
So wealth redistribution is required to fix the problem, the question after realizing that is how to go about it.
We can do a one time redistribution of wealth, but without fundamentally changing the system with regulations, incomes will inevitably become imbalanced again. This is what we did after the Great Depression with the jobs program that was the national parks and highway/railroad projects.
IMO it's better to just stop treating money like it's harmless to allow excess accumulation. It would be better if all wealth were perpetually redistribed via a UBI, this would permanently maintain wealth equality. This is similar to what we did after the Great Depression in regards to corporate tax rates and setting a maximum profit.
I think absolute ceilings and floors on income and wealth will be needed. The wealthy are basically black holes that destroys everything within reach, if given time. Preventing such singularities of excess will have to be through a system designed to give everyone UBI, while making jobs rewarding but with a fixed scope of wealth accumulation.
IMO, a system of classifying entire job classes, and giving them a fixed income rank, would make it harder for wage theft, hoarding, and corruption to happen. By making it so that everyone of a job class has a clear income regardless of location or hours, it will be easier to track who is unnaturally wealthy, thus their hoard can be more easily confiscated before it can do harm to society.
Also, through having fixed incomes, it might prevent inflation. Sellers will have to price according to income brackets, otherwise their goods cannot sell easily to a demographic. In the rankings that I proposed, a basic worker has $30k, while the highest earners get $60k after taxation. This essentially means that CEOs and other high-end careers are only double the value of a waiter's income. Goods will have to be priced accordingly, making it harder for inflation to take place.
I personally don't think it's healthy for a society to force a caste system like that. And I'm not really sure there's truth to the "if everyone gets paid the same then nobody will want to be a Dr" argument. People would still probably pursue more difficult work even without a profit incentive.
It isn't a caste thing. Typically, castes are all about locking people into a social strata forever. What I proposed includes education paying people for learning, which allows the students to be fully educated for the higher ranks of jobs, if they so choose. Also, people who work earn retirement pay at a 1:1 ratio of days worked - eventually, people get to quit working outright if they want, regardless of rank, simply because two or three decades of work is also fully paid retirement. People who quit working the high end jobs, coincidentally leave those jobs to other people.
In any case, there isn't a huge gulf of incomes in the proposed system. The real-world elite of our time has over a 1,000x the income of an entry wage worker. Merely double the income for the hardest professions doesn't even register in comparison. More importantly, the increased money for a high position is to reward the effort, risk, and knowledge needed to hold that position.
Over the next two centuries, I expect automation to make work into a leisure activity, rather than a necessity. Until utopia is obtained, however, we should try to reasonably reward people to work the more difficult jobs, simply out of pragmatic utility and humanity for society as a whole. By ensuring the pool of experts is large, we can spread thin the amount of hours each individual has to work, preventing burnout and allowing them all to live fulfilling lives.
It is a caste thing.
What happens when the majority decide they want more pay, pursue education, and oversaturate the good paying jobs?
Those are the conditions that led to STEM being completely oversaturated.
This beleif that a garbage man is somehow less important to society than doctors, is just capitalist propaganda...
ERK: Effort, Risk, Knowledge. We can have a body of researchers study each occupation, and assign it a rank according to what is required for the task. Provided the standards are objective - the amount of hours, the physical conditions a worker has to undergo, how much education is required to do a good job, and so forth are fairly consistent, we can fairly designate the rank of a job.
Garbage men don't require nearly as much training as a doctor, otherwise people die. In any case, a garbage man would likely be at the $60k rank, because it is harder than being a waiter. Lots of sitting and driving, with the odd garbage handling in person if something comes up. The biggest source of danger comes from crashes. Far as education goes, not much, I expect - mostly cartography of the route, scheduling, and so forth.
An immigrant worker would probably have their job class at $80k annual payout if they picked food. There is lots of exertion, sun, inclement weather, and so forth. The work itself isn't dangerous nor requires an education, it is simply exhausting. Provided that 4 or so hours of a six hour shift are done before a hour-long noon lunch, the danger of heat exhaustion from the sun can be mitigated, especially if workers are given hats, water, and 5 minute breaks for each hour to recuperate. Hazard pay can be in effect during significant levels of rain, and appropriate gear mandated for those conditions.
As to STEM being oversaturated, I think that is incorrect. Rather, it is because corporations are hyper-fixated on crushing blood out of a stone to maximize perceived profit. Everyone in every working profession has to work longer and are paid less, because the companies force that to be the case. By deliberately creating ghost jobs, using maladjusted interviews, coercion, and so on, companies can artificially force workers to come to the table to beg for scraps. If there was a 6-hour workday, mandated vacations, and other ethical standards that are enforced, companies would have to employ many more STEM students to fill out the daily roster.
People absolutely pursue difficult work without the extra pay. Cuba has always had plenty of doctors .
It's been tested dozens of times, and every time it is tested, it shows people are happier and healthier, and so is their community.
So it does work and is possible, and it would fix a ton of problems.
In every study they also witness no significant drop in labor participation, and it always enriches the local community. People become more altruistic, less stressed and agitated, family relationships improve. It's good in pretty much every single way with no discernible downsides. Please look into more studies.
There isn't going to ever be a study that is universal until we implement it universally, so there's literally no way to test it in the way critics want, this argument is just baseless propaganda.
I understand your position and i think that you say a respectable thought. I like the way you think but i think you're still wrong. Let me explain:
The labor market is the mechanism through which wages are determined. Human labor is bought and sold on the labor market; that means there is supply and demand. Supply comes from workers who are willing to work, while demand comes from companies who seek to employ people.
Now, as is always the case on any market that is regulated by supply and demand, if there's a higher supply, prices go down; while if there's higher demand, prices go up. Prices in the context of the labor market are the price that is paid for an hour of human labor, i.e. the hourly wage.
Now, companies don't have a constant demand for human labor at all. In fact, how much demand companies have for human labor depends largely on how much the company intends to grow. Imagine it like a house: Building a single house might take thousands of days of human labor (i.e. 8 employees for 120 days) for a single-family brick-built home, but maintaining that house takes significantly less labor (it was traditionally done by a single house-wife, and nowadays it's done in the spare after-work hours). So, growth requires intense labor input, while maintenance does NOT.
The same is true for the economy. As long as the economy grows, it requires a lot of human labor input. You have to remember that the Great Fire of London happened in 1666, and that is the starting point for large, stone-built cities in the modern age (before that most houses were built out of wood). Also since roughly that time (1800) we have the industrial revolution which has created steam engines, cars, and basically every commodity that we have today. Building all of that up from scratch required a lot of human labor input, and that is why there was such a large demand for human labor. But today, we have all these commodities and companies already built up, and maintaining them requires rather little work, which is why the demand for human labor is declining. That is a natural development and not a human-chosen development. Growth comes to an end (see also the 1970s study The Limits to Growth that discusses that) because planetary boundaries are reached, and either we find new planets to settle or we won't have growth; but without growth we will have less demand for human labor, and that means lower wages. And that's what we're already observing for the last 25 years: wages have continuously declined.
I don't think that wages could go up again; unless you move to mars and start developing the planet all over again. That's why UBI is necessary; because people still need resources to live.
Fucking foreigners sucking up all the jobs and destabilizing a country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Foreign_residents
When I was growing up too many people I knew wanted to move to Japan because of the technology sectors and the “modernity”. Turns out both are a lie, and after learning about Japanese work culture, it’s even worse than the USA. I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to work in Japan over an EU country outside of family reasons.
They were living 20 years in the future in 1980. They are still living 20 years in the future of 1980.
Probably a millennial delusion shored up by gaming. Japanese tech hasn't been anything to talk about for nearly 20 years.
It's always outdone by Korean or Chinese tech.
In the 1980s, they had legitimately ground-breaking tech, from LCD displays to Toyota to PCs to walkman to BetaMax to unmanned railway stations.
Then the 90s happened, and decades of economic stagnation while society continues to be centered around the boomers (paper offices, Fax machines, they made new cassette tapes until like 2015, they still have payphones, cash-only businesses, etc).
I would have a difficult time identifying Japanese tech that isn't made in China.
When I was growing up too many people I knew wanted to move to Japan because they fetishized underage Japanese girls.
RIP. I really want to study abroad there and have been making plans, but the current admin + Japan's rising anti-foreigner stance really dampens my hopes. I get there's been some awful, entitled, shitty tourists and vloggers over there in the past few years, but I wish they'd realize that we're not all like that...
Japan is nice to visit, not so nice to live there (there's better and more easily approachable places). Racial discrimination is not new in Japan and their laws don't indicate of any changes like western societies have been implementing. You aren't getting lynched, but expect housing refusals, difficulties finding jobs, social exclusion, and stereotypes.
This is a gross overgeneralization though. If you find like minded people, they'll accept you. Shit, if you grew up playing Final Fantasy, chances are, your peers there did too and any stereotype is quickly forgotten.
But in general, don't be surprised when you don't get served beer cause you ain't Japanese.
I lived in Japan for a few years. In the entire time I lived there, there was two instances I could say I experienced discrimination based on being a foreigner
Instance 1: I had a few friends visiting that don't speak Japanese, and we went to Sapporo. We were looking for a place to eat on the outskirts of the city, walked in a small ramen shop and were immediately told, in English, that the shop was closed (we had been speaking English among ourselves). In Japanese, I passive aggressively said, "Oh, I saw the sign saying the shop was open... sorry, I'll leave". It was like 6:30PM. They had their "open" sign on the door. The shop was almost certainly open
Instance 2: A bar in Shinjuku had a sign saying "No foreigners". I popped my head in and politely asked the master, in Japanese, what was up with the sign. He sit up when I spoke in Japanese and said because he doesn't speak English he didn't want to deal with the hassle of customers that can't speak Japanese
Which is to say, as a white foreigner from a high income country, the discrimination I've faced is public businesses that don't want to deal with customers that don't know the language and etiquette. Many of the other foreigners I've talked to had similar experiences, although outright racism or discrimination is not unheard of
just do it. the whole world is getting xenophobic and the good times are not coming back anytime soon. don't let it keep you from living your life.
I second this. Please come to Japan before it disappears.
The "Japanese First" platform sounds an awful lot like the "Asia for Asians" slogan of pre WWII imperial Japan. It's not a pretty thought but it's hard to blame them when the US is looking less and less like an ally and trading partner on the world stage.
This has nothing to do with geopolitics and everything to do with xenophobia and poor governance. Japan's economy has been in a slump since its bubble burst in the 90s and the center-right LPD (which they for some reason keep electing) has been unable or unwilling to fix it, leading to a recent surge in third parties as people finally decide to look for alternatives, and due to xenophobia et al the far-right was able to market itself as a compelling alternative.
I've been told that this is because the population is largely completely politically apathetic, owing to a belief that they aren't able to meaningfully affect political change. So they don't engage, and the existing political structures basically persist on inertia, which feeds back into their belief that things can't change. It's finally gotten bad enough for people to start trying, but of course angry people tend to vote for racists, because racism provides an easy answer for problems.
But what is the answer? In my country the left has allowed in so many people through various programs but has failed to increase the infrastructure which causes more problems. So now we have all these other problems which pushes people more to the right. And why did they do it keep THE GDP up even though GDP per person was down. The whole thing is BS you can't have infinite growth as a country or company the sooner we admit that the better.
Force them to build infrastructure. Electoral democracy never works without direct action by the people being "represented" in it. So the answer is: Organize.
Japan's voting system is FPTP for rural seats, but proportional for urban seats. This means that not only do conservatives sweep rural seats, but also split the urban seats, which would usually would otherwise to progressives under a full FPTP system. This toxic mix has been a longstanding issue in their politics.
Makes sense considering sanseito wants to bring back imperialism. As a foreigner living in Japan, their presence makes me uneasy not only for myself but my half-Japanese son whom they want to take away voting rights for.
In exit polls from the last election foreigner problems (which lumps tourists in with residents) was still only like 3rd. And for the foreigner issues, overtourism and people buying property and pricing out locals are big issues (and sometimes running (often illegal) guesthouses).
No its mostly exaggerated and generally even racist Japanese are too polite to start shit in public. These nazis usually ones sitting at home and trolling on the web.
Japan is still one of the most friendliest and nicest places in the world despite the propaganda here.
I wouldn't, personally. Just read around on basic etiquette, don't litter, etc. If you're planning on going to Kyoto, it's been a zoo for years now and the people there always hate it (but also some ridiculous part of their economy is tourism as they found out during corona when the money dried up). Oh, and a lot of smaller places are still cash only so carry cash.
I always encourage people to consider places other than just Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto, especially these days where technology helps any language barrier.
These are greatly exaggerated propaganda pieces. I follow expat news in Japan and it's laughable how easily all of these issues are dismissed.
You’d think the Japanese of all people would know better.
"Population crisis" is a myth, created by people who want cheap labor. What's the crisis? What's so bad about a declining population number? Spell it out!
It's also possible they are racist.
But if the choice were between racist and greedy, I'm going to bet on greedy 100% of the time.
The biggest issue is probably not being able to play pensions or have people care for the older generation.
Correct. When we hear concerns about a declining population, the concern (typically) isn’t that a population should always be rising, or even that it shouldn’t shrink, it’s more about the long-term economic stability of the age distribution of a population within the demographic pyramid. If your demography skews significantly older, you’re going to have fewer working age people supporting your economy and more post-retirement age people needing to be supported. This can do double damage to government revenue in particular, as they will see a simultaneous decrease in tax income and an increase in pension payouts, and this can lead to a sharp contraction in the available share of the budget for all of the other government priorities.
It’s a bit ironic in this case, as this is pretty common in developed economies, and typically the way you would offset this is via immigration, as that allows you to tailor your requirements to exactly what you need to balance your demography, and so anti-immigration sentiment is only likely to cause a more severe spiral.
...and that means retirees will literally starve and live on the streets? I don't think it will. It will just be less luxurious.
So wages in care work are rising?
Who exactly will work those jobs?
Anyone. That's how the labor market works. There aren't going to be zero people capable of doing the work, they're just going to be rare.
The same amount of work needs to be done to keep the economy running as it is, so you're stretching those people out over a lot of additional jobs. How many jobs do you expect a young person to take simultaneously before they decide "this sucks, I'm emigrating to Canada where you only have to work one lifetime before getting to retire"?
Yeah, or, hear me out on this crazy theory: the supply of labor is low, so wages rise and young people can finally earn more money on just one job?
And then all those bullshit jobs that are not actually producing value get cut?
It wouldn't be the same amount of jobs.
There is a limit to how much work you can get out of a fixed group of people no matter how much money you throw at them. If you ask me to build a thousand houses in an hour I'll say "I can't do that" and it won't matter if you offer me a billion dollars to do it, I can't do it.
The reason the population crisis in Japan is called a population crisis is because it is threatening to go past that threshold. It wouldn't be a crisis otherwise.
you might think that japanese boomers have generational wealth in form of real estate. this is not really the case, especially for rural population. houses aren't built to last, lose value like motherfucker and are commonly demolished after 20-30 years, in part because people don't like second hand, in part because there's no point of building anything sturdier if typhoon or earthquake takes it. there is some newer construction that is intended to last longer, but it's not a very common thing. so a reverse mortgage type thing won't exist there, and yeah lots of people will get shafted by these conditions
Not to mention that with a declining population the value of real estate is likely going to decline as well since there's less demand for it. Especially in those rural areas, people are moving to the cities.
They won't starve and live in the streets because something will change before society reaches that stage, but theoretically it's not impossible. In Japan, for example, a significant chunk (unsure if a majority) of homeless people are elderly men.
If you keep taking out more than was put in the fund to fund the larger population in retirement, at some point there's just nothing left.
so wages in care work are rising?Who can pay those higher wages? The impoverished older generation? Or three state that is not able to keep up with the costs of pensions?
The crisis isn't simply from a declining total population number. It's from the demographic shape of that population. Here's Japan's population pyramid. As you can see, it's not really a pyramid - it's heavily weighted at the older end. As people continue to age that big bulge reaches retirement, and then you have more people retired than you have people still of working age. This causes a number of problems.
Yes, I'm asking you (or other people making the argument that population decline is so bad) to list them.
You're still missing the basic point by talking about the "population decline." The crisis is not the decline. The crisis is the age distribution.
Here's a page discussing some of the specific problems of an inverted population pyramid, and it uses Japan as a specific example of a population facing this.
I still don't see how that's an issue. Just spend less money on elderly people?
One would think we'd all have a clue after COVID. The supply chain shocks reverberated for years.
Only to people like you, whose job depends on it. If a nation half way around the globe has economic troubles, I don't think that's going to impact me much...
Letting old people suffer in poverty or die of treatable illnesses even though they were promised a decent retirement seems like a bad solution to me, and if it's happening it's exactly the sort of thing I'd call a symptom of a "crisis." And unlikely to go over well with the population at large.
Just let them fend for themselves. That should totally work. I'll let my 96 year old grandma know that she's gonna have to hold a bake sale to pay for dinner tonight.
Also, your solution is to spend less money on elderly people, while at the same time there is a growing population of elderly people.
Are you seriously this stupid?
When an overwhelming proportion of the population is elderly, an overwhelming proportion of the working age populations earnings have to will go to support them. This is measured by an economic ratio known as the dependency ratio which is going to get out of hand for countries like Japan. The strain on public finances paying for pensions and healthcare reduces quality of life for everyone in the country and depresses economic growth as young people working to support the countries elderly population and their own parents have less to invest in the wider economy.
There’s an excellent video that explains all the ramifications of populations decline and it’s not only an economical nightmare but also a cultural obliteration as well over time. They use South Korea as an example but mention that even the US is heading this way but has another decade or so before it gets really bad.
https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk
if this is all true it makes me wonder how can a country like Russia continue to exist? is it because old people just die and no one cares?
Ok, but all of the things you listed are reasons why I would like this kind of economic system to decline. It's what's creating these circumstances and problems in the first place.
The problem is that the "decline" is going to be accompanied by a mountain of people living in miserable squalor or simply dying. That's the crisis that needs a solution. If a change in economic systems can solve it then sure, do that, but coming up with the details of how that'll work is the hard part.
It's not so much the decline but the ageing. A society mostly consisting of OAPs can't support itself.
Here's a simple problem from it: taxes.
If the infrastructure was built to main x people but there's suddenly a huge drop in how many can pay taxes, then you can't maintain the infrastructure.
Say you made trains for a population for a million people. But in a single generation it's going to drop to about 700,000 people.
Those 700k are now going to have to pay nearly 1/3 more just to keep the same trains running. Drop that population further another generation and the cost will only go up. Yet you can't just not have the trains because the existing people still need transportation.
Now multiply that problem to everything else that needs maintenance and is essential in a modern society - universal healthcare (which gets an added extra cost of older people costing more than younger), sewage, roads, natural disaster mitigation, etc. Even taxing the rich like crazy won't make up for it if it's bad enough, and that's in a system where you assume the population goes down because basically everyone has at least one kid. What Japan is facing is most of the population having no kids, and this is after there being a baby boom at some point. That's an extremely steep drop.
That's not even getting into the housing issues with such a densely designed cityscape like Japan has. If there's too many apartments, they'll just start closing down at some point rather than just going down in cost because apartments act kind of like a micro city in costs, and a lack of tenants because there's just no people to fill the space is the same issue as the trains mentioned earlier. This one takes longer to manifest though.
That's assuming you only tax income.
Yep, not buying it. Let's tax them like crazy first, for 20-40 years and when that has actually failed, we can talk about next steps.
No, it's not. The maintenance still has to be paid somehow, whether that's from a VAT, income tax, inheritance taxes, etc. Either way, taxes will go up because there's less people but the same amount of infrastructure.
You're not buying... Basic math? Well, if you want small numbers as an example (and we'll even make it so in the example the rich would be paying a lot now so it's more fair):
There are ten people: 1 (Sherry) has 10 pieces of candy, 8 with 1 pieces of candy, and 1 with no candy. The amount they have resets at the end of every year after tribute.
They must pay the candy monster 10 pieces of candy every year or it'll eat them. Currently, Sherry gives 8 pieces, 8 people give 25% a piece, and Bob gives none.
Next year, some people decide to "move". There's now 5 people, including Bob and Sherry.
In order to make the required tribute, Sherry gives 9 pieces, 3 others give 33% a piece, and Bob still can't give any.
Next year, more people leave. There's now 3 people, including Bob and Sherry.
How much should Sherry give this year, and how much will she have left after giving versus the other person (excluding Bob)?
This little math problem is basically a simplified version of the population collapse problem. In reality, it's worse, because with less people, there's less candy (money) generated for everyone, including Sherry, but the candy monster (infrastructure) will still ask for the same tribute.
Yeah, you're doing the math wrong, because maintenance cost goes down the less people there are. And the share of actually critical work is way less than what's actually being... worked, so shifting some parts of the luxury production to critical production is trivial, it just needs to be done and the people doing the critical work need to be paid well enough to make the switch.
That's it.
Do you have evidence for that? Because I already explained how it doesn't earlier.
A half full train still runs the same track and route. A half used sewage system still needs to be filtered, cleaned, and repaired. Half used roads are still fully exposed to the elements. Half used buildings still degrade from time. Half empty buses are still used to get around.
The medical systems in this case, like I mentioned earlier, however, only go up in use.
You didn't explain it, you asserted that it does and then gave no evidence.
I want the actual numbers, as proof.
I want you to actually look up, how much it actually costs citizens and society to have for example, running and sewage. I want you to actually calculate how much that would go up.
Like...
Nobody will do this. They will use the 50% of the buildings at 100%. Same maintenance cost.
For example, let's say everyone's electricity bill is 50$... Out of your wage of what 1500$? 2000$? So if population declines by 10% and the electricity bill goes up by 10% or 5$ you're telling that it will collapse the nation?
And while all of that happens: keep in mind that real estate value and prices will go down. Less people means less need for living space. It means it will be cheaper to move to cities, with higher concentrations of people in areas that already have infrastructure, that's already mostly paid for.
If you want that type of detailed analysis report then, I give you two options:
As for your other hyperbolia:
The issue isn't that places on Japan are facing a 10% population decline. It's that they're facing a 50+% generational decline. That distinction is important because if it was only the elderly population that dropped, there actually wouldn't be as much financial stress or labor issues to support systems as currently, where the elderly population grows massive while the younger one shrinks drastically.
It isn't a 500¥ increase that's the issue, it's the rise of everything that'll be the issue, especially since the elderly will be the overwhelming majority.
That's not how modern real estate works. Cities would become more expensive to move into - because it'll have the higher infrastructure costs, it'll be mostly filled with the elderly, but most importantly, because many apartments will be shutdown due to growing vacancies making it unprofitable. If modern cities were mostly houses, then everything would actually be great. But because they're mostly apartments, it becomes an issue. If anything, it'll be cheaper to move out of the cities, because public transportation will be underfunded anyway, and infrastructure costs in rural areas will become lower because rural areas are designed for smaller populations and less people, unlike cities. Cities will just keep getting more expensive to maintain - that's an effect you can already see in multiple countries.
okay then i guess you should think about what rate of population decline is acceptable? like, you're saying the current rate is unacceptable; where do you draw the limit and why?
Ideally they are matched to productivity and wage rates. So if productivity goes up 50%, and wages go up 50% (pw), with population being (k), then I think ideally it would be
K(-r%)=pw(r%)
But, humans don't follow consistent rules in that particular way, so just somewhere around pw.
Alternatively, if they stagnate equally, that would be sustainable too. Not much decline or increase.
yeah but productivity already has gone up a lot in the past few decades. So ... does that mean we could have a smaller working population?
A smaller general population.
The whole issue really is the baby boom threw things out of balance.
He's supported by the most exceptionally ignorant among the right-wing (whom we call 'netto-uyoku'—Internet right-wings). Many people in Japan use Xitter as their primary source of information and are being brainwashed by the xenophobic conspiracies flooding the platform. This country is over; it's actually worse than America, IMHO.
I'm a fairly open borders guy, but if you want to have near-zero immigration to avoid foreigners, the country HAS to improve the life of persons, particularly women, so that having children and raising them to adulthood is a activity that is more joy than stress. Otherwise, you'll go the way of South Korea.
Of course, the "correct" behavior is to not treat foreigners as other, but as "merely" different aspects of self. Then seek to integrate all tolerant persons that want to immigrate; likely through multiculturalism.
There is no developed country on the planet where women have the replacment rate or more of children..it will never matter how much support they get. Look to Sweden etal
Always and every time if women are given the ability to be independent and have a choice they will nearly all choose 0,1 or 2. All of that leads to negative population growth. For every woman that chooses 0, you need another that chooses 3 or 4 just for stasis
What you're describing does and would never exist unless women are coerced, have no contraception or are brainwashed (religion) the vast majority obky ont 0,1 or 2.
To have a larger family women need a tribe, we no longer live in tribes (as we did for nearly all of human existence) so the support network is a horror and always will be with the stupidity that is a nuclear famiky.
Then there is ecology, the planet is massively over populated, we are killing ourselves in our own filth, we should have less then a billion people amd probably closer to 100 million.
I know 3 women that enthusiastically have/had 3 or 4 children. It's possible when their community acts as a tribe, possibly through governmental support.
Your personal opinions are invalid against systemic evidences.
Not opinions, experience. But, yes, no industrialized country has a birth rate above replacement. The last time the U.S. was even at replacement at 2007, and that is an outlier. EDIT: That doesn't mean such birth rates are impossible without coercion, just that we haven't found the right enticements and political will to enact them.
You're a moron if you are pro-open borders. That's a economic disaster waiting to happen.
Also people like you never keep that same energy when it actually happens & turn into raging xenophobes.
eh different countries same shit everywhere. And I am talking about the people when I say shit.
Dang, it sucks seeing people from my favorite country fall prey to small-minded views like this. I know Japan is not perfect but like how a parent dotes over their child, I can’t help but see the good in Japan and its potential.
When I lived in Japan I definitely encountered my fair share of racism and people who did not like foreigners. But on the other hand, there were also a lot of Japanese people that liked learning about other cultures and even ones that didn’t hold their arms open to welcome foreigners were usually at least tolerant of foreigners (never saw or heard of anyone actually committing crimes against foreigners).
I do think Japan has a long way to go in terms of accepting other cultures and creating a more equal and open society within their own culture. While I used to admire their steadfastness, in how they have stuck with their historical traditions, I now see it as something that’s holding them back. The ideal outcome I think would be Japan keeping the parts of its culture that makes it unique but that’s not harmful to people and then accepting or inviting in ideas and qualities of other cultures that will advance social equality for all. But we don’t live in such a perfect world and even if things go in that direction, that kind of societal change probably won’t happen in our lifetimes.
Somewhat counter to this though, there’s also the point other users have brought up that a shrinking population isn’t necessarily the worst problem for a country to face, especially one on a chain of islands. So in a way one could understand where some Japanese people are coming from when they say things like they don’t want more people to settle there. Of course it’s a different point if a population is being forcibly restricted, but in Japan’s case it doesn’t feel/seem that way. There are a number of reasons why their population is in decline, but to me they aren’t all bad reasons. I think instinctually Japanese people feel that they’re nearing the limit of what their resources can support and generally speaking they are a well educated population, and educated people/couples generally have less children than those who spend less time in education. So, while it would be great if they could change/update their culture to be less xenophobic, I also think they have a right to pursue a population sustainable future if that means limiting the amount of foreigners that can immigrate.
considering russia is funding the anti-foreigner group in japan.
All developed nations are going to realize they are in a population crisis in the coming decades. It's no surprise to see bigotry/xenophobia/conservatism hurting the future of a nation, but it's a bit surprising to see how popular it is across the globe.
I mean, I'm in the US and we are batshit stupid about it too. It's been the joke all my life about how Social Security won't be there when I retire one day. So hey instead of adding some of our most efficient workers (low pay, high labor output) to the tax base, let's commit crimes against humanity! Yeeeeehaw!
We all know the brain drain started in academia, but I'm surprised I don't hear about it in just about every field.
My wife and I loves Japan and we visit quite often prior to having kids. Once we had kids, the people's attitude changes towards you. Suddenly my crying kid is annoying everyone and throwing shade. Elevators and seats clearly designated for strollers is often filled to the brim and nobody getting off/out.
It's a culture of hating kids.
Fun fact. Women who have kids must give up their careers. Grandparents is culturally not allowed to help with the grand kids. Like, you pop them out, you take care of them yourself, often without even help from the father.
Where, though? I live in Okinawa and visiting Tokyo with my family sucks because people there are so uptight like you said. Also, old people there are so fucking entitled.
Edit: I forgot to write how Okinawa is like the opposite. Kids are more free to be kids here.
In Taiwan we call Okinawa, 琉球. This was the original name and I think the people there agrees with me. 琉球 has their own history and language prior to the takeover. The culture is vastly different than the mainland.
That's so awesome that you call us by that name. I wish we still used that as our official name as kind of a fuck you to the Japanese government, but it's all 沖縄 now for government stuff. We do still see 琉球 used in the private sector though (as well as one of our universities). Are you Taiwanese? I've visited Taipei a few times and I really love it there.
Cool, so people there actually like the name Ryukyu? I used the word Ryukyu in a Japanese class one day but I got corrected by the teacher saying that Okinawa is the new name.
(I'm Taiwanese btw)
I think your teacher was just trying to be correct and didn't mean she didn't like it. Some locals might feel shy/awkward about it, but it's not a taboo or anything — especially if you're talking to a Ryukyuan :)
Glad to hear it's not a taboo! I had been always under the impression that Ryukyu was some sort of taboo word that was never to be mentioned of. I had somehow connected it with the once-Chinese influence over the Ryukyu Islands and thought it would anger locals or something haha.
Ya, I live in Taipei and it's only a 1ish hour flight to 琉球. I feel the cultures of both our countries is very similar.
The people of 琉球 are super polite and their love for children is nothing like Tokyo or Osaka. My kids are welcomed.
I was watching about singledom and loneliness in Japan, it seems like Okinawa is a world apart from the mainland because family ties and community is still strong in Okinawa. Well, fair enough that Okinawa is still culturally distinct in many ways than the mainland because of history, although it's nice to hear some parts of Japan still have strong community and family values in a good way.
The family ties can be burdensome at times, but I really love that I'm still hanging out with my cousins in my 40s and our kids do too. We get together on obon, which is a day to honour our ancestors, and clean up our family tomb and get wasted lol.
Everything in your "fun fact" is not fact. I actually said "what the fuck" when I read it. I've been in Japan for a decade, both Tokyo and rural.
Where also are these magical stroller-only elevators? Certain people are supposed to have priority (and, yes, some assholes ignore this which is not a problem unique to Japan), and there are also people who don 'look disabled" but need help (I can be one of them sometimes as my left leg and ankle are as much metal as anything else, though you wouldn't know by looking at me).
Japan has problems and had places.to.improve but your post is just wild wild to me as a long-term resident.
My experience has been in Tokyo and Osaka. I have a son that cries a lot. I'm not sure how many kids you have. That might be our difference.
My terrible experience started on the plane to Osaka. From Taipei to Osaka on Peach Airlines.
My son was using his tablet that was sitting on the tray which made the Japanese woman in front of us mean mug us and eventually complained to us about the kid tapping his screen.
Then getting off the plane, we rode the train and bus to a station. Every seat designated for kids and elderly was taken up by young adults. My son was tired and started to cry and was melting on the train, directly in front of a girl who was sitting in those seats. Instead of giving up the seat, she put on her headphones and glared at us for annoying her. Sure SHE might be disabled, but it seems like every spot is taken up by disabled people. I never once saw someone get up from their seat to let a young family have their seat.
Then we were at some big train station and there was 4 or 5 elevators. The far left one was designated for elderly and strollers. But each time the elevator opened, it was fun of people. Nobody got out. Just pushed the close button faster. We ended up carrying the stroller up the escalator, which the guard yelled at us for doing.
At restaurants, we were regularly denied entry because we had a kid with us.
As a long term resident, perhaps the problem isn't that there isn't these problems. It's that you don't see it.
Next time look at who's carrying the baby while walking on the street. Look at the father and see how empty handed they are.
Your statements do not support your initial arguments.
You've conveniently just ignored everything I responded to about grandparents and women being forced out of their careers as a rule.
Further, you state
It's a culture of hating kids.and that is just not true.You are seeing some shitty people and extrapolating that out to "this society hates kids" which is 100% not the case. That is what I take issue with.
I could go on at length about things Japan could do better for families and, in my decade here, there has been great improvement. There is still room to go. That does not mean that Japanese people hate children and do not want them. It does not mean that this is a Japan-only problem yet your argument is that Japan hates kids.
So you want to tourist-splain to me as someone who lives here and has for a decade? I have family, friends, and coworkers with young kids. I do hear their complaints. I do see their struggles. Again, what you are describing, that Japan has some systemic and cultural child-hating complex, is not at all supported by your argument. It is also laughable to me that you would think you have a better handle on Japan as a whole as a tourist who goes to a few cities. You want to know what you're also not seeing? You're not seeing the programs in place. You're not seeing the variety of things that have been and are being done. You're literally just making stuff up and saying that all of Japan (the grandparents, for example) is some way.
You have your experience as a local and I have my experience as a tourist and both of us is right in our own view of Japan.
I experience the assholeness of Japanese people towards my young family. Making us feel like a second class citizen for disturbing them with my crying kid. Being turned away from restaurants for having a kid. Not letting me rent a stroller because my kid is 5 days older than the cutoff birthday at Universal studios. From security guards asking me to quiet down my kid because he is having a tantrum.
You're right, maybe it's not that they hate kids. Maybe they just hate tourists. Whatever is the case, those places I have visited are not family friendly.
I will say that the people of 琉球 doesn't act like this.
I'm not sure where you got this. Grandparents absolutely help out when they can. Babysitting isn't a thing. That's what the grand folks are for.
Perhaps the level of help is not clear. In Asia, it's culturally acceptable to have grandparents to help watch their kids full time while both parents go to work. In Japan women are required to quit their jobs to take on that role.
He said the thing! But seriously, over the years I’ve learned that any politicians who use the term “common sense” is a red flag. It’s like an easy wild card that can mean anything anyone wishes to hear
Also their demographic is in the process of collapsing. In the medium term, if they want a functioning economy, they need immigration
I'm surprised it took them this long to go full mask off with their xenophobia.
.
Wouldn't it be interesting as the New world order becomes a thing maybe, they shake things up and require everyone to return to whichever country their skin color matches. USA would become Native American again, and all the white people would have to go back to Europe 😄
What about mutts?
Aww cmon Japan, I love you guys.. I was thinking about escaping there.
Same with Denmark, super racist and anti immigrant.
As a Dane living in Sweden for a handful of years I see that actual racism in DK is not that pronounced, but rather there's a wide-spread attention to people moving to DK who may not contribute to society, and that's because the Danish financial models are somewhat fragile. Free healthcare and not just free education but that you actually get paid while studying to make room to focus does leave DK somewhat vulnerable to exploitation. This sometimes shows as scepticism, but that's not racism.
In Sweden however racism is a much bigger problem. Unlike Danes, Swedes always almost say what they mean but leave out the punchline. Never mistake ppl leaving out the racist opinions and comments from the fact that a relative large group of Swedes are really racist. I see my non-swedish friends become unwanted assimilated time and time again. Swedes go home, close the door thoroughly, turn down the light and then they racist out, oh boy! Swedish politicians occasionally talk about how to do more to integrate people but there's little to no actions put forward. Looking back at Denmark you'll see many creative initiatives to ensure integration and a clear expectation: If you need help you'll get help. Whether it's healthcare or education or other sorts of help. And in return you need to contribute as much as you can in solidarity with society. Danes don't mind paying 43% in income tax because they see and use what it gives in return.
Back to your comment. Can you share examples of Denmark being "super racist"?
Here's your short reminder that there is no such thing as a "too small workforce".
A smaller supply of labor on the labor market means that higher prices will be paid for said labor, which means higher salaries. The decline of japanese population is a good thing for the people. Trying to "fill up" that population with foreigners is the most wrong thing anybody could do in that situation.
I fully, 100% support the japanese people with trying to uphold their own culture, their own way of life, and deal with their problems themselves. If you rely on foreigners to solve your problems, then you have already lost. In fact, you never even tried. If you have dwindling salaries and you try to fix the problem by giving away more jobs to other people, then you're stupid and shouldn't hold a ruling position. That's economics 101, not a conspiracy theory.
I mean, America has traditionally been an immigration country. 97% of people in the US today are the descendants from immigrants, so at least there i can understand that immigration seems like a historically continuous process. But japan always had little migration, both in and out. It's pissing me off that newspapers say we need to "fix" our declining birthrates. We don't need to "fix" it because it's not a problem. It's just people giving the planet a break and creating some more space for themselves. Fewer people in a country means more resources per person. That increases the resource supply and decreases the Cost of Living; which probably increases the Quality of Life.
This is the longest piece of horseshit I've seen all week.
There is absolutely such a thing as too small a workforce. Higher prices for labor eventually means higher prices for goods. Until it all breaks down because you don't have enough working people for a functional society.
Who takes care of the elderly or works essential jobs like healthcare? There are maximum ratios for emergency care nurses to patients. Even if you tripled their pay its not going to budge that ratio one bit.
What you're forgetting is that the demand for human labor is going to decrease due to automation. You may or may not believe this, but i certainly do.
Right, so how does xenophobia solve automation? The robot takes the job from the immigrant who allegedly took the job, meanwhile, the robber baron is laughing all the way to the bank he's about to own.
How does automation solve the shortage of healthcare workers or trades people?
people shift professions. if white collar work becomes unprofitable for the workers, people will seek out different professions, which creates a supply of labor power in those professions.