Why the hell is it that only the Economist (out of the non-Japanese media) picks up on that point? Everyone else seems to drone on about getting more children born….

“Japanese could also just accept a slow decline in economic power. There are plenty of first world, nice countries with good quality of life that aren’t ranked #1 or #2, or even in the top 10, of economic power houses.”

Such nations’ positions are rarely down to declining birth rates. Normally it’s down to poor economic policy, slow court systems, inefficient bureaucracies, or simply because they’re too small to do anything else.

You seem to fail to understand why Japan should be concerned about a shrinking workforce. It isn’t about world ranking as if this is some sort of game – it’s about being able to support those receiving pensions. If the ratio of workers to pensioners gets too low those pensions will be unaffordable. Thus either the retired will have to make ends meet with less or future generations will have to be taxed higher, will then spend less, the economy will slow, unemployment will increase and the spiral will get worse.

well,it’s particularly gratifying and reassuring to know that my two sons will either be Undertakers or Geriatric Nurses.

*in my final years they can wash and wipe my backside and then incinerate me*

Heaven here I come!!

remora

“By the end of this century the Japanese nation will be extinct and Japan will be up for sale.”

Err, yeah – that’s obviously not going to happen, Zichi. Reliable population estimates indiciate that the population even under current trends would level off at about 100-90 million.

Gaijin:

“but they will never accept someone who has non-Japanese parents or grandparents as Japanese.”

I’ve heard Brazilian-Japanese immigrants have a pretty difficult time in Japan as well. What gives?

Betty, I don’t think the stuffs you drew don’t make sense. Although many Japanese women hesitate to marry or have children (they actually say so) because it’s hard for woman to maintain job carrier after they get married or have babies under present company/social system. Also it’s been getting more and more financially costly to raise a kid. If social welfare improved and much of those obstacles were removed, more women would like to marry and have more children.

Actually the fastest way to stabilize the workforce is to make it easier for the young, old and women to get decent jobs, rather than “reserve” them for salary men. Also the retirement age needs to be pushed back.

Why the hell is it that only the Economist (out of the non-Japanese media) picks up on that point? Everyone else seems to drone on about getting more children born….

my hypothesis is that the cause of this situation is the conjunction of international media firms and reporting on economic issues being done by people who know nothing about economics. when the story is initially reported by sources in tokyo or some international bureau the article is usually very technically oriented and concise. the article is then duplicated by licensed distributors and outlets of the media company (like ap, reuters. bloomberg, etc.) creating a flood of identical information to and amongst firms and individuals throughout the world.

the extensive coverage of the issue from large media outlets and universal sources creates and environment where the smaller media outlets and independents feel they have to also report on the same issue not licensed to reprint the data from other media outlets they generalize the information and reprint the stats for public consumption.

by now you have a general agreement on the facts of the issue at hard, in this case the declining future expected workforce in japan and the coming difficulty in cashflows given the expected pension outflows and high present value of future healthcare obligations. now that the positive economics is out of the way the media tries to generate further interest in the story. most people and either too uninterested/untrained or not intelligent enough to interpret this data for themselves, they want actionable advise on how to respond to the issue at hand.

japan, being the origin of the story and the location where the most interest is generated, will complete this cycle first, although just ahead of the global media representatives (both traditional and web). at this point experts in the fields of economics, public finance, and political science will be called in to offer their opinion or grant an interview. this opinion or interview will be edited down to two sentences in an article, a fifteen second tv clip, or taken wildly out of context by a blogger. while there might be some derivation in the narrative at first, the media forces at play in the first cycle will once again force the narrative to coalesce around a single issue; in this case immigration policy. politicians postulate; reporters rabble rouse, bloggers write, and people that are knowledgeable about the issue are consigned to the closet

the rest of the world goes through the same cycle, but having the Japanese media finish it first, international media outlets use their japanese bureaus as a crutch, editing the already edited material for american and european consumption. by now most if not all alternative or derivative narratives have been thrown out the window and now there is just immigration. this most likely due to the fact that it is an issue to which most global readers can relate to, thus making the predicament more relevant to them.

this now nearly monolithic narrative is further consolidated by the media “research” done. most writers/editorial contributors to media outlets, like their japanese counterparts have very little to no understanding of economics and therefore take the reccomendations given in the translated articles available to them verbatim.

the intellectually honest and vigorous reporters/people amongst this throng will contact a local economist, public policy institute alumnus, or political scientist to expand or confirm the information they are given. but once again this results in an even more broken feedback loop which leads to even less analysis or ideas on the subject.

why?

a few reasons. first the local experts rarely have an expertise in japanese economic/social/political issues and thus can speak in vague generalities about the information available. this would not be a fatal flaw in and of itself if the experts were given time to take more than a cursory view over the statistics; but they generally have tenure obligations to fulfill, expert testimony to be performed, or a private employer for which to work.

this is in conjunction with reporters shaping the interview through leading questions meant to confirm their information rather than to gain new insight. instead of asking the expert for their own view, they ask them how they feel about a preeminent economist at kieo university and his remarks on the matter.

in the end what is delivered is a homogenized storyline with a few insightful editorials and blogs here and there. even those who want to think about the issue are constrained by the facts presented thus in classic newspeak fashion reducing the breadth of thought to a range of opinions directly formed by the media and its own broken feedback mechanisms.

then after this cycle has ended a publication/writer who knows what they are talking about can finally be heard. as the roar of mediocre reporting/analysis dies down, voices of reason can be heard. of course by now the news cycle has moved on and no one is interested so the competing narrative is lost to the general population and left to those who choose to listen.

hope this helps to explain

A group of 80 ruling party lawmakers have created a plan calling for a huge increase in immigrants. They will let 10 % of Japan be foreigners.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nn20080613a2.html

This should be a good news for non-Japanese aiming to live in Japan.