Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Japanese attitudes towards immigration vs UK

You can adopt a culture and have your own, too. That's what being an immigrant is all about.

Do you think people coming to your country don't?

Or are you against immigration in general?

In a situation in which the host population is growing or stable, and the rate of inward migration does not disturb the percentages too greatly, integration is possible. When, like Japan, a people are in a demographic crisis, it signals the end of the indigenous people.
 
The Japanese have three choices, get seriously cracking on the advanced robotics front, start churning out lots more kids or accept immigrants and all the changes to their culture that will cause. If the last results in significant changes to Japanese culture then so be it. Immigration will change Japan and Japan will change the immigrants, the same as it has done here. Seen from over here there is a certain misty eyedness about them being exotic forrins but no culture has any more right to continue than any other.
 
The Europeans were immigrants too

They were colonisers. There was no continent-wide political authority controlling access to North America. The Europeans came with guns and took land by force. That's not how immigration works, least of all in Japan.
 
In a situation in which the host population is growing or stable, and the rate of inward migration does not disturb the percentages too greatly, integration is possible. When, like Japan, a people are in a demographic crisis, it signals the end of the indigenous people.
The Japanese people are not ending, you clown.

I've met people like you here. Happy to come live here but always moaning about foreigners.
 
They were colonisers. There was no continent-wide political authority controlling access to North America. The Europeans came with guns and took land by force. That's not how immigration works, least of all in Japan.

They viewed themselves as immigrants though, seeking a better life away from a Europe that had become overcrowded, lacked economic opportunities, and for many religious minorities was a place of persecution. The fact that there was no continent-wide political authority was exactly the justification they used to settle there.
 
Address the graph I posted then. How is that not ending?
I've already addressed the low birth rates and migration here.

It doesn't mean that the Japanese are ending or are being replaced.

It does indicate we could do with a fairer policy on letting people come into the country.
 
They viewed themselves as immigrants though, seeking a better life away from a Europe that had become overcrowded, lacked economic opportunities, and for many religious minorities was a place of persecution. The fact that there was no continent-wide political authority was exactly the justification they used to settle there.

It doesn't matter what they thought of themselves. What matters is how they came there and what they did when they got there. They weren't self-funded individuals petitioning the local authorities to peaceably find work among the people who already lived there. They were sponsored by wealthy monarchs who supplied them with the guns and ships that they used to take what they wanted by force.
 
i expect its that standard
ageing population - cost of care crisis - shortage of workers and associated tax revenue associated with the care bill

there are other ways to solve this that dont involve higher birth rates or importing labour, namely a radical redistribution of the wealth!
Or just let the population decline.

If increasing population requires an ever increasing number of immigrants to "do the work", then the same should be true in reverse? I don't see a problem with it, and I think it's a Good Thing.

A smaller population might result in a smaller tax intake if it was the only change in isolation - but they could demand higher wages if there is a labour shortage and offset this? If old, rich people want the few young workers to look after them, then they'll have to pocket up. And then the workers who benefit from these increased wages can pay higher taxes on them, and round we go.

There's been a divergence in labour share of GDP and productivity in all developed countries since the 1970s. This really interesting article I've just found explains how and why Japan's divergence has been the most pronounced. (tl;dr - lack of union participation, temporary worker exploitation, powerful bosses.)

GDP might have been fairly stagnent in Japan, but it's out-paced wage growth significantly. As you said, we can just increase wages by taking back wealth from the rich who have benefited from the economic exploitation, and that includes so-called low skill work, like caring roles.

Also, it feels like this is a temporary problem. Once the population finds its new equalibrium, and the older generation die off, won't they have a much more balanced population pyramid, just with a smaller population?
 
It doesn't matter what they thought of themselves. What matters is how they came there and what they did when they got there. They weren't self-funded individuals petitioning the local authorities to peaceably find work among the people who already lived there. They were sponsored by wealthy monarchs who supplied them with the guns and ships that they used to take what they wanted by force.

It's true we live in an era in which things are done in a more 'civilised' manner, that is to say, without the need for overt violence. But the end result will be the same - the Japanese culture erased.
 
Back
Top Bottom