Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

konichivalue.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#191

Post by Schiendelman »

chainmail2029 wrote: post #42

>But a strict zero-immigration policy collides with one terrifying reality: No country in history has successfully reversed a falling fertility rate, and Japan shows zero signs of breaking that trend. Wrong! Korea has successfully reversed theirs starting this year due to some extreme policies benefiting families with children [1] https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2026-05-27/nationa... [2] https://www.theguar…

"Successfully reversed" would require a number over 2.0. This is just bad reporting.

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#192

Post by cwyers »

laserdancepony wrote: post #176
cwyers wrote: post #58

I am really shocked at the tone of so many of the comments here. Did HN become a breeding ground for xenophobia at some point? Has it always been that and is it just way more mask off now?

Not everyone on HN is from SF, sometimes you also get reasonable opinions here.

[flagged]

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#193

Post by pjjpo »

HerbManic wrote: post #109
Tor3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan's population is dropping like a stone. Since I first arrived here some years ago the population has gone down by several millions. Countries which have more immigration (like my native one, also with a low birth rate) manage to keep up the population size, and, equally important, manage to keep the median age somewhat lower (the median age in Japan is now above 50). If immigration is not a solution, then I assu…

The unfortunate flip side of this is that when you bring in a lot of immigrants, it can keep a lot of markets pumped up far beyond what the markets would usually dictate. Here in Australia, we tipped below replacement rate in 1976 and it has never recovered, we just increase immigration to cover the gap. Culturally this has been brilliant but economically it has made some oddities in that housing is through the roof…

> A crumbling pension system

AFAIK the pension system is quite well invested and can continue for many decades even with current trends. Where do you get that it is crumbling? There is a silly law forcing recalculation of pension payments vs inflation to happen too infrequently causing issues right now but that is probably a different issue.

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#194

Post by jesterson »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #60
jesterson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but at this point we don't know yet how each will play out long term. EU chose to destroy itself fast, while Japan chose slow economic demise. Only time will tell how each will play out.

The only thing destroying the EU is the ruse if the far right.

Glad you have found your favorite scapegoat.

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#195

Post by Tor3 »

jojobas wrote: post #186
Tor3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a way to secure rice production, please let us know. Or did you mean to abandon rice because it's too labor intensive? There's a reason for subsidies, just as there are reasons for agricultural support in my home country - without it there would be no agriculture. And, without going into details, that would be a disaster.

The subsidies are to protect Japanese rice production from countries where the same labour is done for way less. All praise free trade, where poverty is the most exported commodity.

Japanese rice is not commonly produced in other countries. And even where they do, the rice is not the same. I eat rice made inside Japan and made outside of Japan, and the latter is a poor substitute.

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#196

Post by karmakurtisaani »

jesterson wrote: post #194
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing destroying the EU is the ruse if the far right.

Glad you have found your favorite scapegoat.

Yah, Brexit, Trump, connections to Putin, xenophobia mongering, only being able to blame EU or the immigrants, never being able to solve any real issues, never being able to solve even their own fake issues... yeah mate, I might be on to something here.

Efit: ah also targeting vulnerable lonely men with hateful rethoric, pushing toxic masculinity, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, offering easy but ultimately un-implementable solutions to complex problems.. the list just goes on. Dude, they're pulling your leg.

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#197

Post by lmm »

Schiendelman wrote: post #190
lmm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should the government increase its already high tax rate from up-to-50% to up-to-90% and take money from the childless to give to parents? Yes > Should the government replace your salary if you quit your job to raise a kid (since after-all that is a cost of the endeavor)? Yes > If you're just talking about "giving birth", I assure you the cost to give birth is already close to free, the government already covers th…

I will fight tooth and nail against this. Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children.

> Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children.

In Japan? Doubt. The social cost may be harder to measure, but it's huge.

And even if they are more "economically efficient", why is that the goal?

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#198

Post by jojobas »

Tor3 wrote: post #195
jojobas wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subsidies are to protect Japanese rice production from countries where the same labour is done for way less. All praise free trade, where poverty is the most exported commodity.

Japanese rice is not commonly produced in other countries. And even where they do, the rice is not the same. I eat rice made inside Japan and made outside of Japan, and the latter is a poor substitute.

Yeah yeah, then there's Komachi from Akita. This doesn't change that without subsidies Japanese farmers would fold to the 3rd world cheaper rice.

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#199

Post by Schiendelman »

lmm wrote: post #197
Schiendelman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will fight tooth and nail against this. Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children.

> Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children. In Japan? Doubt. The social cost may be harder to measure, but it's huge. And even if they are more "economically efficient", why is that the goal?

Are you suggesting that a newborn human has more positive economic impact than an immigrant? What factors are you considering?

Re: What happens if Japan takes in zero immigrants?

#200

Post by lmm »

Schiendelman wrote: post #199
lmm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Immigrants are WAY more economically efficient than children. In Japan? Doubt. The social cost may be harder to measure, but it's huge. And even if they are more "economically efficient", why is that the goal?

Are you suggesting that a newborn human has more positive economic impact than an immigrant? What factors are you considering?

> Are you suggesting that a newborn human has more positive economic impact than an immigrant? What factors are you considering?

I'm suggesting they have a more positive lifetime impact yes. Obviously publicly-funded education, healthcare and the like for the newborn until they're ready to contribute financially has a cost, but an immigrant is just massively disruptive - language support in public services alone is a significant cost, but much larger is losing the benefits of a cohesive, high-trust society. If the neighbourhood's kids can no longer run errands alone but now need (or are felt to need) an adult escorting them, you're going to get mothers quitting their jobs to do that; if an unattended shop is no longer viable then those businesses will close; if every business switches to payment in advance because they can no longer trust people to pay their bills then that's a whole lot of friction that slows down all economic activity...

Post reply on HN