Japan's
Turning point
In 2005, it's population started declining for 1st time. Interesting forum. CrissCross.com
Jan 3, 2006

Tokyo - Japan's population has started shrinking for the first time this year, government data showed last week.

This has presented the government with pressing challenges on the social and economic front including ensuring provision of social security services and securing the labor force.

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's annual survey shows the balance of domestic births of Japanese minus deaths in the year is estimated to be minus 10,000, marking the first "natural decline" since the data were first compiled in 1989.

Japan will join Germany and Italy in the ranks of countries where a decline in population has already set in. (Kyodo News)

Comments (excerpts)

Unagi Dawn
News like this should give the power-that-be pause to think about actually allowing real immigration into Japan, but I'm not confident it would happen.
Take away the influx of immigrants from many western nations and they're also experiencing negative population growth.

urko
Or is it the skewed demographics? One would think as technology increases there is no real need for that many hands to do things. furthermore less congestion etc is a problem. I think one the demographic skew is righted then they are out of their pinch. Rather that worry about increasing the population they should be thinking about ways to pay for the social security shortfall.

lorean
There are some who think that a shrinking population may be a good thing. When in fact it is one of the greatest threatS to the economical sustainability of Japan. Japan is already past the point of no return. Even if all Japanese people were to start making babies this very instant the situation is irrecoverable.
You see, in a normal economy the majority of all people, up to a certain age, are employed. They work producing goods and/or services that contribute to the nations GDP and standard of living.
Eventually these people reach a retiring age, where upon they stop working and the younger generation takes over. When the number of people entering retirement age largely outnumbers the number of people entering the work force one of two things happens.
Either the old people must postpone retirement and continue working at their jobs, or goods and services are reduced. The first option eventually leads to the death of the older generation which leads to the inevitable outcome of the 2nd option.
Furthermore, the old people, by virtue of being old require medical care. This leads to more demand on the economy to expend resources in order to acomplish this. The end result is a severe contraction in the economy and standard of living.

farhaan
Problem:
Some years back (I don't know the exact date) Japan made the system that Women are equel to Men and they should also get jobs and whatever that mens do (like in many developed countries)
After that women came out of the homes and became equel to men (This generation).
Women started feeling of not under control of men but self made and started enjoying the outdoor life instead of their respective kitchens.
Because of this, can't make children, unsuccessful marriages, family problems, can't raise children properly, no family system and nothing but just money and self respect.
Solution:
Japan should go back to their old system.
Women must be in thier respective homes and make children and do only home jobs and child raising. And only men should work and look after thier family honestly.
Only with man's average income they can make many children and raise if men do it properly (should return home from office directly instead of shinjuku, roppongi, Ikebukoro)
And governement also must help by reducing the taxes.
My comment must look like a old man's lecture to you but this is fact after my long research.

cleo
farhaan -
So you'd like Japan to go back to the 'good old days'.
My 80-year-old mother-in-law is the youngest of seven, and the count of seven includes only those siblings who lived long enough to reach school age. My husband has cousins the same age as his parents, a couple older, even.
-which means that MIL's mother was almost constantly pregnant and/or nursing for a period of over two decades. It was she who made darned certain that her daughters all received an education (not a given in those days - the old lady was illiterate herself) so that they wouldn't be kept barefoot and in the kitchen, like she was.
For your 'suggestion' to work, you would not only have to chain women to the kitchen sink, you would also have to ban contraception and do something to obliterate maternal instinct, to prevent women wanting better for their daughters.
And I suppose it would be easier for a family to manage on 'man's average income' if they stopped paying for girls' education. (How much schooling do you need to wash nappies and cook rice, after all?)
And let's not forget the path Japan took when men and men only were in control, and there was a plentiful supply of cannon fodder.
Your comment isn't so much an 'old man's lecture' as a rose-tinted view of a past that never existed.

sapporoman
Is immigration the solution? If so, from where? Obviously not from Korea or China. Just by looking at Chinese and Korean statements and attitudes towards Japan and its people show that they are not compatible with Japan. I guess people from western backgrounds are the primary solution if immigrants are needed.

xanodel
It's not just Japan, most of Europe is experiencing the same problems. And the solution that seems to work is simple. Get females to work outside the house, in higher paying jobs. What I hear a lot about Japan is that females who do work, usually earn considerably less, have less chances for job promotion, and usually work and college is seen as a phase before marriage and settling down with a husband and children. After marriage, you're not suppose to work.
Hence, the solution I would propose is simply to allow more females in the work force, in more sectors. Heck, even in male dominated sectors like business, science etc. At the same time, look at the policies Scandanavian countries are embracing. That is, provide on site child care (aka at the work place), and tell the *males* to also help distribute work at home and taking care of kids.
At the same time, allow immigration and real integration of the foreigners.

cyclide
From my geography class, I learned a term "nation", meaning a culture with PURE race with no mix. i also learned another term "country", meaning a culture that has mixed race.
I think know which term the Japanese'd prefer, though I hear from somewhere that Japan prefers "one race, one culture".
Though i myself as soccer person, I notice that in Japan's national soccer team, there's a guy named ALEX, originally from Brazil. This is quite contradiction.

plucker
I'm skeptical about immigration.
When people talk about "immigration", they usually mean Highly Skilled Migrants. The number of people who (a) would meet J-government requirements of a highly-skilled migrant and (b) would actually want to live in Japan would probably just run into a few thousand people a year, which is not really going to make a big difference.

snowman
Trying to go back in time to "women in the kitchen, men in the workforce" will not fly, either economically nor psychologically. Nor should it. What is needed is for the government to respond by offering more support to families. It will increase jobs (esp. for women) if more daycare centers are needed, etc. Mind you, Japan MUST regulate it, which is not the case at the moment. Anyone can open a day care, which is a scary thought.
All this said, I personally very much oppose the "economic" view that populations must increase. I would love for the overall world population of humans to decline to reset the already over strained earth. IT's a matter of point of view.
Environmental versus economical. BUt environmental is the most fundamental of the two, and needs to take priority. Health care is going to shoot up as people start dying in our own garbage.
my two yen...

Nessie
"When people talk about "immigration", they usually mean Highly Skilled Migrants."
In Japan they usually mean grunt workers like farmers for depopulated rural regions or semi-skilled grease monkeys for low-escelon factory jobs.

Poppa
Couldn't agree more. A little shrinking of the world's population will ease the strain on natural resources and be better for everyone. But governments don't see things that way. To them, it's mostly about the economy.
Nations compete with each other over trade and such to try and raise their standard of living. They try to keep the upper hand on their rivals. Japan could easily slip from best economy in Asia to second, third or worse in the population decreases enough. That'd hurt their pride.
As for defining a "nation" as being people of pure blood, I'd have words with that teacher of yours. More likely its people who identify a common cultural heratige.
If you want to get technical, the concept of Japanese "pure blood" is ridiculous. If I remember correctly, it's believed the Japanese people are a mix of East Asian, Mongol and Polynesian (?). But that's another topic for another time.

mareo
"grease monkey" You are the second person that define me whit that words. The first one was my big brother. Dont` worry, I know that you don't want to offend anyone. But please can you refrain to use those words in the future?
Anyway I'm surprised to see how well informed you are. Not many people know about the countryside repopulation programmE. Maybe because its local goverments initiative.
And about the semi-skilled part. Let me correct you in this one. When I go to find a job, the main question in the interview is...
Nihongo wakarimaska?
This is because you can be a genius with machines but if you don't speak Japanese you are useless for them. Like a fantastic, cheap, foreigner machine from a third word country, with no manual in Japanese. This is even more important than experience. Gives you flexibility, even if you don't know nothing, they can teach you. If your line close, they just re-train you. Even more important, is your capacity to translate the boss orders to the rest of the workers. Japanese look for that like gold. Fully fluent speakers can become an official translator, is the closest we can get to a managerial position with the "glass-ceiling" for non-Japanese. Translators bears great power and the consequent responsibility. It's not so well paid, but its not a DDD job! In conclusion: semi-skilled means...Hai! Nihongo wakarimas!

mareo
Solution :
Japan should go back to their old system.
In the old days women remained in home and foreigners out.
That means that 198,000 registered, working foreigners that pay taxes have to go home to? You really think, that going back, is an step forward?

krapzilla
Daily Yomiuri said it best... Anxiety, plain and simple. Japan inc has all but destroyed the family unit. Time for many of you to face the facts. In addition, J-men are just hopeless. They have no concept of romance... just lust and perverted attitudes about women. Me?? Got more than enough on my hands. That's a problem in itself... so many J-ladies want to get the hell off this island... I'm swamped with marriage proposals! What to do? I really don't need some hello kitty chattin mini skirt wearin louis vuitton bag tottin bikurri chan hangin around my neck of the woods for the next 40 years. Taihen da ne !

kimigano
Japanese companies have destroyed family life.

Nessie
Thanks. Rural depopulation in Hokkaido is a serious problem. They're even talking about consolidating the 212 municipalities here into half that number. And the farming population is getting older, so they really need some young blood.

smd
The sun is setting on Japan.

fireant
When in fact it is one of the greatest threats to the economical sustainability of Japan.
If the population decreases and older people work longer and the government gets less in taxes... For how long will this be a problem?
The government won't be able to provide goods and services (because of a smaller tax base) but for how long? Until all the old people die off, perhaps?
I think there would be a severe tax crisis/shortable and fewer government goods and services for a while, but maybe only 20-30 years? Schools get smaller, fewer roads are needed with a smaller population, hospitals require less (fewer sick older people).
My question is what happens in 30 years? There will be fewer old people (the baby boomers will all be dead), and fewer everybody else. Will things balance out?
CrissCross.com