[_rjlt]

I really don't see a way out for Japan that's not immigration. It might lead to social upheaval, but it sounds like that kind of change is sorely needed. A well executed immigration policy could inject fresh blood into that country.

[csa]

I believe your hypothesis is correct, but I think the likelihood of significant levels of immigration is very low.

The reason is that while Japan tends to treat "westerners" quite favorably, it does not treat folks from developing countries nearly as well.

Japan is inviting many immigrants from developing counties -- ethnic Japanese from Brazil, undergrad and grad students from a variety of countries, laborers from a few low-cost Asian countries -- but this hasn't really had any positive long-term effects that I could see in terms of immigration. One problem is that these folks are treated like third-class citizens in their day-to-day lives (pay, prestige, news coverage, social treatment, etc.). This makes them feel not terribly welcome and sometimes a little bit scared (e.g., of being blamed with little recourse for a wrongdoing that a fellow countryman committed).

As a result of this treatment, many of the folks from these developing countries just aim for a money grab before they return to their country with a decent pile of f u money.

While many Japanese people I know and have known are interested in different cultures, they do not seem terribly interested in folding these cultures into Japanese culture melting pot-style. As such, I doubt that immigration will move the needle in terms of being a source of change in Japanese.

My only hope is that the youth of Japan get frustrated enough to have a 1960s-style social revolution that the US experienced (although focusing on slightly different vectors).

Source: Me. I was a professor in Japan in the past. I left because I witnessed the beginning of the universities failing (largely due to a massive lack of leadership), and I wanted to get out while the getting was good.

[flamedoge]

yes, and maybe immigration could actually be a good thing by creating problems to solve... a circular logic, but it may help unravel centuries of mono-culture and its idiosyncrasies such as mistrust and racism.

[grillvogel]

so all japan needs to do is completely destroy their own culture, its so simple now

[jessaustin]

You're really underplaying how much extant "Japanese culture" sucks for young people, and women, and everyone who isn't a wealthy old man. There's so much pressure to get a particular type of job (or marry a dude who has that type of job) and jobs of that type are quite unpleasant. Mis-investment on an immense scale (roads to nowhere, tearing down 20-story office buildings to build slightly fancier 22-story office buildings, ever-more-remote Tokyo suburbs while other cities wither, etc.) has deprived the rest of the economy of needed resources. That's left formerly-successful industrial organizations unable to reorganize for the "knowledge" economy. Big brands like Sony have been soundly beaten by Korean brands like Samsung. Those in charge are out of ideas, save for ideas about how to stay in charge. Everyone else is on the outside looking in.

[nihonde]

There is such a huge gap between your incredibly bleak image of Japan and the lively, optimistic and impressive Japan that I live in. I've lost count of the number of gaijin experts on Japan who want to tell me about how wrecked Japan is, and how Japanese people are in denial, and all the ways they need to emulate the West to get with the program. I've also lost count of the things that Japan does measurably better than every other country I've lived in. In the real world, the Japan that I live in is a country that by almost every measure is unrivaled in terms of intelligence, thoughtfulness, convenience, social justice, curiosity, work ethic, respect for tradition, ambitions for the future, and the ability to live your life in peace.

But of course, Japan is very hard on itself and sets insanely high standards for itself at every level of society. If you are bullish on Japan, you're easily dismissed as a nationalist or racist or as living in denial.

I guess the ultimate revenge is living well, so I've already won from that perspective. I feel genuinely sorry for people who can't see a good thing for what it is.

[yestoallthat]

> There is such a huge gap between your incredibly bleak image of Japan and the lively, optimistic and impressive Japan that I live in.

Yet you manage to tackle not a single one of those criticisms head on. Of course, nobody read anything into that.

And revenge? For what? For someone not liking you? That right there points directly to what I don't find particularly sexy about lots of Asia but Japan especially, the obedience and the obsession with appearances, apart from not dealing with WW2 a whole lot. Why would you need revenge the opinion of someone else?

And you are saying that Japan among other things is unrivaled in ambitions for the future.. how do you measure that? By almost every measure even. I don't care if you lost count, I'll have the list of those measures the areas in which Japan is number #1. Not because I agree or dispute it is, I just find that in itself so odd that I'd even be just keen on hearing the dimensions you think there is a clear "best" at all.

Meanwhile, here's my first association when it comes to ambitions for the future:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

And to tie in with the above,

> Cultural tolerance of suicide in Japan may also be explained by the concept of amae, or the need to be dependent on and accepted by others. For the Japanese, acceptance and conformity are valued above one’s individuality.

Is this totally off the mark? Edit the article then.

> I feel genuinely sorry for people who can't see a good thing for what it is.

It's not about not seeing the good, it's about seeing the bad. In my case, it's about saying "thanks but seriously, no thanks". People who think patriotism or friendship include blindness should start with being a friend to themselves. I don't behave differently towards individuals of any stripe, why should I treat individuals cloaking themselves in the vague word "culture" or "tradition"? If it helps, you can consider that my culture, my personal one.

[csa]

So I have been a Japan watcher/liver for the past 30 years. I might resemble some of the negative nellies you refer to, but not in precisely the same way. That said, you are about 180 degrees from what I and most of my trusted Japanese friends believe. I would like to better understand why we see things differently. Please help me understand.

So to define my beliefs in your terms:

- Japan is not currently wrecked economically, but they are rolling the dice with a ridiculously high debt to GDP ratio. Some of this can be reasonably explained away due to the specifics of Japanese saving in Japan, but not all of it.

- I don't think most Japanese people are in denial at all. They are largely cautiously pessimistic except for two groups (see below).

- I don't think that emulating the west is the best path forward. Many of my Japanese friends agree with me on this front. In fact, I think the manner in which Japan deregulated in the 80s and 90s under western-influenced guidance was a very bad move -- it gutted the core of the Japanese socio-economic structure without providing a reasonable replacement.

- I agree that Japan does many things better than the west. It also does many things worse (paging patio11).

- The only Japanese people I know who don't feel terribly concerned about the state of Japan are upper class people and folks who work for foreign companies or governments. The quality of their day-to-day lives is largely independent of the state of the Japanese economy.

So I wonder a few things about you. How long have you lived in Japan? How well do you speak Japanese? How many close Japanese friends do you have that don't speak English beyond short simple conversations? What do you do for a living?

My guess is that you work with the group I mentioned in my last bullet point, or you are just new to Japan.

If not, I am very very interested in learning from you.

Specifically:

1. How is Japan handling the debt to GDP ratio issue? This is genuinely an issue that is somewhere between scary and terrifying.

2. How are the folks in their 20s and 30s getting stable jobs at the same relatively high rate that they did in the 80s and (to a lesser extent) the early 90s? Note that anyone who went to an international school or a western university is not the target of my inquiry (those numbers are very small in aggregate).

3. How are Japanese banks handling the low/non-performing loans on their books? The last time I checked, they were just engaging in some polite fiction and hoping that a miracle will happen and/or they will be bailed out by the government via free funds or a devalued currency.

I genuinely hope you can show me the bright light of Japan's present and future. I left there because I saw that light dimmming rapidly. I will happily move back if I see any real potential. Please show me that potential in a compelling and convincing way -- I love Japan and desperately want the country to succeed, but I just don't see it now.

[ue_]

>unrivaled in terms of intelligence, thoughtfulness, convenience, social justice, curiosity, work ethic, respect for tradition, ambitions for the future, and the ability to live your life in peace.

What about wealth and income inequality? And what is there to show in terms of social justice? And why is respect for tradition something to be valued? And the lack of laws that prevent discrimaniton (except for the constitution, which I've read only applies to the citizens)? I'm curious, not trying to come accross as attackative.

[jessaustin]

Good for you; I also treasure the time I've spent in Japan. I'm not so worried about how Japan is different from other nations, as about how it seems to fall short of its own values. Don't get me started on USA... b^)

[SerLava]

Some of the best events in history have been the destruction of cultures.

14th amendment.

VE Day. VJ Day.

The collapse of the Soviet Union.

I would characterize the Japanese social changes after world war 2 as far... far... more intense than the destruction of cultural institutions described by the comment above yours.

[krapp]

Japan has been influenced by the rest of the world for millennia - just recently there was an article posted to HN about ancient Persia having envoys to Imperial Japan[0,1], to say nothing of China, which is probably responsible for just about everything you associate with "Japanese culture," or the Western influences behind the Meiji restoration and postwar government.

All cultures change over time, even the ones that some people, for some reason, hold up as icons of homogeneous purity like Japan. A culture which isn't an expression of the people who currently live in a certain place and time is dead. That immigration would inevitably alter Japanese culture is a sign of health and evolutionary progress, not destruction.

I mean, the Ainu might even consider it karma, since they were already there before the Yamato showed up with their weird foreign ideas.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13693800

[1]http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/10/05/national/history...

[edblarney]

Being 'influenced' by other places is definitely not the same thing as mass migration.

We often think of 'Tea' as a very English thing (and it is in many ways now), but of course it has it's roots in China/Asia i.e. global trade.

The Japanese borrowed ideas from elsewhere for quite some time (as has everyone of course), but they would view 'building Western warships' as something very different from 'importing millions of Westerners'.

Also, one could argue that Japan, for a variety of reasons, was far more isolated than other places.

[krapp]

One could also argue that the rate of cultural change by immigrants is lessened by the need for those immigrants to operate within the system, and by their relative lack of influence on the culture as a whole.

You're probably going to have a hard time finding a job in Japan that isn't "English Teacher" if you can't speak Japanese effectively - which is an example of the parent culture exacting a price in the form of partial assimilation for the opportunity of cultural exchange.

Plus, most immigrants to Japan are probably going to be from China, Korea or other Asian countries, simply because of proximity. Immigration doesn't necessarily have to mean millions of Westerners.

[ue_]

How does immigration mean that you're "destroying their own culture"? Please stop talking in hyperbole and being sarcastic, it isn't helpful.

I can't see why a unique culture ought to be 'preserved' as people say, either. And I can't see why the 'bad' parts cannot be slowly eroded over time. Nor do I see why certain 'races' ought to be kept. This has always been an argument that's been relatively ignored - why exactly is it desirable to keep a certain race or culture, especially when certain elements of that culture are horrible?

Please do not misinterpret me; I do not speak in terms of some 'white man's burden' in a colonial way. It is ultimately the decision of the Japanese citizens. But I do not see why they should be motivated in the name of nebulous and vague concepts of pride rather than what is best pragmatically.

[ng12]

> It is ultimately the decision of the Japanese citizens

I mean, that's exactly it. Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?

[ekianjo]

countries In europe with massive immigration levels are not doIng extremely well. Lets not pretend immigration solves everything please.

[flamedoge]

It's not.

[edblarney]

I don't think it's fair to assume that 'lack of immigration' = 'bad economy'.

There are tons of places in the world with fairly massive immigration and/or multicultural societies - that are far worse than Japan.

Brazil is a very, very multi-ethnic and blended society - and it's not exactly a paradise.

In fact - the opposite may be true: Japan is not a huge-huge country, and they hit massively 'above their weight' on so many things.

One could possibly argue that their ethnic cohesion and national identity are actually drivers of their success.

On the whole I guess it's hard to tell, but again I don't think it's fair to always assume 'immigration = good for economy'.

[ue_]

>Why is it so shocking an idea that the Japanese apparently prefer to retain their homogeneity even if it weakens their economy?

Is this true? How do you know?

[flamedoge]

Accepting more immigrants doesn't have to mean destroying own culture. I don't see why Japan can't promote and preserve its own culture while accepting immigrants. Is coexisting that hard?

[Nadya]

>Is coexisting that hard?

Yes. Because of culture clashes. New Culture B doesn't like how existing Culture A "does things" and demands a change. While they are some small minority, they often get ignored by the majority (Culture A). Over time, as more and more of Culture B immigrates into Culture A, they become large enough of a group that they can no longer be ignored. If Culture B was totally fine with adopting Culture A and adding to the culture rather than demanding things be done their way "culture killing" wouldn't be as large of an issue.

If each culture was 100% identical they would be the same culture, not different cultures. So there will always be culture clash.

One such example of cultures clash is Japan's "cute culture" is often seen as perverted from the outside world and there are often calls to censor things that are seen as being totally innocent in Japan.

What side you think is "right" or "wrong" is largely opinion in most cases and the two sides will fight - and hopefully (but rarely) those fights never escalate past yelling at one another.

[ue_]

>If Culture B was totally fine with adopting Culture A and adding to the culture rather than demanding things be done their way "culture killing" wouldn't be as large of an issue.

What if those in Culture B face problems? Should they not ask for change? What if those in the culture are citizens? The idea that people can't ask or demand for things just because they are of a different culture is ridiculous.

>and there are often calls to censor things that are seen as being totally innocent in Japan.

What are you referring to? At a guess, I'd say lolicon/shotacon pornography (which often faces calls to be censored and has been censored in many countries), which is hardly seen as innocent anywhere. That said, I very strongly disagree with the idea of censoring it.

I find the idea of 'culture clash' to be ridiculous, and the reason is that even within cultures there is a huge aemount of variation as to how things should be done. So why are those people legitimate (such as the Japanese Marxists) but those of a different culture are not legitimate? How is 'culture' even defined, and what elements must one have of it?

It's a very nebulous concept so I do not think that drawing the lines you are drawing makes much sense with regard to actual human interactions. Or I could be misinterpreting you, in which case please correct me. I'd say that ignoring people who are complaining is a very dangerous thing to do, in terms of the happiness and benefit for all in society, not just those of your tribe/race/hair colour/football team/culture.

[flamedoge]

I think we can all agree that there already are vetting processes to screen for immigrants who are least likely to receive and give cultural shocks with existing cultures within the country. These should be given appropriate weight as desired by citizens of the country.

[ng12]

The better question is why should they have to? Because Western countries decided their economy is more important than their autonomy to decide these things?

[flamedoge]

They don't have to. I just wanted to point out non-sequitur conclusion.

[themaninthedark]

Hmm, so if Japan was to accept a bunch of Muslim refugees from Syria but ban the women from wearing hijabs would you call that racist?

Japan wants people living in Japan over the long term to adopt Japanese value and mannerisms.

They value this because they want a harmonious society.

[flamedoge]

Is it not at all conceivable that "people living in Japan over the long term to adopt Japanese value and mannerisms." might actually exist? We're picking extremes here, I am sure real data will reveal better picture.

[codedokode]

I think it's better to have a little less money then have a higher crime rate that migrants would bring.

[DashRattlesnake]

> I really don't see a way out for Japan that's not immigration.

That's a pretty small-minded and dogmatic statement; it basically amounts to "copy US policy, it's the only way." At some point, someone in the world is going to actually have to solve the problem of stagnant or declining populations, without copping out and just importing new populations from elsewhere.

[mkaziz]

I mean, the US way works. Immigration, especially of skilled labour, lends real tangible benefits to the US, its growth, and its culture.

[pdx]

Immigration of skilled labor is always valuable. Japan, the US, France, Germany, etc should always welcome it, and should have policies that allow people with verified and needed skills to immigrate.

However, drowning your citizens in a sea of immigrants is cultural suicide. If your culture is such that it has allowed your ancestors to build a country that immigrants want to flee their own countries to live in, then your culture is worth preserving, rather than allowing it to be replaced by the culture of those who would happily flood into it.

That means, you can't solve your demographic problems by opening the floodgates. Instead, you need to fix the economic problems that are making people hesitant to have children in the first place.

[mkaziz]

It's not a floodgates vs nothing situation. You can certainly decide on an appropriate rate that you're comfortable with - enough to jumpstart the economy but not enough to completely drown out the host culture.

[ng12]

Hasn't Japan already done that? Secondly, I think it's very Western-centric viewpoint that your country's economy comes before everything else.

[BoysenberryPi]

I mean without a strong economy everything else around it kinda goes to shit.

[akhilcacharya]

Well, that "US way" has worked better than every other developed country in that respect, why not adopt it?

[jimmywanger]

The US was amazingly gifted by geography and natural resources.

Trying to credit America's success on the "US Way" is fallacious - I don't think we'd be much worse off if we were ruled by a monarchy, or even an extremely ethnically homogenous culture, since we're protected by two oceans, have massive oil and mineral and forest reserves, and had the native population decimated by infectious diseases before we moved in.

[doall]

Because there are huge side effects by copying the "US way". If you want a much smaller scale and a weaker version of the US then adopt it. That is definitely not what the Japanese people want.

[mkaziz]

Right, and the current situation is one such consequence of that. Of course they could try something else - they've been trying since the 90's from what I understand, with mixed results at best.

[bionsuba]

We do not live in a one variable world.

You can't ascribe the position of the US solely to its immigration policies. Especially since it's impossible to correlate immigration trends in recent years in the US to economic trends.

[grillvogel]

japanese culture predates "the US way" by thousands of years.

[astrange]

Modern Japan was founded in 1868 and then destroyed and rebuilt again in WW2. The people have been there that long, but the country and culture haven't.

[grillvogel]

i dont even know where to begin with how wrong this is. what culture is something like Todai-Ji a part of? since japan was apparently invented in 1868

[astrange]

Modern Japan isn't building Shinto shrines, they're making ugly concrete towers and those houses that seem to be made out of bathroom tile.

[krapp]

>what culture is something like Todai-Ji a part of?

China.

[pottersbasilisk]

You are absolutely right. Korea and Japan are investing heavily into robots.

[muh_gradle]

Korea has a lot of immigrants.

[pcurve]

not as many as Japan. Korean is a lot more homogeneous than Japan.

[thevardanian]

Until at what point? Eventually the entire world is going to have to face a demographic change in the form of population reduction considering the whole 9 billion+ thing. You can't just continue to import more people from abroad and believe that it's a long term solution.

There's also a case to be made for culture, and preservation of unique ethnicity.

[mkaziz]

Addressing your first point: the problem is that they're stagnating /now/. They don't have the means or will or resources to deal with their problems. There's not enough labour to support the elderly population.

I'm sure they can decrease inflow at an appropriate time, but for now, they need fresh blood and fresh ideas.

[thevardanian]

They are "stagnating now" but the long term problem isn't solved even with immigrants. So the point is that humanity itself needs to find a sustainable solution. They definitely have the resources to deal with their problems, they just don't have the labour to utilize those resources. For example migrant labor is definitely a solution that Japan is working on.

[omegaworks]

>There's also a case to be made for culture, and preservation of unique ethnicity.

These are two different things. Make the case for the latter.

[drdeca]

I'm not making the claim in question, but I thought it might be interesting to try to give a not-obviously-completely-wrong line of reasoning for why a /variation/ of the claim could be plausible.

Could there be some advantage in having multiple populations with some positive and non-negligible but still not super high amount of mixing, over having a single population which, uh, mixes with itself "uniformly" ?

Like, what if random genetic variation over time in the different groups going in "different directions" but always mixing with the others a bit might allow for more diversity of things being "tried" than in the single group, and maybe this would result in "good ideas" being "tried"/"discovered" more often, and which could then spread to the other groups.

The "good ideas" would of course spread to the other groups more slowly than if it was all in one group, but maybe there could be some level of mixing where an improvement in the rate of "good ideas" being "found" was enough to outweigh the cost of "good ideas" taking longer to spread to different groups, so that all the groups benefit?

HOWEVER: note that I am not advocating making any decisions based on this argument. Even if such a level of mixing/not-mixing exists which would be better than having it all be one group, that doesn't mean that that level of mixing is less mixing than would happen if this argument were not considered, so this argument does not mean decreasing mixing would be good. If the level of (genetic) mixing has an impact at all (I don't know if it does), it seems equally possible that the optimal level is greater than the current level.

(Maybe if the level of mixing were "too low", then the mixing would become less effective? In the extreme (unrealistic) case, if the different groups became almost unable to mix, as a result of mixing too rarely, that might be very bad, because then "good ideas" couldn't spread from group to group?)

And even if some levels of mixing would result in better results (e.g. in health) over time than others, and even if a different level were better than the level that would be the result if no one tried to influence this level, that doesn't mean it would be good to try to influence the level towards that "better" level. Attempting to influence that level might be e.g. dehumanizing or un-virtuous, or bad for other reasons.

I want to make it very clear that I'm just talking about this as an intellectual exercise, and am not advocating any actions based on this argument. These lines of reasoning were ignoring the fact that the groups being considered are people, and really, the fact that these people are /people/ makes things relating to that much more important than any of the other considerations, and when they conflict, the fact that these are /people/ takes priority over any concerns about like, "gene flow" or whatever.

If you are concerned that the ideas in this comment might be repeated in harmful ways I am willing to delete this comment upon request, as long as this website lets me do that.

[hx87]

Nation-states, at least large ones such as Japan and the United States, might not be the best level to apply a "diversity without, uniformity within" policy though. It probably makes more sense to control mixing at the city or county/prefecture level.

[hkmurakami]

They have a massive untapped reserve workforce in women that they're completely inept at incentivizing and mobilizing.

[hx87]

Finishing the gender role revolution (i.e. men also take care of home and the kids, not getting drunk with coworkers every night) and ensuring that income security for the younger generations is at least as good as for the older generations would go a long way even without immigration.

[csa]

I think most people who do not live in Japan would be very surprised at how far this "revolution" has progressed. The problem is that Japan's older generations, Japan Inc in particular, have given these folks the collective middle finger (e.g., no stable and/or prestigious jobs for these folks).

You're right that income security (and status security, imho) would go a long way towards addressing the problem. That said, that digs much deeper into Japanese social issues -- for example, small business owners (e.g., small restaurant/bar owners, consultants, tech entrepreneurs, etc.) are often perceived as having lower social status than salarymen even though they sometimes make bucket loads more money. Folks in lower prestige careers have a harder time getting married, getting loans, moving into good neighborhoods, etc.

As such, the men who embrace the revolution are ipso facto marginalized in society.

Once Japan can embrace more individualistic careers more favorably, then I think their economy will be able to move forward more aggressively, and the "revolution" folks will have a more prominent and visible role in society.

[solidsnack9000]

Japan's policy problems seem to be (a) underinvestment in people, (b) poor labor policy leading to over work and (c) population decline due to people's difficulties facing such an environment.

How does immigration help? Say some people immigrate next year. They stick around. They become Japanese. Their children are (a) trained in the Japanese way and (b) find themselves subject to the same labor policy as other Japanese. What has changed?

[codedokode]

Is immigration related to education quality? And people with good skills would rather immigrate to places like California because the salaries are higher there.

Also japanese language (writing and reading) is very difficult for foreigners because one has to learn thousands of kanji characters.

[gozur88]

A way out of what?

[ProfessorLayton]

The collapse of the Japanese population, and with it, its economy, education system, and way of life?

[gozur88]

Japan's GDP per capita, which is IMO the only real measure of wealth, ranks the country at 37, above Finland and France.

The education system, as the article points out, is underfunded not because they don't have the money, but because they're spending it on other things.

And one sure method to destroying your way of life is to let a bunch of people in who are there for the money and aren't particularly interested in your way of life. If you're a Japanese person in Japan and you don't want to live in another country, why would you want other countries to live with you?

Japan is a resource-poor country without much arable land. They could stand to have a smaller population. From what I can see the only real downside to a smaller population is military power, and in the age of nuclear weapons I'm not sure how much it matters, particularly for an island nation.

[csa]

Hmmmm.... you make a prima facie good argument, but I'm not really convinced.

While Japan may not presently be gutted in terms of GDP, I wonder if we are witnessing the slow rotting from inside right now.

The older generations are demanding to be supported by the younger generation in a number of ways, but they are not giving the younger folks the means to do so via decent-paying jobs and jobs that are stable enough to encourage the start of a family (i.e., future generations).

Right now Japan is printing money hand over fist to try to make something -- anything -- happen economically. I don't see that it's working, and I wonder how long they can keep doing this before they take a hit on the economic side (GDP or otherwise).

If Japan can make it 25-30 years with something like their current GDP, then they will be fine -- their population will have shrunk, and there will be no big bubble on the top of their population by age pyramid. That said, think their economy will take a huge hit a some point in that timeframe.

Do you see much positive hope on the economic side moving forward?

[grillvogel]

if you want to collapse the japanese way of life then opening up immigration is probably the fastest way to do that.

[mkaziz]

Immigration is not all or nothing. You can allow in a set number of immigrants a year - enough to inject new ideas but not enough to drown out Japanese culture. They're your borders, no one's stopping you.

[michaelbuddy]

it WILL lead to social upheaval. People calling for massive immigration to Japan to "change things" is ludicrous. "oh you aren't good enough, we need to flood your land with unfamiliar people" so you can change to fit x standard. Absurd and racist.

[edblarney]

'The only way for Japan to progress is to abolish Japanese culture in favour of multiculturalism'.

... is how many people in the other parts of the world would view that position.

Maybe it's hard to understand for 'New World' people, who don't really have a sense of their own ethnicity, but it's very different elsewhere.

'Japan' is not so much a 'nationality' in the modern, Western sense.

'Japan' is the place where the 'Japanese' live.

The 'nation' of Japan is a legal construct around an ethnic group.

While I agree some degree of openness will definitely help the 'GDP' and on some other measures, it's important to grasp that other people will see it differently.

In new 'New World' - we generally focus on culturally secular measures, such as 'the GDP' i.e. a benchmark for the economy, which 'helps everyone' - and it avoids difficult socio-cultural arguments.

But almost everywhere else it's not like that.

I live in Quebec - and the Quebecois are an 'ethnic group' - and so politics here is totally different. We have state-sponsored child care for example - partly due to the very socialist political perspective, but partly because of the coherence of the community: it's really easy to get others to grasp the social benefits. They naturally seem themselves as part of a community, at least more so than the Anglo universe.

[rtpg]

No culture has escaped appropriation and mixing, especially not Japan. So much of modern Japanese life has been molded by the American occupation.

Why do you think more non-Japanese people in the country means the end of Japanese culture? I know many foreigners who live long-term in Japan and have absorbed many ways of working in the society. Why do you think they stay?

Ultimiately, the base belief behind the anti-multicuturalism position is that culture cannot/will not be learned.

Think about the trope of all the people moving to the US for the American Dream. Have they not accepted American culture? People move place for reasons beyond economics.

I think your example is more a case of the Protestant work ethic coming into play (people should help themselves)

[edblarney]

" So much of modern Japanese life has been molded by the American occupation."

Very true. But it's also fundamentally different than if the American influence were to have come from 10 or 20 million actual Americans living in Japan.

"Have they not accepted American culture?"

America does not have a culture in the classical sense of the term, or to be more fair - it's a new kind of culture.

Ergo - there is a 'lot less to accept'.

In America, you can 'do as you please' so long as you're not out go hurt anyone.

In Japan, there are a myriad of rules, spoken and unspoken, that one must adhere to.

It's easy for immigrants to 'get along' in the New World.

It'd be exceedingly hard to do so in places with more established classical culture.

This can be seen in Europe: they are very much intellectually and political open to newcomers, and yet have a really, really hard time integrating them.

There are dangerous, 'no go' zones in Sweden.

There are zero 'no go' or dangerous places here in Canada (or at least not based on migrant residence), where we have a lot more immigrants than Sweden.

In Canada we don't have our own language, customs, no cuisine, few social expectations other than fairly secular ones: go to school, get a job, be good, pay your taxes.

[rtpg]

It is demonstratively untrue that the US doesn't have a culture. You think the people on the Mayflower had mindwipes before landing? The country is full of people with a certain mindset.

One could argue that American culture is shitty, but it's a direct extension of western European culture. Why else are so many movies retellings of Shakespeare and not Romance of the three kingdoms?

Obviously Canada also has a culture.

Every 'no go' zone claim I've seen is followed by debunking , so forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt.

[thatfrenchguy]

No go zones are not a thing, seriously.

[stock_toaster]

> no cuisine

I dunno. Poutine is pretty tasty.

[hasenj]

Poutine is Junk Food sold at McDonalds and CostCo. I would not call it "Canadian Cuisine".

If you go to any food court in Canada what you will find is a myriad of ethnic foods: Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, Mexican, Italian, Lebanese, etc.

[rtpg]

that's the same everywhere. Tokyo's department store restaurants contain a bit of everything. Paris is filled with ethnic food.

[maus42]

I was confused about your use of the word "nation in the modern Western sense" first there. It used to mean more or less same thing in the West, especially in Europe. Of course the construction of nation-states and their borders in Europe during the 19th century was often quite arbitrary compared to the Japanese who live on an island and have done so for ages.

[pottersbasilisk]

No, it seems they have decided they prefer robots to immigrants.

It actually makes more sense with all the talk about the ai revolution.

[astrange]

It is much easier to immigrate into Japan than the US. Well, only if you can take a pay cut.