/ |

Government weighs immigration to maintain population, boost workforce

by

Staff Writer

This is the last of a five-part series on Japan’s population woes caused by its graying society and low birthrate.

A shrinking population has long been an issue for an increasingly graying Japan.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in September announced administrative measures seeking to maintain a population of at least 100 million people over the next 50 years with a target of significantly raising the fertility rate to 1.8 — a figure the government says is reachable if people today marry and have as many children as they wish.

The government worries that if the fertility rate — 1.42 in 2014 — continues to remain low, the population will dip to about 80 million by 2065 and even 40 million by 2115, causing a significant labor shortage and decline in people’s standard of living due to reduced economies of scale.

However, considering the difficulty of meeting the population target by only raising the fertility rate, the government has also been discussing accepting more immigrants. In February 2014, the Cabinet Office revealed that Japan will likely only be able to maintain a population of more than 100 million if it accepts 200,000 immigrants annually from 2015 and the total fertility rate recovers to 2.07 by 2030.

But accepting such massive numbers of immigrants is currently unrealistic given Abe’s reluctance to open the doors to immigrants to stay permanently, except for those the government regards as skilled professionals.

Instead, Abe is planning to expand the foreign trainee program to solve labor shortages in industries such as construction, which faces increased demand for labor ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Some of Abe’s aides, including Shigeru Ishiba, minister in charge of reinvigorating regions, and Taro Kono, minister in charge of administrative reforms, have recently claimed Japan should accept more immigrants to counter its dwindling workforce.

According to the labor ministry, there were about 790,000 registered foreign workers as of the end of October 2014, with the largest number — 39.6 percent — coming from China. Among them, some 145,000 people — about 18.5 percent— are working as foreign trainees.

Amid continuing debate over the country’s immigration policy, The Japan Times has interviewed two experts — Eriko Suzuki, a professor at Tokyo’s Kokushikan University specializing in foreign labor issues, and Yoichi Kaneko, an Upper House member of the Democratic Party of Japan — to examine the pros and cons of accepting immigrants as a measure to overcome the nation’s shrinking population.

Eriko Suzuki : Japan needs immigration overhaul to better accommodate non-Japanese

As a researcher who studies demography, Eriko Suzuki says the government will not be able to meet its population goal of 100 million people in 2065 without depending on immigrants.

Eriko Suzuki says she hopes discussions on accepting immigrants helps change the poor working conditions of foreign workers in Japan.
Eriko Suzuki says she hopes discussions on accepting immigrants helps change the poor working conditions of foreign workers in Japan. | YOSHIAKI MIURA

But she also pointed out that accepting them should not be considered as merely a way to fill the labor shortage, as strongly pushed by various industries.

“Given the seriousness of the situation with the dwindling population, it’s clear that accepting immigrants is unavoidable. But to do that, we would have to clear problems in the current immigration system,” Suzuki said.

Suzuki said she hoped such discussions over conditions to accept immigrants would help change poor working conditions for many foreign workers currently living and working in Japan.

She said their problems would continue if the country failed to address the issue.

“Many foreign people are working in this country as de facto immigrants,” she said.

Suzuki said the foreign trainee program was a prime example of the problems faced by foreign workers.

The program started in 1993 as an “international contribution” to transfer skills and knowledge to workers from developing countries by letting them work at Japanese firms in such industries as textiles, farming and construction for up to three years.

But Suzuki pointed out the “international contribution” was a mere facade to use trainees for a fixed term with far lower wages than the minimum set by municipalities.

She said the system was also problematic because hiring foreign trainees, who will go back home after a few years, discouraged employers from improving their working conditions.

This eventually made those workplaces unattractive for Japanese workers as well, she said.

“Many of these companies are located in rural areas, and I believe this has been one of the factors that causes the outflow of the rural population,” as many young Japanese leave to look for better job opportunities in cities, she said.

Rather, Suzuki said Japan should widen the scope of employment-based visas to accept more foreign laborers officially as immigrants and offer them options to stay longer in the country by inviting their families.

She said she believed the government was hesitant to ease visa regulations because it was afraid of the immigration problems experienced in Europe after World War II, when many people lost their jobs after the economy took a downward turn.

To keep Japan from experiencing the same mistake, Suzuki stressed three “barriers” need to be removed: a “systemic barrier” that hindered immigrants from receiving the same social services as Japanese, a “sentimental barrier” — prejudice against foreign nationals as typified in hate speech, and the “language barrier” that needed to be addressed to improve the lives of immigrant families.

Measures should be taken soon, Suzuki said, before the economic gap between Japan and some immigrants’ home countries narrows and it becomes harder to attract them here.

“Japan today surely is not as economically attractive as before, but many foreign people living here praise this country’s safety, saying women can walk around at night and property left on streets at night rarely gets stolen. They also praise Japanese people’s kindness,” she said.

“The population of this country will eventually increase if we could make these people want to stay for a long term.”

Yoichi Kaneko: Immigration comes at cost to society, technology development

A self-professed conservative in the left-leaning Democratic Party of Japan, Yoichi Kaneko said he opposed the idea of opening Japan’s doors to more immigrants as it could result in higher costs for the rest of society.

Yoichi Kaneko says accepting more immigrants could bring about a large financial and social burden on Japan.
Yoichi Kaneko says accepting more immigrants could bring about a large financial and social burden on Japan. | YOSHIAKI MIURA

A former economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Kaneko said the most active advocate of welcoming immigrants was the corporate world, which wanted to use foreign workers on low wages. But he said this overlooked the broader costs of housing immigrants, such as education and health care.

“The only cost companies will pay by accepting immigrants is just their salaries,” he said. But if the nation is accepting immigrants as long-term workers, “we have to think of managing their pensions and their unemployment insurance, as well as giving them a chance to learn Japanese,” he said.

Many immigrants are likely to bring families with them, and Japan will have to shoulder the expenses of providing proper social and educational support for them as well, he added.

Rather than relying on immigrants, Kaneko said Japan should overcome its labor shortages by developing “labor-saving technologies” that allow people to work with less manpower, which he believed will underpin the future of Japan’s economy.

“Take the nursing care industry, for instance. We can develop something like nursing robots or wearable robotics” to reduce the burden on caregivers who performed such tasks as lifting people up, he said.

If the nation depended on immigrants to solve the labor shortage immediately, “we would cease efforts to develop these kind of technologies,” Kaneko said, adding that Japan might also lose the chance to become a leading exporter of such technologies.

However, Kaneko said he believed the foreign trainee program was a good one for both the worker source countries looking to improve their industries and for Japan as it sought to fill labor shortages and make global contributions.

But the reality of the program didn’t reflect its designated purpose, he said, adding that Japan’s international reputation would be seriously damaged if the current situation continued, where many trainees are confined in dirty rooms and forced to work at below minimum wage.

“Most of the trainees are people who come to Japan with high expectations for working in our country. If we can treat them properly, they would become fond of Japan,” Kaneko said. “But some companies treat them badly and make them dislike Japan.”

In order to accomplish the aim of the program, trainees’ human rights should be respected, he added.

Kaneko said Japan currently was not the most appealing choice for immigrants to come and work, with better salaries offered in other places, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai, due to the weaker yen.

He said these locations also had a language advantage over Japan, because many immigrants from Asia today spoke either Chinese or English.

Instead of pursuing immigrants to support Japan’s economy as a labor force, Kaneko said Japan should continue efforts to attract more foreign visitors, such as Chinese on their bakugai shopping spree, to prop up consumption.

“To be honest, I can’t imagine how Japan will be” if it accepted more immigrants, Kaneko said, adding that it had not openly done this to date and lacked knowledge on how to make the country livable for both Japanese and foreign residents.

 

  • Firas Kraïem

    The Tokyo immigration office looks much better than the one up here in Sendai…

    • Starviking

      But Sendai is probably quicker.

    • http://aroundtokyo.net/blog/ Rohan Gillett

      The Tokyo office might look better, but actually to it is a real pain.

  • Firas Kraïem

    Also, apparently the only problem this Kaneko guy sees with the technical trainee progam is that as a result they “dislike Japan”. Not at all surprised.

  • Jr. Mackeltom

    Knowing Japan with 5 years of experience living in Tokyo & Nakatsu, Japan will not open it’s doors to a high number of foreigners. Yoichi Kaneko’s idea about immigration & how to deal with it, is the decision that Japan is going to take.

    Besides taxes are used mainly for public spending. If Japan is going to have a decline in population, then the best solution is to bring women & technology (Improved) to the workforce & extend the retirement age, till fertility rate hits 2.10 & above. Of course even when fertility rate hits 2.10 & above the working population is not gonna increase magically, but after 18- 20 years the workforce will be improve till that Japan have the ability to bear with women, technology & extended retirement age.

    However high number of people & population growth is not essential anymore. Industrial sectors now have the ability to produce more efficiently without the help of mankind. Decline in population is not something dangerous & fetal, it’s a sign that the economy of a country does not require high numbers of population than it used to require. People who are stubbornly agreeing that Japan need more immigrants to have a stable economy are having a tunnel vision on population decline.

    • mayday

      > “it’s a sign that the economy of a country does not require high numbers of population than it used to require.”

      I don’t agree with that in the case of Japan. Its economy has generally been stagnating for decades, and the average Japanese has 2000 work hours per year, that’s 300 hrs longer than Americans.

      There’s indeed other ways to mitigate this problem such as offshoring, but there’s indeed a labor shortage in Japan atm, that’s undeniable.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        Why does Japan need human resources when robots can do work more efficiently and at a lower cost than a normal person do ? Ok to be more accurate look at the calculations(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) lets assume that just one Japanese person is the only EMPLOYEE / WORKER in a manufacturing company with a contract for five years with a minimum or starter wage of ¥80000 for a month with free transport (Worth ¥4,000 per/month) & other non-monetary benefits that would an economist normally charge as cost but not an accountant. Lets assume that the Japanese person pays around ¥5,000 of income tax + other taxes= that totals ¥15,000. Now the company in which the Japanese person works have a net profit (before tax) of (Just figures) ¥1,500,000 and pays the government 25% from profits (before tax) as corporate income tax. the company would have a profit (after taxation) of about ¥1,125,000 = ¥1,500,000 (¥1,500,000 * 25%). Taxes are mainly used for the welfare of the Citizens of a country example:- Unemployment benefits lets assume that Japanese government pays ¥1,000,000,000/1000 unemployed people.

        Note: In Japan the population is declining which means that more jobs are available thus Employment increases (Not decreasing). EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE

        Now due to Machinery incentives promoted by the government of Japan the company decides to use technology and machinery (robots) in the manufacturing process replacing the labour-intensive production method with capital-intensive production method. The Japanese person may loose the job however he will not get affected badly as there is an EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE. Now the cost of ¥84,000 + other non-monetary benefits, are saved by the company but in return the company should incur costs monthly for the new capital intensive production method (Lets cut to the case, ignoring the setup cost etc). The costs for the “ROBOTS” for manufacturing goods (monthly) is ¥20,000 (No non-monetary benefits included) & and the efficiency is greater than when the company was still manufacturing using the labour intensive method, which results more goods to be sold within the month so the profit before tax should increase significantly lets calculate-

        Note: Unlike a person, a robot or machinery is an asset of a company which is owned by them the responsibility of the asset is with the company not anyone else.

        The new profit (before tax) of the company is ¥2,064,000 = ¥1,500,000 + (¥84,000 – ¥20,000) + (more profits due to efficiency) ¥500,000. Now assuming nothing else changed the tax paid to the government by the former Japanese worker of the manufacturing company cuts off (might be paying a higher or lower tax depending on the next job of the former Japanese worker in the manufacturing company).

        Now the company should pay ¥516,000 worth of tax = ¥2,064,000 * 25% which give the company of ¥1,548,000 profit (after tax) an increase of over ¥423,000 more profits for the buisness after taxation & the government earns 141,000 more income tax from the company, lets deduct the tax that the government gained from the former worker ¥141,000 – ¥15,000= ¥126,000 still the government & the manufacturing company both earns more profits and taxes due to the change from labour intensive method to capital intensive method.

        Also Japan is a developed country, Ignoring Fukushima there is nothing to be developed so taxes are not needed to be used for these but to maintain their standards and health. Another is that even though Japan would be earning a higher tax (AS I SHOWED ABOVE) after changing to the capital intensive method, the government would not be paying more and more for Unemployment benefits (500,000,000/500 people [DECLINED POPULATION]) etc, this is because Population is in decline. The only cost the government of Japan to incur is for the operations and promotions carried out in order to increase the fertility rate of the Japanese, various methods will carried out for instant Tax relief for families with more than 3 children etc & incentives that are targeted in order bring women and retired people back to the work force to fill the rest.

        And during this time Japan would increase the fertility rate 1.8 (still below the replacement level) by next 20 years or so & stabilize the Japanese population at 100 million and then work towards the target of 2.10 fertility rate which would again increase the Japanese people. However after 18- 20 years after the fertility rate topped and surpassed the cap of 2.10 Japanese government should take measures to encourage companies to bring in the work force (or labour) back to the work force which should be targeted in switching back the capital intensive method to labour-intensive method.

        However robots actually generate more taxes for the government as this reduces the costs incurred by the companies and increases efficiency resulting more profit before taxes that would let or make the company pay a higher amount of tax than when people who used to work their previously.

        Note: This calculations dose not include Reliability of money,Changes and some other small factors that would have a little or no change at all to the given calculations. Also REMEMBER my calculations does say words like “ASSUME, EXAMPLE, FIGURES , etc” learn the meaning of these words if any of you folks who wants to comment back at me.

        Also the direction Japanese government is taking not increasing the immigrant population but replacing the labour shortage with technology, Women & Retired people is a very successful system unlike the path Europe took by opening doors to more immigrants that now results in a genocidal situation, which is a major “FAILURE”. The path Japanese took will ensure their own citizens security, preservation of Japanese cultural and traditional elements, & a country that they actually can say theirs.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        Why does Japan need human resources when robots can do work more efficiently and at a lower cost than a normal person do ? Ok to be more accurate look at the calculations(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) lets assume that just one Japanese person is the only EMPLOYEE / WORKER in a manufacturing company with a contract for five years with a minimum or starter wage of ¥80000 for a month with free transport (Worth ¥4,000 per/month) & other non-monetary benefits that would an economist normally charge as cost but not an accountant. Lets assume that the Japanese person pays around ¥5,000 of income tax + other taxes= that totals ¥15,000. Now the company in which the Japanese person works have a net profit (before tax) of (Just figures) ¥1,500,000 and pays the government 25% from profits (before tax) as corporate income tax. the company would have a profit (after taxation) of about ¥1,125,000 = ¥1,500,000 (¥1,500,000 * 25%). Taxes are mainly used for the welfare of the Citizens of a country example:- Unemployment benefits lets assume that Japanese government pays ¥1,000,000,000/1000 unemployed people.

        Note: In Japan the population is declining which means that more jobs are available thus Employment increases (Not decreasing). EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE

        Now due to Machinery incentives promoted by the government of Japan the company decides to use technology and machinery (robots) in the manufacturing process replacing the labour-intensive production method with capital-intensive production method. The Japanese person may loose the job however he will not get affected badly as there is an EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE. Now the cost of ¥84,000 + other non-monetary benefits, are saved by the company but in return the company should incur costs monthly for the new capital intensive production method (Lets cut to the case, ignoring the setup cost etc). The costs for the “ROBOTS” for manufacturing goods (monthly) is ¥20,000 (No non-monetary benefits included) & and the efficiency is greater than when the company was still manufacturing using the labour intensive method, which results more goods to be sold within the month so the profit before tax should increase significantly lets calculate-

        Note: Unlike a person, a robot or machinery is an asset of a company which is owned by them the responsibility of the asset is with the company not anyone else.

        The new profit (before tax) of the company is ¥2,064,000 = ¥1,500,000 + (¥84,000 – ¥20,000) + (more profits due to efficiency) ¥500,000. Now assuming nothing else changed the tax paid to the government by the former Japanese worker of the manufacturing company cuts off (might be paying a higher or lower tax depending on the next job of the former Japanese worker in the manufacturing company).

        Now the company should pay ¥516,000 worth of tax = ¥2,064,000 * 25% which give the company of ¥1,548,000 profit (after tax) an increase of over ¥423,000 more profits for the buisness after taxation & the government earns 141,000 more income tax from the company, lets deduct the tax that the government gained from the former worker ¥141,000 – ¥15,000= ¥126,000 still the government & the manufacturing company both earns more profits and taxes due to the change from labour intensive method to capital intensive method.

        Also Japan is a developed country, Ignoring Fukushima there is nothing to be developed so taxes are not needed to be used for these but to maintain their standards and health. Another is that even though Japan would be earning a higher tax (AS I SHOWED ABOVE) after changing to the capital intensive method, the government would not be paying more and more for Unemployment benefits (500,000,000/500 people [DECLINED POPULATION]) etc, this is because Population is in decline. The only cost the government of Japan to incur is for the operations and promotions carried out in order to increase the fertility rate of the Japanese, various methods will carried out for instant Tax relief for families with more than 3 children etc & incentives that are targeted in order bring women and retired people back to the work force to fill the rest.

        And during this time Japan would increase the fertility rate 1.8 (still below the replacement level) by next 20 years or so & stabilize the Japanese population at 100 million and then work towards the target of 2.10 fertility rate which would again increase the Japanese people. However after 18- 20 years after the fertility rate topped and surpassed the cap of 2.10 Japanese government should take measures to encourage companies to bring in the work force (or labour) back to the work force which should be targeted in switching back the capital intensive method to labour-intensive method.

        However robots actually generate more taxes for the government as this reduces the costs incurred by the companies and increases efficiency resulting more profit before taxes that would let or make the company pay a higher amount of tax than when people who used to work their previously.

        Note: This calculations dose not include Reliability of money,Changes and some other small factors that would have a little or no change at all to the given calculations. Also REMEMBER my calculations does say words like “ASSUME, EXAMPLE, FIGURES , etc” learn the meaning of these words if any of you folks who wants to comment back at me.

        Also the direction Japanese government is taking not increasing the immigrant population but replacing the labour shortage with technology, Women & Retired people is a very successful system unlike the path Europe took by opening doors to more immigrants that now results in a genocidal situation, which is a major “FAILURE”. The path Japanese took will ensure their own citizens security, preservation of Japanese cultural and traditional elements, & a country that they actually can say theirs.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        Why does Japan need human resources when robots can do work more efficiently and at a lower cost than a normal person do ? Ok to be more accurate look at the calculations(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) lets assume that just one Japanese person is the only EMPLOYEE / WORKER in a manufacturing company with a contract for five years with a minimum or starter wage of ¥80000 for a month with free transport (Worth ¥4,000 per/month) & other non-monetary benefits that would an economist normally charge as cost but not an accountant. Lets assume that the Japanese person pays around ¥5,000 of income tax + other taxes= that totals ¥15,000. Now the company in which the Japanese person works have a net profit (before tax) of (Just figures) ¥1,500,000 and pays the government 25% from profits (before tax) as corporate income tax. the company would have a profit (after taxation) of about ¥1,125,000 = ¥1,500,000 (¥1,500,000 * 25%). Taxes are mainly used for the welfare of the Citizens of a country example:- Unemployment benefits lets assume that Japanese government pays ¥1,000,000,000/1000 unemployed people.

        Note: In Japan the population is declining which means that more jobs are available thus Employment increases (Not decreasing). EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE

        Now due to Machinery incentives promoted by the government of Japan the company decides to use technology and machinery (robots) in the manufacturing process replacing the labour-intensive production method with capital-intensive production method. The Japanese person may loose the job however he will not get affected badly as there is an EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE. Now the cost of ¥84,000 + other non-monetary benefits, are saved by the company but in return the company should incur costs monthly for the new capital intensive production method (Lets cut to the case, ignoring the setup cost etc). The costs for the “ROBOTS” for manufacturing goods (monthly) is ¥20,000 (No non-monetary benefits included) & and the efficiency is greater than when the company was still manufacturing using the labour intensive method, which results more goods to be sold within the month so the profit before tax should increase significantly lets calculate-

        Note: Unlike a person, a robot or machinery is an asset of a company which is owned by them the responsibility of the asset is with the company not anyone else.

        The new profit (before tax) of the company is ¥2,064,000 = ¥1,500,000 + (¥84,000 – ¥20,000) + (more profits due to efficiency) ¥500,000. Now assuming nothing else changed the tax paid to the government by the former Japanese worker of the manufacturing company cuts off (might be paying a higher or lower tax depending on the next job of the former Japanese worker in the manufacturing company).

        Now the company should pay ¥516,000 worth of tax = ¥2,064,000 * 25% which give the company of ¥1,548,000 profit (after tax) an increase of over ¥423,000 more profits for the buisness after taxation & the government earns 141,000 more income tax from the company, lets deduct the tax that the government gained from the former worker ¥141,000 – ¥15,000= ¥126,000 still the government & the manufacturing company both earns more profits and taxes due to the change from labour intensive method to capital intensive method.

        Also Japan is a developed country, Ignoring Fukushima there is nothing to be developed so taxes are not needed to be used for these but to maintain their standards and health. Another is that even though Japan would be earning a higher tax (AS I SHOWED ABOVE) after changing to the capital intensive method, the government would not be paying more and more for Unemployment benefits (500,000,000/500 people [DECLINED POPULATION]) etc, this is because Population is in decline. The only cost the government of Japan to incur is for the operations and promotions carried out in order to increase the fertility rate of the Japanese, various methods will carried out for instant Tax relief for families with more than 3 children etc & incentives that are targeted in order bring women and retired people back to the work force to fill the rest.

        And during this time Japan would increase the fertility rate 1.8 (still below the replacement level) by next 20 years or so & stabilize the Japanese population at 100 million and then work towards the target of 2.10 fertility rate which would again increase the Japanese people. However after 18- 20 years after the fertility rate topped and surpassed the cap of 2.10 Japanese government should take measures to encourage companies to bring in the work force (or labour) back to the work force which should be targeted in switching back the capital intensive method to labour-intensive method.

        However robots actually generate more taxes for the government as this reduces the costs incurred by the companies and increases efficiency resulting more profit before taxes that would let or make the company pay a higher amount of tax than when people who used to work their previously.

        Note: This calculations dose not include Reliability of money,Changes and some other small factors that would have a little or no change at all to the given calculations. Also REMEMBER my calculations does say words like “ASSUME, EXAMPLE, FIGURES , etc” learn the meaning of these words if any of you folks who wants to comment back at me.

        Also the direction Japanese government is taking not increasing the immigrant population but replacing the labour shortage with technology, Women & Retired people is a very successful system unlike the path Europe took by opening doors to more immigrants that now results in a genocidal situation, which is a major “FAILURE”. The path Japanese took will ensure their own citizens security, preservation of Japanese cultural and traditional elements, & a country that they actually can say theirs.

      • Alex _

        Just stop. Japan IS in deep trouble, whether you like it or not. Population shrinking is NOT a good thing, and Japan is not able to construct enough robots to fill the gaps in labor. And no, Japan’s women age too, also very rapidly. Japan will never hit the 2.10 fertility rate. Also, robots do NOT pay taxes. The Taxes are only going to get higher, and higher, to support a growing army of old people.

      • Alex _

        Just stop. Japan IS in deep trouble, whether you like it or not. Population shrinking is NOT a good thing, and Japan is not able to construct enough robots to fill the gaps in labor. And no, Japan’s women age too, also very rapidly. Japan will never hit the 2.10 fertility rate. Also, robots do NOT pay taxes. The Taxes are only going to get higher, and higher, to support a growing army of old people.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        Why does Japan need human resources when robots can do work more efficiently and at a lower cost than a normal person do ? Ok to be more accurate look at the calculations(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) lets assume that just one Japanese person is the only EMPLOYEE / WORKER in a manufacturing company with a contract for five years with a minimum or starter wage of ¥80000 for a month with free transport (Worth ¥4,000 per/month) & other non-monetary benefits that would an economist normally charge as cost but not an accountant. Lets assume that the Japanese person pays around ¥5,000 of income tax + other taxes= that totals ¥15,000. Now the company in which the Japanese person works have a net profit (before tax) of (Just figures) ¥1,500,000 and pays the government 25% from profits (before tax) as corporate income tax. the company would have a profit (after taxation) of about ¥1,125,000 = ¥1,500,000 (¥1,500,000 * 25%). Taxes are mainly used for the welfare of the Citizens of a country example:- Unemployment benefits lets assume that Japanese government pays ¥1,000,000,000/1000 unemployed people.

        Note: In Japan the population is declining which means that more jobs are available thus Employment increases (Not decreasing). EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE

        Now due to Machinery incentives promoted by the government of Japan the company decides to use technology and machinery (robots) in the manufacturing process replacing the labour-intensive production method with capital-intensive production method. The Japanese person may loose the job however he will not get affected badly as there is an EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE. Now the cost of ¥84,000 + other non-monetary benefits, are saved by the company but in return the company should incur costs monthly for the new capital intensive production method (Lets cut to the case, ignoring the setup cost etc). The costs for the “ROBOTS” for manufacturing goods (monthly) is ¥20,000 (No non-monetary benefits included) & and the efficiency is greater than when the company was still manufacturing using the labour intensive method, which results more goods to be sold within the month so the profit before tax should increase significantly lets calculate-

        Note: Unlike a person, a robot or machinery is an asset of a company which is owned by them the responsibility of the asset is with the company not anyone else.

        The new profit (before tax) of the company is ¥2,064,000 = ¥1,500,000 + (¥84,000 – ¥20,000) + (more profits due to efficiency) ¥500,000. Now assuming nothing else changed the tax paid to the government by the former Japanese worker of the manufacturing company cuts off (might be paying a higher or lower tax depending on the next job of the former Japanese worker in the manufacturing company).

        Now the company should pay ¥516,000 worth of tax = ¥2,064,000 * 25% which give the company of ¥1,548,000 profit (after tax) an increase of over ¥423,000 more profits for the buisness after taxation & the government earns 141,000 more income tax from the company, lets deduct the tax that the government gained from the former worker ¥141,000 – ¥15,000= ¥126,000 still the government & the manufacturing company both earns more profits and taxes due to the change from labour intensive method to capital intensive method.

        Also Japan is a developed country, Ignoring Fukushima there is nothing to be developed so taxes are not needed to be used for these but to maintain their standards and health. Another is that even though Japan would be earning a higher tax (AS I SHOWED ABOVE) after changing to the capital intensive method, the government would not be paying more and more for Unemployment benefits (500,000,000/500 people [DECLINED POPULATION]) etc, this is because Population is in decline. The only cost the government of Japan to incur is for the operations and promotions carried out in order to increase the fertility rate of the Japanese, various methods will carried out for instant Tax relief for families with more than 3 children etc & incentives that are targeted in order bring women and retired people back to the work force to fill the rest.

        And during this time Japan would increase the fertility rate 1.8 (still below the replacement level) by next 20 years or so & stabilize the Japanese population at 100 million and then work towards the target of 2.10 fertility rate which would again increase the Japanese people. However after 18- 20 years after the fertility rate topped and surpassed the cap of 2.10 Japanese government should take measures to encourage companies to bring in the work force (or labour) back to the work force which should be targeted in switching back the capital intensive method to labour-intensive method.

        However robots actually generate more taxes for the government as this reduces the costs incurred by the companies and increases efficiency resulting more profit before taxes that would let or make the company pay a higher amount of tax than when people who used to work their previously.

        Note: This calculations dose not include Reliability of money,Changes and some other small factors that would have a little or no change at all to the given calculations. Also REMEMBER my calculations does say words like “ASSUME, EXAMPLE, FIGURES , etc” learn the meaning of these words if any of you folks who wants to comment back at me.

        Also the direction Japanese government is taking not increasing the immigrant population but replacing the labour shortage with technology, Women & Retired people is a very successful system unlike the path Europe took by opening doors to more immigrants that now results in a genocidal situation, which is a major “FAILURE”. The path Japanese took will ensure their own citizens security, preservation of Japanese cultural and traditional elements, & a country that they actually can say theirs.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        Why does Japan need human resources when robots can do work more efficiently and at a lower cost than a normal person do ? Ok to be more accurate look at the calculations(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) lets assume that just one Japanese person is the only EMPLOYEE / WORKER in a manufacturing company with a contract for five years with a minimum or starter wage of ¥80000 for a month with free transport (Worth ¥4,000 per/month) & other non-monetary benefits that would an economist normally charge as cost but not an accountant. Lets assume that the Japanese person pays around ¥5,000 of income tax + other taxes= that totals ¥15,000. Now the company in which the Japanese person works have a net profit (before tax) of (Just figures) ¥1,500,000 and pays the government 25% from profits (before tax) as corporate income tax. the company would have a profit (after taxation) of about ¥1,125,000 = ¥1,500,000 (¥1,500,000 * 25%). Taxes are mainly used for the welfare of the Citizens of a country example:- Unemployment benefits lets assume that Japanese government pays ¥1,000,000,000/1000 unemployed people.

        Note: In Japan the population is declining which means that more jobs are available thus Employment increases (Not decreasing). EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE

        Now due to Machinery incentives promoted by the government of Japan the company decides to use technology and machinery (robots) in the manufacturing process replacing the labour-intensive production method with capital-intensive production method. The Japanese person may loose the job however he will not get affected badly as there is an EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE. Now the cost of ¥84,000 + other non-monetary benefits, are saved by the company but in return the company should incur costs monthly for the new capital intensive production method (Lets cut to the case, ignoring the setup cost etc). The costs for the “ROBOTS” for manufacturing goods (monthly) is ¥20,000 (No non-monetary benefits included) & and the efficiency is greater than when the company was still manufacturing using the labour intensive method, which results more goods to be sold within the month so the profit before tax should increase significantly lets calculate-

        Note: Unlike a person, a robot or machinery is an asset of a company which is owned by them the responsibility of the asset is with the company not anyone else.

        The new profit (before tax) of the company is ¥2,064,000 = ¥1,500,000 + (¥84,000 – ¥20,000) + (more profits due to efficiency) ¥500,000. Now assuming nothing else changed the tax paid to the government by the former Japanese worker of the manufacturing company cuts off (might be paying a higher or lower tax depending on the next job of the former Japanese worker in the manufacturing company).

        Now the company should pay ¥516,000 worth of tax = ¥2,064,000 * 25% which give the company of ¥1,548,000 profit (after tax) an increase of over ¥423,000 more profits for the buisness after taxation & the government earns 141,000 more income tax from the company, lets deduct the tax that the government gained from the former worker ¥141,000 – ¥15,000= ¥126,000 still the government & the manufacturing company both earns more profits and taxes due to the change from labour intensive method to capital intensive method.

        Also Japan is a developed country, Ignoring Fukushima there is nothing to be developed so taxes are not needed to be used for these but to maintain their standards and health. Another is that even though Japan would be earning a higher tax (AS I SHOWED ABOVE) after changing to the capital intensive method, the government would not be paying more and more for Unemployment benefits (500,000,000/500 people [DECLINED POPULATION]) etc, this is because Population is in decline. The only cost the government of Japan to incur is for the operations and promotions carried out in order to increase the fertility rate of the Japanese, various methods will carried out for instant Tax relief for families with more than 3 children etc & incentives that are targeted in order bring women and retired people back to the work force to fill the rest.

        And during this time Japan would increase the fertility rate 1.8 (still below the replacement level) by next 20 years or so & stabilize the Japanese population at 100 million and then work towards the target of 2.10 fertility rate which would again increase the Japanese people. However after 18- 20 years after the fertility rate topped and surpassed the cap of 2.10 Japanese government should take measures to encourage companies to bring in the work force (or labour) back to the work force which should be targeted in switching back the capital intensive method to labour-intensive method.

        However robots actually generate more taxes for the government as this reduces the costs incurred by the companies and increases efficiency resulting more profit before taxes that would let or make the company pay a higher amount of tax than when people who used to work their previously.

        Note: This calculations dose not include Reliability of money,Changes and some other small factors that would have a little or no change at all to the given calculations. Also REMEMBER my calculations does say words like “ASSUME, EXAMPLE, FIGURES , etc” learn the meaning of these words if any of you folks who wants to comment back at me.

        Also the direction Japanese government is taking not increasing the immigrant population but replacing the labour shortage with technology, Women & Retired people is a very successful system unlike the path Europe took by opening doors to more immigrants that now results in a genocidal situation, which is a major “FAILURE”. The path Japanese took will ensure their own citizens security, preservation of Japanese cultural and traditional elements, & a country that they actually can say theirs.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        Why does Japan need human resources when robots can do work more efficiently and at a lower cost than a normal person do ? Ok to be more accurate look at the calculations(THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) lets assume that just one Japanese person is the only EMPLOYEE / WORKER in a manufacturing company with a contract for five years with a minimum or starter wage of ¥80000 for a month with free transport (Worth ¥4,000 per/month) & other non-monetary benefits that would an economist normally charge as cost but not an accountant. Lets assume that the Japanese person pays around ¥5,000 of income tax + other taxes= that totals ¥15,000. Now the company in which the Japanese person works have a net profit (before tax) of (Just figures) ¥1,500,000 and pays the government 25% from profits (before tax) as corporate income tax. the company would have a profit (after taxation) of about ¥1,125,000 = ¥1,500,000 (¥1,500,000 * 25%). Taxes are mainly used for the welfare of the Citizens of a country example:- Unemployment benefits lets assume that Japanese government pays ¥1,000,000,000/1000 unemployed people.

        Note: In Japan the population is declining which means that more jobs are available thus Employment increases (Not decreasing). EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE

        Now due to Machinery incentives promoted by the government of Japan the company decides to use technology and machinery (robots) in the manufacturing process replacing the labour-intensive production method with capital-intensive production method. The Japanese person may loose the job however he will not get affected badly as there is an EXCESS OF JOBS AVAILABLE. Now the cost of ¥84,000 + other non-monetary benefits, are saved by the company but in return the company should incur costs monthly for the new capital intensive production method (Lets cut to the case, ignoring the setup cost etc). The costs for the “ROBOTS” for manufacturing goods (monthly) is ¥20,000 (No non-monetary benefits included) & and the efficiency is greater than when the company was still manufacturing using the labour intensive method, which results more goods to be sold within the month so the profit before tax should increase significantly lets calculate-

        Note: Unlike a person, a robot or machinery is an asset of a company which is owned by them the responsibility of the asset is with the company not anyone else.

        The new profit (before tax) of the company is ¥2,064,000 = ¥1,500,000 + (¥84,000 – ¥20,000) + (more profits due to efficiency) ¥500,000. Now assuming nothing else changed the tax paid to the government by the former Japanese worker of the manufacturing company cuts off (might be paying a higher or lower tax depending on the next job of the former Japanese worker in the manufacturing company).

        Now the company should pay ¥516,000 worth of tax = ¥2,064,000 * 25% which give the company of ¥1,548,000 profit (after tax) an increase of over ¥423,000 more profits for the buisness after taxation & the government earns 141,000 more income tax from the company, lets deduct the tax that the government gained from the former worker ¥141,000 – ¥15,000= ¥126,000 still the government & the manufacturing company both earns more profits and taxes due to the change from labour intensive method to capital intensive method.

        Also Japan is a developed country, Ignoring Fukushima there is nothing to be developed so taxes are not needed to be used for these but to maintain their standards and health. Another is that even though Japan would be earning a higher tax (AS I SHOWED ABOVE) after changing to the capital intensive method, the government would not be paying more and more for Unemployment benefits (500,000,000/500 people [DECLINED POPULATION]) etc, this is because Population is in decline. The only cost the government of Japan to incur is for the operations and promotions carried out in order to increase the fertility rate of the Japanese, various methods will carried out for instant Tax relief for families with more than 3 children etc & incentives that are targeted in order bring women and retired people back to the work force to fill the rest.

        And during this time Japan would increase the fertility rate 1.8 (still below the replacement level) by next 20 years or so & stabilize the Japanese population at 100 million and then work towards the target of 2.10 fertility rate which would again increase the Japanese people. However after 18- 20 years after the fertility rate topped and surpassed the cap of 2.10 Japanese government should take measures to encourage companies to bring in the work force (or labour) back to the work force which should be targeted in switching back the capital intensive method to labour-intensive method.

        However robots actually generate more taxes for the government as this reduces the costs incurred by the companies and increases efficiency resulting more profit before taxes that would let or make the company pay a higher amount of tax than when people who used to work their previously.

        Note: This calculations dose not include Reliability of money,Changes and some other small factors that would have a little or no change at all to the given calculations. Also REMEMBER my calculations does say words like “ASSUME, EXAMPLE, FIGURES , etc” learn the meaning of these words if any of you folks who wants to comment back at me.

        Also the direction Japanese government is taking not increasing the immigrant population but replacing the labour shortage with technology, Women & Retired people is a very successful system unlike the path Europe took by opening doors to more immigrants that now results in a genocidal situation, which is a major “FAILURE”. The path Japanese took will ensure their own citizens security, preservation of Japanese cultural and traditional elements, & a country that they actually can say theirs.

      • Jr. Mackeltom

        I agree with offshoring it’s better than immigration.

  • Jr. Mackeltom

    This article’s headline is misleading as Japan never did have a serious debate about immigration.

    Japan is only rooting for trainee programs & long term visa for highly skilled expatriates.

    This article only contributes the opinions of an unknown researcher and a well known politician. All the other information are 1 to 2 years old.

  • Red Chairman Toad

    A solution may be to push out anti-immigrant chauvinists like Mr Kaneko, and invite talents like Elon Musk to Japan.

    • tisho

      You don’t invite Elon Musk into a country, you simply allow people to become Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. This is economics 101, yet people view economics not as a serious scientific discipline, but as an area in which anyone can have an opinion of. Ridiculous. It’s like going to a Chemistry forum and start typing my ignorant opinion. You can’t just have an opinion on something, you have read, and research before you form an opinion.

      • Hsark

        on the point of Elon Musk his from South Africa and Steve Jobs is 1st generation so both come from immigrant families….

  • Stewart Dorward

    Considering that I have seen two NHK programs since New Year about how Japan can absorb more foreign workers and their families – I think the softening up of the population has begun.

  • James Roberts

    You have got to be kidding me, don’t do it Japan, Continue to close your borders and HAVE MORE CHILDREN, that is the only way to save your nation, culture, and people. Who ever is the liberal that published this article is a cultural Marxist.

  • PRADEEP CHATURVEDI

    JAPAN should allow immigrants particularly from India to come and work there. It is the greatest nation on earth. India has surplus man force which can contribute significantly for the sustenance and progress of Japan-dream destination of many like me. Middle-class Indians can help JAPAN overcome shortage of educated workers. Premier Mr. Shitzo Abe should take bold steps issue VISAS liberally to Indians.

  • Miki

    I’m Mongolian. My major is biotechnology. I really want to live in Japan.

  • Miki

    I’m Mongolian. My major is biotechnology. I really want to live in Japan.

  • RockstarRepublic

    Be careful Japan. Immigration is dangerous. I don’t even recognize my city anymore, crime is going up. There is no more safety…and most importantly the culture is disappearing.

    You are smart, find ways to get people reproducing again. If immigration is unavoidable (which I believe it is), I hope you can pull from people that have similar culture, values, and work/education ethic.

    I would hate for Japan to experience the same mistakes that the US and Europe are now faced with.

  • Ralph Mosenez

    Perhaps Japan should except more immigrants, but they should be selective and choose those from compatible cultures and at a rate that ensure integration. Those from Buddhist and nearby Asian cultures are obviously more compatible. Not that Japan is a religious country, but immigrants from Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and other majority Buddhist nations share many values and outlooks. Others can be made welcome as immigrants, but swamping Japan with middle eastern or even Chinese immigrants is not the answer.

    I see nothing wrong with Japan, or other countries, wanting to protect their language, culture and religion. Wanting to ensure their culture survives into the future. Japan has a unique language, unique religion (Shinto) and a unique society. Ensuring its survival is not a bad policy,

  • Akan

    i am an immigrant in canada, skilled worker; it is accepting more than 200,000 immigrants each year and there are no major issues around it. Maybe they can learn some lessons from here.