Japan, like most countries, is an ethnic group. Duh! Of course they're racialists: their citizenship and national identity is defined by ethnicity. That's true in France, and Germany, and Iran, and . . . well, most places that aren't the US or Australia or Canada.

In Japan, the orphaned offspring of Blacks and Japanese are kept in separate orphanages from the offspring of Japanese and those of Whites and Japanese.

The notion that anyone in Japan(per capita GDP $28,000) is going to care what some Doudou Diene from Senegal, an AIDS-infested sub-Saharan swamp(per capita GDP $1600) is laughable.

Japanese population grows every year without an appreciable migration of immigrants. If they have a labor shortage, they import some guestworkers on short-term contracts to remedy the situation. Japanese stagnation has a lot more to do with its corporatist culture, which extends beyond politics and economics into pretty much every Japanese activity, than it does with any putative lack of immigrants. If they were to adopt American and Cantonese approaches to entrepreneurship, they'd be a lot better off.

bart:

Japanese population shrank last year and it will continue to do so.

My last figures, from 2003, show that Japan increased by .08% in population.

In 2004 it shrank.

0.08%. Whew! Gotta admire their love of country on that. They are even going to have a political argument about whether the young daughter of the "emporer" can ascend to the throne. It looks like she will be the only child.

Japan's population will begin shrinking faster than Russia's quite soon. And without a decrease in life span (and without alcoholism). Quite an achievement.

Their problem is they keep the yen high to prevent an influx of non-Japanese capital.

Their so-called problem is population density. At 335 people per square kilometer it gets kinda crowded and people tend to cut down on offspring as a practical matter.

Japan has a population density 300 people per square kilometer higher than the USA. Lets see how eager so called "natalists" are to pop out little squirts when the US's population density gets that high (which it never will). Not to mention that more than 10% of Japanese live in the world's most expensive and most crowded city. Only a billionaire could raise a family of 5 in Tokyo.

Maybe I can understand the gloomy derision of Russia's population decline, what with all the space to spread out, all the natural resources to make a life with, all the newfound opportunity squandered away, etc. But Japan's population is 130 million strong - that's four times the population of California crowded into the same amount of space (setting aside the fact that most of Japan's terrain is uninhabitable). This talk of the end of Japan is just silly.

Shelton:

No one ever goes to the cities anymore, they're too crowded.

Given the fact that much of Japan is unsuitable for human habitation, the nation is dramatically overpopulated. But don't expect the OJs of the world to understand this.

Well, they've got a lot of countries ahead of them on that score, including lots of pretty successful and growing ones. As you will note, they are just slightly ahead of Israel in population density. Think Israel is dramatically overpopulated?

It's more that the rest of the world is empty.

The two wealthiest single locations on Earth are Manhattan and Tokyo. Population density seems not to be much of a problem.

"As you will note, they are just slightly ahead of Israel in population density. Think Israel is dramatically overpopulated?"

Is that taking habitable land into account?

Ali:

You mean that lush and verdant Negev?

From Wikipedia re Japan:

1,523 persons per square kilometer for habitable land.

That would probably put the country as a whole in the Top 10. Which is pretty high given how the ones above it are primarily highly urbanised city-islands.

I doubt the Japanese living in shoe-boxes in Tokyo are overly concerned about depopulation. Especially since a mere swelling of the birth-rate won't address the problems the country has.

No, that which would increase the birthrate would address the underlying problem.

oj,

More than 4000 people per square mile(i.e. 1523 per sq.km pace Ali) is economically unsustainable. That's denser than Nassau County, Long Island and about as dense as Bergen County, NJ, where we live cheek-by-jowl, and denser than Wayne County Michigan(i.e. Detroit and its environs).

Those soup kitchens in Bergen County always break my heart.

Bergen County can be densely populated because other parts of the US aren't, producing the foodstuffs and other products people in Bergen County need to survive.

Japan has farmland, factories, some mining, some forests, etc. Thus, the area where Japanese live is even more densely populated.

Bart's right. Japan is mostly mountains. There are only two areas that consist of mainly plains, the Osaka and Tokyo regions. Both are packed to the gills.

I expect there to be several years of very small demographic shrinkage and then it will balance out again. There will be no massive decline.

Bart:

I love the way you use economically unsustainable as a synonym for crowded. Gives a little intellectual cachet to the argument. Are you going to tell Singapore and Hong Kong that they are unsustainable or are you leaving that to us?

It isn't unsustainable.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that advanced industrial economies are hindered by having packed urban areas.

But that doesn't mean a decline in itself will mean Japan is inexorably headed back to penury.

Without enough young people to fund the comfortable retirement of your old you're going to canabilize your nation's wealth. Think the elderly majorities are going to change the system?

Peter,

Singapore and Hong Kong are both small. They are trading city-states like Venice or Genoa. They can afford to be densely populated because they perform the capital formation and exchange functions that the surrounding areas cannot.

Japan is not small. It's population cannot be so specialized, there are simply too many Japanese. (130 million)There isn't enough trade and capital formation on the planet to keep them all employed. They are also geographically isolated from any trading partner. Thus, the comparison is inapposite.

A preciptious drop in the price of oil and Singapore would be in dire straits(no pun intended). If China implodes, Hong Kong would suffer the economic equivalent of a tsunami.

They can't fill the jobs they have open now. There are nowhere near enough of them.

Bart:

If China implodes, Hong Kong finds a new benefactor. And closes the border just south of Shenzhen. Would you want 20 million refugees headed your way?