In Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, other developed economies in Asia, Europe and N. America, flat or declining population is a problem while in developing economies like the Philippines, India and Indonesia, their rising population is considered by certain sectors as a big problem, big liability, instead of looking at it as a big asset. While Japan can invent more robots to run its many manufacturing plants, robots cannot smile and give "human touch" when replacing adult diapers or guiding old people to walk and stroll in a park.
Government-sponsored population control in developing countries is wrong. And government strict immigration policies that restrict if not prevent private enterprises and households to get the necessary immigrant labor they want is also wrong. If the host governments are wary about possible crimes or health opportunism by the migrant workers, then government should simply do their basic function, to enforce the rule of law. And let the local employers, companies or households, provide private health insurance for their migrant workers.
Below is the article. Enjoy.
--------------
Trade in a Land Without Chhldren
Discussions about Japan's economy
generally focus on GDP growth, consumer confidence, business sentiment,
unemployment, wages, investment and the like. Those are all useful markers, but
if you want a clue about the country's long-term prospects, a far more
significant statistic was released recently: The number of children in Japan
has just declined for the 33rd straight year, and is now at its lowest level
since data collection began in 1950.
Young people between birth and 15 years
old constitute only 12.8% of Japan's population; in the U.S. it's closer to
20%. Those over age 65 make up more than 25% of the population, a record high.
The overall population has declined for the past decade.
The litany of baleful consequences of
population decline is familiar. Fewer children today means fewer workers
tomorrow to support the non-working young and old. Fewer workers also means
less growth, especially in an already advanced economy like Japan.
Neither of the two most commonly cited
solutions to this problem is satisfactory. Increasing the proportion of the
working-age population that is actually working, especially by boosting the
shockingly low female labor-force participation rate, will help in the near
term. So will raising the retirement age so that Japan's wondrously healthy
elderly stay in the labor force longer.
Elderly Japanese women stand in front of
Hina dolls displayed on the steps at a Shinto shrine in Katsuura city, Chiba
prefecture, Japan. European Pressphoto Agency.
But there's a limit to the long-term
efficacy of either measure. Both women and the elderly die the same way today's
cohort of working-age men eventually will. A consequence of having too few
babies is that even if the labor participation rate reaches an unrealistic 100%
in the future, the number of Japanese who are working will still eventually
fall to below the number who are working today.
Immigration is the obvious solution, and
also the one that seems to be least politically viable. Only in recent months
has Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government dared to leak word to the press that
a plan to allow up to 200,000 immigrants per year may be in the works. This
would more or less stem depopulation by mid-century—if Japanese can also be
prevailed on to increase their birth rate to a blistering 2.07 children per
woman from the current 1.39. Good luck with that.
Otherwise, Japan needs to let in around
650,000 immigrants per year to achieve the same population outcome. Good luck
with that, too. One feature of Japan's population debate is how blasé the
Japanese themselves sound about it. Reporters can reliably find (elderly)
interview subjects to aver that life won't really be so bad. It will be less
crowded, and per-capita incomes will be stable. And allowing foreigners in, the
subtext goes, will make the country's famously orderly existence far too
chaotic.
