Japan surrenders to immigration

[Sciongrad]

In any case, a socialist state can allow immigration. But leftists in a capitalist state should oppose it.

OOC: Does this not assume that laborers and immigrants are competing for the same jobs — something that has been empirically disproven time and time again — and that immigration does not actually itself create more employment? This is such a common misunderstanding of economics that there's a name for it.

[Hatterleigh]

If anything the problem might actually be men, or at least be associated with men. In the current economic climate it is becoming increasingly difficult for Japanese men to find steady and well-paid work; meaning that they put off having children until they are much older, resulting in less children or none at all.

Not true at all.

Japanese work culture means that women who enter the workforce can stay in the workforce if they don't have children. If they do, they're expected to stay at home and raise children themselves while their husbands work. And when you consider that Japanese working culture (not unlike that of other nations in East Asia) can literally work people to death, it's not surprising that many men simply do not want to live that kind if lifestyle, and are either avoiding having children or avoiding marriage entirely.

Well perhaps japanese working culture is dumb and stupid.

[Ostroeuropa]

In any case, a socialist state can allow immigration. But leftists in a capitalist state should oppose it.

OOC: Does this not assume that laborers and immigrants are competing for the same jobs — something that has been empirically disproven time and time again — and that immigration does not actually itself create more employment? This is such a common misunderstanding of economics that there's a name for it.

Native laborers don't compete for those jobs because they are poorly paid. They would be forced to raise wages if a labor shortage continued. I already sourced two examples of lack of immigration resulting in higher wages.

https://bbj.hu/economy/gross-wage-growt ... ust_156711

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/ ... 0-year-low

[Liriena]

In any case, a socialist state can allow immigration. But leftists in a capitalist state should oppose it.

I disagree. As I said, "yes and no". Yes, it would be "preferable" insofar as your hypothetical xenophobic socialist utopia would do a lot of good for workers in its own country and maybe a bit of good elsewhere (but that's doubtful, given that, y'know, the history of xenophobia doesn't paint a pretty picture of any political and economic movement that embraced it while also claiming to seek political and economic liberation, equality, justice, etc.). But no, it would not be "preferable" insofar as it would be a socialist state structured on at least one fundamentally unjust ideal.

You might as well have asked me whether I'd support a capitalist state which recognized LGBT+ rights and a socialist state that sent us to concentration camps.

[Shofercia]

1. If you allow too many foreigners into your country too quickly they will fail to assimilate and eventually overwhelm and swamp out your culture. In the short term this leads to social instability and in the long term it leads to bad things indeed.

Name literally one example of this happening.

Kosovo.

Ok, so Japan is opening up to immigrants. So what?

How? Did you read the actual article, or just the OP? In the actual article, it clearly said that Japan is allowing five year worker visas, and educated people to immigrate to Japan. All sane countries want educated immigrants, so that's nothing new, and the other thing is a five year worker visa - not immigration.

This. I don't believe immigration destroys culture, but race and culture are not interchangeable. Maybe it may seem that way in exceptionally homogeneous countries like Japan, but it's certainly not.

The predominate racial or ethnic group of the nation is the national culture, and the culture is defined by the nation's majority race or ethnic group. This is what National Socialism figured out, to embrace the truth of social Darwinism and the right of national governments to micromanage their population's destiny and future.

So the English speaking Latino Homeowners in California who are very well educated are a threat to us, because they host Quincineras? Uhhhh... Yo Vass, loop up: that's actual racism. Now, stop imagining that those of us who merely oppose mass immigration are racists.

Well, Japan insistence on being homogenous has now proven to be problematic. As many have played out here, Japan`s fertility rate is falling. What the cause is, might be complicated. From a range of unhappy individuals, not enough economic benefits to having. family or just too much Hentai. So I think that Japan should be transparent and open up their borders. As long as Japan receives immigrants from neighboring countries, I don't think their culture will be massively affected by this. But maybe one day in the future will have a large population of non-Asian people

Dude, Japan has 126 million people. This new law drops their homogeneity by one or two percent. Won't matter much.

About time. No advanced industrialized economy can prosper for long without help from immigrants. Nations that bar out immigration out of misguided policy, ignorance or fear will feel the consequences.

So Mexico should allow all those Central American migrants to settle in Mexico?

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Does this not assume that laborers and immigrants are competing for the same jobs — something that has been empirically disproven time and time again — and that immigration does not actually itself create more employment? This is such a common misunderstanding of economics that there's a name for it.

Native laborers don't compete for those jobs because they are poorly paid. They would be forced to raise wages if a labor shortage continued. I already sourced two examples of lack of immigration resulting in higher wages.

This is only true if laborers and immigrants are competing for the same jobs. There is no such thing as just some aggregate wage for employment that is influenced by the general amount of available labor. Wages are increased or decreased for specific jobs depending specifically on the availability of labor for those jobs. If native laborers are not competing for the jobs taken by most immigrants — which, by your own admission, they often are not — then it is not possible for wages to increase because there is no incentive for employers to do so.

[Ostroeuropa]

In any case, a socialist state can allow immigration. But leftists in a capitalist state should oppose it.

I disagree. As I said, "yes and no". Yes, it would be "preferable" insofar as your hypothetical xenophobic socialist utopia would do a lot of good for workers in its own country and maybe a bit of good elsewhere (but that's doubtful, given that, y'know, the history of xenophobia doesn't paint a pretty picture of any political and economic movement that embraced it while also claiming to seek political and economic liberation, equality, justice, etc.). But no, it would not be "preferable" insofar as it would be a socialist state structured on at least one fundamentally unjust ideal.

You might as well have asked me whether I'd support a capitalist state which recognized LGBT+ rights and a socialist state that sent us to concentration camps.

Opposing immigration while supporting ending the exploitative conditions that drive it doesn't strike me as of a similar nature to your example.

[Saiwania]

Well perhaps japanese working culture is dumb and stupid.

The rumor I read is that the long Japanese working hours has its roots in the immediate post war period after World War II. All of Japan's infrastructure got completely wrecked and Japanese people had to put in tons of effort to rebuild everything. Once Japan as a whole, was relatively perfect and pristine in terms of living conditions; they sort of continued being hard workers in spite of no longer needing to.

Because of inertia or just being adverse to change, Japanese just kept longer working hours with the assumption that remaining as productive as possible will mean a richer and more powerful country overall.

[Sciongrad]

Name literally one example of this happening.

Kosovo.

... Do you have anything with which to substantiate this argument...?

[Bienenhalde]

Once again, I'll repeat there is no logical argument for general immigration.

1) When 50% of jobs might be automated within this generation, how does importing millions of additional workers and possible future welfare beneficiaries make sense?

Didn't you tell me not so long ago in the RWDT that automation is a spook?

[Ostroeuropa]

Native laborers don't compete for those jobs because they are poorly paid. They would be forced to raise wages if a labor shortage continued. I already sourced two examples of lack of immigration resulting in higher wages.

This is only true if laborers and immigrants are competing for the same jobs. There is no such thing as just some aggregate wage for employment that is influenced by the general amount of available labor. Wages are increased or decreased for specific jobs depending specifically on the availability of labor for those jobs. If native laborers are not competing for the jobs taken by most immigrants — which, by your own admission, they often are not — then it is not possible for wages to increase because there is no incentive for employers to do so.

And yet the UK is currently experiencing the biggest labor shortage since records began, and it correlates with increasing wages because people moving jobs can demand more. Labor shortages across a significant enough section of the economy DOES drive up wages in general because it means other professions have to adjust to remain desirable to people. Most degrees are applicable across a wide range of fields.

If everyone with an engineering degree can demand higher pay because of a shortage, that also means everyone with a degree that overlaps with engineering can demand higher pay, because otherwise they'll piss off and do the engineering job offering far higher pay. And THAT means that anyone with a degree that overlaps with the overlapping degree can too.

Skills are not limited to a particular job like your narrative suggests, they are often wide ranging.

[Shofercia]

Mass immigration destroys culture. Immigration is like sugar; it's good for the country in low quantities, and bad for the country in high quantities. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Germany, before an influx of immigrants:

Germany after an influx of immigrants:

See the difference? Some sugar is good. A lot of sugar is bad.

...that's the stupidest way you could have made that argument, so I can only imagine you were being sarcastic.

Sort of. It's a sarcastic parody. I'm just getting tired of Vass screaming "racism!" at anything that's related to lowering immigration. California is fairly generous when it comes to immigration, but let's say that twenty million people decided to immigrate to California. That'd be too much. Pointing that out is not racist, no matter how many times Vass argues otherwise.

[Oil exporting People]

Once again, I'll repeat there is no logical argument for general immigration.

1) When 50% of jobs might be automated within this generation, how does importing millions of additional workers and possible future welfare beneficiaries make sense?

Didn't you tell me not so long ago in the RWDT that automation is a spook?

With regards to manufacturing, yes.

[Shofercia]

I can just picture all of the nazi weeaboos on suicide watch right now. Feels good man.

Anyway, this is good and reasonable, even if I find it annoying that governments under capitalism will only abandon their ethno-nationalist fantasies when capital needs them to.

It's hilarious. Japan made the right call, and planned out a solid immigration policy. The EU should take notes.

Mass immigration destroys culture. Immigration is like sugar; it's good for the country in low quantities, and bad for the country in high quantities. Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Germany, before an influx of immigrants:

(Image)

Germany after an influx of immigrants:

(Image)

See the difference? Some sugar is good. A lot of sugar is bad.

How does this constitute an argument? When were these pictures taken? You don't provide evidence that the second picture and the first picture depict people whose views changed over time, as opposed to people who initially thought and continue to think what you show in the pictures. To make an argument that immigration is bad for a society, you need to provide evidence that society is somehow harmed by mass immigration. Two dateless pictures that may not be representative of the population are not evidence.

I'm not saying that immigration is bad. I am saying that too much immigration is bad. Also, see two posts above.

[Liriena]

I disagree. As I said, "yes and no". Yes, it would be "preferable" insofar as your hypothetical xenophobic socialist utopia would do a lot of good for workers in its own country and maybe a bit of good elsewhere (but that's doubtful, given that, y'know, the history of xenophobia doesn't paint a pretty picture of any political and economic movement that embraced it while also claiming to seek political and economic liberation, equality, justice, etc.). But no, it would not be "preferable" insofar as it would be a socialist state structured on at least one fundamentally unjust ideal.

You might as well have asked me whether I'd support a capitalist state which recognized LGBT+ rights and a socialist state that sent us to concentration camps.

Opposing immigration while supporting ending the exploitative conditions that drive it doesn't strike me as of a similar nature to your example.

Given that the argument wielded by communist homophobes was generally something along the lines of "bourgeois decadence" and the like, it kinda is. And even if you have data which kinda supports your argument here (in terms of immigration and wages), it doesn't change the fact that your "socialist" project is going to fuck innocent people over... and in order to justify it, you've been not-so-subtly vilifying those people. You've compared them to hostage-takers and people who cross picket lines. Not fellow workers. You've shown no real solidarity beyond "yeah, maybe one day we'll help you out from faaaaaar away".

[Infected Mushroom]

Opposing immigration while supporting ending the exploitative conditions that drive it doesn't strike me as of a similar nature to your example.

Given that the argument wielded by communist homophobes was generally something along the lines of "bourgeois decadence" and the like, it kinda is. And even if you have data which kinda supports your argument here (in terms of immigration and wages), it doesn't change the fact that your "socialist" project is going to fuck innocent people over... and in order to justify it, you've been not-so-subtly vilifying those people. You've compared them to hostage-takers and people who cross picket lines. Not fellow workers. You've shown no real solidarity beyond "yeah, maybe one day we'll help you out from faaaaaar away".

Enacting effective beneficial change is more important than "solidarity"

Also, there's no solidarity necessary if the immigrants don't enter the country right?

[Ostroeuropa]

Opposing immigration while supporting ending the exploitative conditions that drive it doesn't strike me as of a similar nature to your example.

Given that the argument wielded by communist homophobes was generally something along the lines of "bourgeois decadence" and the like, it kinda is. And even if you have data which kinda supports your argument here (in terms of immigration and wages), it doesn't change the fact that your "socialist" project is going to fuck innocent people over... and in order to justify it, you've been not-so-subtly vilifying those people. You've compared them to hostage-takers and people who cross picket lines. Not fellow workers. You've shown no real solidarity beyond "yeah, maybe one day we'll help you out from faaaaaar away".

As I said you're relying on an individualist approach here. Let's suppose the immigrants stayed out for a month and wages increased, then they came over. Everyone is better off then, right? How about if they stay out in general and the workers take over, then they come? Better still, right?

Short termist gains for an individual rather than collectiev liberation is not "fucking innocent people over.". What's fucking innocent people over is capitalism and the systems of exploitation it uses, which are reliant on immigration to continue operating.

They are crossing a picket line.

I compared the immigrant to a hostage and the capitalist to a hostage taker. I noted you're securing the release of one hostage for a dramatically worsened situation overall.

[Sciongrad]

And yet the UK is currently experiencing the biggest labor shortage since records began, and it correlates with increasing wages because people moving jobs can demand more. Labor shortages across a significant enough section of the economy DOES drive up wages in general because it means other professions have to adjust to remain desirable to people. Most degrees are applicable across a wide range of fields.

If everyone with an engineering degree can demand higher pay because of a shortage, that also means everyone with a degree that overlaps with engineering can demand higher pay, because otherwise they'll piss off and do the engineering job offering far higher pay. And THAT means that anyone with a degree that overlaps with the overlapping degree can too.

Skills are not limited to a particular job like your narrative suggests, they are often wide ranging.

Wages aren't growing in the UK because its immigration rates has decreased. Wages are growing in the UK because the economy is approaching full employment, which places pressure on employers to raise money wages.

Furthermore, labor shortages — not to be conflated with full employment — do not somehow push "aggregate" wages up, even if degrees are in theory easily convertible. Employers do not make these decisions based on abstraction and variables, they do so based on their experiences hiring employees. If all of a sudden, unskilled immigration is closed off, wages for migrant farmers in the U.S. will increase because employers will now struggle to fill slots, certainly, but there is no reason wages for skilled jobs should increase. Vice versa, as well. But my reasoning in bringing up this point is that there is no clear reason immigration and wages are correlated negatively for the reasons you're raising, especially when immigrants often do not compete for the same jobs as native laborers. And this whole line of reasoning still relies on the lump of labor fallacy — there is significant research that demonstrates immigration increases aggregate demand in the economy (by providing more laborers with means for consumption), which spurs investment and consequently creates more employment opportunities which would not have existed without immigration. The amount of labor in an economy is not fixed or rigid as your argument seems to suggest.

[Ostroeuropa]

Opposing immigration while supporting ending the exploitative conditions that drive it doesn't strike me as of a similar nature to your example.

Given that the argument wielded by communist homophobes was generally something along the lines of "bourgeois decadence" and the like, it kinda is. And even if you have data which kinda supports your argument here (in terms of immigration and wages), it doesn't change the fact that your "socialist" project is going to fuck innocent people over... and in order to justify it, you've been not-so-subtly vilifying those people. You've compared them to hostage-takers and people who cross picket lines. Not fellow workers. You've shown no real solidarity beyond "yeah, maybe one day we'll help you out from faaaaaar away".

It's not a matter of maybe one day. You don't even need solidarity for it. Just self-interest. Allowing capital to continue to use their nations as a bastion is suicidal. It's also a matter of ensuring they don't want to immigrate here. We cannot enforce total border security. Conditions in their nations improving is the best anti-immigration weapon we have.

[Liriena]

Given that the argument wielded by communist homophobes was generally something along the lines of "bourgeois decadence" and the like, it kinda is. And even if you have data which kinda supports your argument here (in terms of immigration and wages), it doesn't change the fact that your "socialist" project is going to fuck innocent people over... and in order to justify it, you've been not-so-subtly vilifying those people. You've compared them to hostage-takers and people who cross picket lines. Not fellow workers. You've shown no real solidarity beyond "yeah, maybe one day we'll help you out from faaaaaar away".

Enacting effective beneficial change is more important than "solidarity"

The "effective beneficial change" brought by institutionalized xenophobia is debatable at best, even under the pretext of furthering the cause of socialism. And a nationalist sort of utilitarianism is not an inherently superior way of measuring the worth of policy.

Also, there's no solidarity necessary if the immigrants don't enter the country right?

That's a bit like saying it's not necessary to worry about solidary with poor children if you just sterilize all poor people.

[Shofercia]

Kosovo.

... Do you have anything with which to substantiate this argument...?

The initial point:

If you allow too many foreigners into your country too quickly they will fail to assimilate and eventually overwhelm and swamp out your culture. In the short term this leads to social instability and in the long term it leads to bad things indeed

In 1931, there were 330k Albanians and 220k others living in Kosovo. By 1948 said number increased to 500k Albanians, and 230k others. That immigration moved the needle above two thirds in terms of Albanians, and it was just a matter of time before independence. The immigration continued, and by 1971 Albanians made up 74 percent of the population. 1981 - 77%. 1991 - 82% was estimated. 2011 - 93%. Once the immigrants peak above a certain threshold, the equivalent of white flight happens on a national level.

[Liriena]

Given that the argument wielded by communist homophobes was generally something along the lines of "bourgeois decadence" and the like, it kinda is. And even if you have data which kinda supports your argument here (in terms of immigration and wages), it doesn't change the fact that your "socialist" project is going to fuck innocent people over... and in order to justify it, you've been not-so-subtly vilifying those people. You've compared them to hostage-takers and people who cross picket lines. Not fellow workers. You've shown no real solidarity beyond "yeah, maybe one day we'll help you out from faaaaaar away".

As I said you're relying on an individualist approach here.

And you are relying on debatable premises to excuse a collectivist approach whose collectivism ends at the border, and everything beyond it is a glorified afterthought.

Let's suppose the immigrants stayed out for a month and wages increased, then they came over. Everyone is better off then, right? How about if they stay out in general and the workers take over, then they come? Better still, right?

Let's suppose the immigrants came right now and you immediately work to integrate them into the labour movement and everyone is better off then because both natives and immigrants can apply pressure and bargain together, as one, against the capitalist class.

[Ostroeuropa]

And yet the UK is currently experiencing the biggest labor shortage since records began, and it correlates with increasing wages because people moving jobs can demand more. Labor shortages across a significant enough section of the economy DOES drive up wages in general because it means other professions have to adjust to remain desirable to people. Most degrees are applicable across a wide range of fields.

If everyone with an engineering degree can demand higher pay because of a shortage, that also means everyone with a degree that overlaps with engineering can demand higher pay, because otherwise they'll piss off and do the engineering job offering far higher pay. And THAT means that anyone with a degree that overlaps with the overlapping degree can too.

Skills are not limited to a particular job like your narrative suggests, they are often wide ranging.

Wages aren't growing in the UK because its immigration rates has decreased. Wages are growing in the UK because the economy is approaching full employment, which places pressure on employers to raise money wages.

Furthermore, labor shortages — not to be conflated with full employment — do not somehow push "aggregate" wages up, even if degrees are in theory easily convertible. Employers do not make these decisions based on abstraction and variables, they do so based on their experiences hiring employees. If all of a sudden, unskilled immigration is closed off, wages for migrant farmers in the U.S. will increase because employers will now struggle to fill slots, certainly, but there is no reason wages for skilled jobs should increase. Vice versa, as well. But my reasoning in bringing up this point is that there is no clear reason immigration and wages are correlated negatively for the reasons you're raising, especially when immigrants often do not compete for the same jobs as native laborers. And this whole line of reasoning still relies on the lump of labor fallacy — there is significant research that demonstrates immigration increases aggregate demand in the economy (by providing more laborers with means for consumption), which spurs investment and consequently creates more employment opportunities which would not have existed without immigration. The amount of labor in an economy is not fixed or rigid as your argument seems to suggest.

Immigrants dont compete for the same jobs because those jobs are undesirable due to their current wages. The example you use of farmers in the US is an example of that. For the US especially it is relevant as many people work multiple jobs to their detriment, a sign that wages are far too low, and a problem that mostly effects unskilled labor.

It might create baseline jobs, but that's kind of the problem. Sure we'd have more people needing basic life necessities and more people selling them. That's not what a prosperous economy looks like though. If instead the immigrant didn't arrive and wages went up, we'd have someone needing a higher end luxury good instead.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I said you're relying on an individualist approach here.

And you are relying on debatable premises to excuse a collectivist approach whose collectivism ends at the border, and everything beyond it is a glorified afterthought.

Let's suppose the immigrants stayed out for a month and wages increased, then they came over. Everyone is better off then, right? How about if they stay out in general and the workers take over, then they come? Better still, right?

Let's suppose the immigrants came right now and you immediately work to integrate them into the labour movement and everyone is better off then because both natives and immigrants can apply pressure and bargain together, as one, against the capitalist class.

It's not an afterthought. Any socialist nation will immediately come under siege. It is only through foreign aid and investment in overseas workplace democracies that resources and trade vital to the success of the project can be secured. Imagine if the soviets hadn't pissed about with nukes and guns and had instead focused on that.

Immigrants already here i'm fine with assimilating and indeed its a good idea, but why should more arrive? It's not even in the interests of those already here, as the Brexit debate noted routinely when Neoliberals patronized minorities and seemed routinely shocked that immigrants didn't want more immigrants coming.

[New haven america]

"Surrenders"

Yeah, sure.