Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Aerospace is strategic industry where civilian and military procurements support each other, so this is much more than just business or competition.

Japan has made baby steps to have more sovereignty in it's foreign policy and it just makes sense that they are slowly increasing the relative independency of their strategic industries as well.




A little bit different with Japan as they were banned from making aircraft after WWII for years....


This is an example of the 'Slippery Slope' logical fallacy.


Description of gradual progression can't be slippery slope logical fallacy.


It's surprising. That's what the article is getting at, and that's the thing implicit in most of the comments. Not necessarily why they did it? But that they would do it at all.

Just seems a bit Quixotic. Especially for a country with much larger issues to worry about. If your country is dying, you'd think you would be rolling out high tech, or innovative solutions to that problem first.


What do you mean by dying. Are you referring to low birth rates or other factors?


Yeah. The fact that they are going to be at about 85 million in 2050, down from 125 today, is pretty alarming.

Well, I guess "alarm" isn't the right word, since everyone knows that it's happening already. But you would think there would be more concern about it?


I honestly think more countries should be encouraged to go this route. Do we really need more people on this planet? Shoudn't being more sustainable involve having fewer children, less consumption and having more productive work and more people in the automation industry?


The only way such a move would have the desired effect is if those countries also took up Japan's extremely restrictive migration policies. That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries.


> That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries.

That is already happening in most western nations.

Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example. It was a policy mistake that will not benefit their nation at all and they aggressively reversed course. Denmark has mostly followed Sweden in restricting its briefly loose immigration policies, because the results have been very poor.

Australia has implemented an extremely strict immigration system that locks almost everyone out unless you meet their merit requirements.

Canada has had a strict merit system in place for a long time. They have no plans to change that, because they know the damage it would do to their very nice welfare state.

Norway and Finland never relaxed their immigration policies in the first place.

Merkel's immigration flood exploded in her face with massive backlash politically. Germany was forced to turn back against that approach as it was politically untenable.

France has seen zero economic benefit from its loose immigration policies over the last two decades. When I say zero, I mean their immigrants have high unemployment and low education levels, the economy has not expanded at all, productivity is not expanding, GDP per capita has not expanded, and median wages have not expanded. They thought it would bolster their economy, it did the exact opposite, it's now a massive drag on each person in France that has to support the high immigrant unemployment rate.

Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. The US has dramatically expanded its welfare state over the last 30 and 50 years. The US now spends as much on its welfare state per capita as Canada. You can't combine increasingly shifting to a very expensive welfare state system with unfettered low skill immigration that can't pay its own way (and in fact does the opposite, it drowns the system). Bernie Sanders, to use one prominent example, understands how this combination has to work economically. It's why Finland only has 5 million people and isn't in a big hurry to get to 10 million (they could open the gates tomorrow and allow in millions of people; it's clear why they don't do it). You can have sustainable immigration in an expensive welfare state only if it pays for itself. All the best nations - highest standards of living - on earth follow this model for obvious reasons.


> Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example

Sweden had the third-highest migration count ever in 2018, with ~137.000 people migrating to the country. The second-highest was 2017 (~144.000), the highest 2016 (~163.000). Source: SCB (Statistiska Centralbyrån -> 'Central Bureau for Statistics') report [1]. No borders were closed, not for real. In 2018 Migrationsverket ('Migration authority', responsible for handling migration) expected over half a million people (~5% of the current population) to come to Sweden in the coming 5 years.

Half of the women giving birth in Sweden are now wholly or partly of foreign descent, 35% partly or wholly of non-western descent, this also according to a recent SCB report.

[1] https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/mannisk...


Depends a bit on what you're looking at. Here's a graph of the approved residencies for asylum seekers : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV...

It shows a clear decline in recent years, though overall immigration may not be affected.


Do note that I was talking about 'migration', not about 'asylum seekers'. Also, when discussing migration (of any sort) to Sweden it is best to keep to verified sources - SCB being a prime example of such - as the discussion around this subject is so polarised that anything less than pristine data is suspect. Random spreadsheets don't count as verified data.


Australia's migration policies has "locked almost everyone out" for years (at least since the 1990s).

Net immigration numbers jump around year by year, but have been between 170K and 250K/year for over 10 years (with the exception of 2008/9 when they increased to 300K for one year)[1]

There's been no change in policy affecting these numbers.

There have been changes in the rules affecting asylum seekers arriving by boat. In terms of numbers these aren't really significant (during the most extreme years it was around 10,000).

Separately, Australia takes in ~13,000 refugees per year who do not arrive by boat.[2]

[1] https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3412...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia#Mandatory_...


Ugh

you brought facts to a talking-points fight


> Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration.

Will it? The policy class shows no signs of this.


How exactly is not building up industries going to help out a country that has negative population growth? What do you want them to do, stop being productive industrially, and just make babies like various 3rd-world nations that have no industry and lots of starving people?


Japan having 85 million people in 2050 is no more alarming than France having 67 million today. Why would it matter whether Japan has 100, 80, 60, or 40 million people? They're at no risk of literally disappearing and 85 million is still a lot of people for that island to support.

Ideally you want your population to contract, while you increase per capita well-being through productivity gains. Each person gains, while the society eases up on the pressure it exerts via resource demands. There are few exceptions, perhaps countries like Estonia which are already tiny and still contracting (where a stable population might be preferable).

Adding people is one of the worst things most nations can be doing at this moment in history. Overall economic growth (almost always the argument used to push for expanding population at any cost) is not inherently valuable, it's the per capita growth that is the best measure. You want greater output per capita and to accomplish it using fewer resources.

Just ask France and the UK. They've added 10 million people to their collective population since 2006. They've produced zero per capita economic growth in all that time. Their citizens are wildly unhappy about what's going on as one would expect. The elites have done well, while most people have seen their wages and standards of living stagnate for decades. That path isn't going to sustain much longer given the current climate. It's going to require a refocusing on per capita well-being, instead of trying to grow the overall economy at any cost. Most developed nations, including the US, are in the same boat.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: