In what way is importing workers "defraying the issue"? Also, why would the population of the US decline? White people aren't having babies like they used to, but other groups don't show the same trend. It's the reason why the US is on track to become a majority-minority country long before the original estimated 2050. California's already there.

People are still clamorimg to get into the US, and fighting tooth and nail to stay here.

You are the first person I've read that considers not importing workers a solution, rather than a symptom of cultural insularity that threatens to bring down their economy through the burden of an aging population.

Japan, by some measures, is over populated. But regardless. World population is stabilizing, at least in mature economies. The US would be in a pop decline, if not for immigrants. If we only count US born newborns, the US pop is in decline.

Japan facing this issue we will all face is good for them and for us as their solutions will pave the way for other countries which will follow (much of western Europe and east Asia).

> The US would be in a pop decline, if not for immigrants. If we only count US born newborns, the US pop is in decline.

That's a popular idea, but it's false: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/18/do...

That's looking at the last fifty years. I mean today, these last few years. We'd be plateauing, if not for new immigrants and their children.

>The US would be in a pop decline, if not for immigrants.

But that's exactly my question. Why is importing workers "defraying the issue" when that same tactic works for the US?

Because the trend world wide is for pop to level off and decline. The economies are based on growth. It'd be good for an advanced nation to work a solution to that problem (good economy in a pop decline).

If you look at the stats of immigrants in the U.S. other groups aren't having as many babies like they used to. Look up birth rate by minorities on Pew Social Trends.

> Why? Because we are all going to be there (we would have been there if we'd be as strict as Latin American countries are about their own immigration). Japan can lead the way for us and for others on how to deal with this issue (population decline).

Why isn't immigration a valid solution to population decline? This seems like a classic paean to the old white country to me.

Immigration in Latin America is actually not very restrictive. Organized crime (from anywhere in the world) can come and go as it pleases in the region. Whatever you may have read on right-wing media, illegal immigration is rampant in Latin America.

The irony of some Americans complaining about Latinos now is rich. You didn't care much about them when the US govt was promoting dictators and doing everything it could to undermine the democratic will in the region (predominantly left wing in response to the incredible levels of legacy inequality) and why would you? It made many of your companies super rich which in turn provided you with nice, cushy jobs managing your "banana republic" natural resources. The local population though was saddled with no voice and (usually) murderous psychopaths as their "leaders". As a result they migrated in droves to the US, the richest nation on earth that also happened to be the closest. And now you complain. It would be funny if it wasn't racist too.

Try getting a job in Costa Rica or Panama as an illegal. You'll have to get an illegal job.

But anyway, the response is more about Japan. The long term answer is not the importation of workers, but finding a solution to having a viable economy with a declining population and aging population. It's in our interest that they find real solutions to a problem we will all face, rather than stave off the issue a bit with labor imports.

United Fruit != Many companies. They were in a few counties. They had bad influence, but it was one limited industry making a family rich... The main problem wasn't US companies but rather a very backward uneducated population. Those that put effort into education, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama. Uruguey are doing well. Americans on the other hand did not muck around in Mexico as they did Chile or Guatemala, and see where they are with their nationalism. Who is more racist, the Mexican government and how they dont provide resources for their majority mestizos or Americans, I bet Mexicans get a better deal from the US than they do their own gov't, else they'd enjoy what "Mexico es para Mexicanos" has to offer them rather than emigrate to a foreign land apparently full of racists.

> The main problem wasn't US companies but rather a very backward uneducated population.

The US isn't full of racists but you clearly are racist. Can't say I'm surprised since I could smell it in your first comment.

It may surprise you but Latin America had its share of intellectual leaders, many of which had to flee their own countries because of the brutal dictatorships propped up by the US govt. The ones who didn't were simply "disappeared". It's very convenient that you only think of United Fruit as the only beneficiary of subservient local dictatorships, it betrays a lack of knowledge about how neocolonialism (or even neoliberalism) works. Either that or you just did a quick "banana republic" google search and completely ignore that the term can be used independently of the United Fruit case. Which, again, betrays an ignorance about the whole subject.

I understand Latin America has produced a number of intellectuals --granted, however the majority of their mestizo population during the time of united fruit etc, were not attending school past the 6th grade, if that. That's a lot of intellectual capital left on the table and contributed to weak economies. The stronger economies had some semblance of compulsory education beyond elementary school. Even today, in Mexico itself, you have indigenous people for whom Spanish is a second language and due to that suffer discrimination in their own country --and this repeats in many south American countries.

You forget most of their intellectuals come from their elite families, it's not like the average person there has much of a chance in the elite circles.

Pointing out the poor educational infrastructure as well as a culture which does not make it a priority is not being racist.

You're not just pointing out anything. You were excusing imperialism with a little bit of racism on the side. Both out of ignorance as usual.

No I'm not. You're the one ignoring the mistreatment of local populations by the minority creoles. Yes, there was what can be categorized in some sense imperialism, in some countries, but that was conflated with larger geopolitical issues of the cold war.

Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers?

> Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers?

Its only a short-term answer (sure, natural population contraction and population aging means your workforce to total supported population ratio is shrinking, which can delay the need to address the retooling society to deal with lower labor-hours:population requirements, but it only delays the need, and eventually creates other problems.)