J-Companies ordered to become profitable

[Russell]

Japan Inc. Isn't a Thing Anymore

Japan used to be known for the harmonious relations between government and business—so harmonious that the two sectors were often described as a single entity: Japan Inc.

A dramatic event at the Japan Society in New York on Wednesday made clear how over those days are. Deryck Maughan, a senior adviser to U.S. buyout firm KKR, rose from the audience to challenge Yasutoshi Nishimura, Japan’s deputy economy minister. Maughan, a former chief executive of Citigroup International, charged that Japan suffers from a “passive investment culture” in which big investors don’t demand better results from corporate managers. And he said that Japanese corporations oppose structural reform because “they are the beneficiaries of the status quo.” Losing ground outside Japan, he said, corporations are earning profits from “oligopoly structures” inside the country.

In an earlier era, hit with the same criticism, a top government official visiting the U.S. might have defended the country and its corporate national champions. Instead, Nishimura said, “I agree with you completely.” He went on to say that Japanese companies need to shuck off money-losing businesses and said shareholders “can be a driving force” in making the change happen. He noted that the government has decided to order companies to have at least one outsider on their boards of directors, or explain in writing why they don’t.

After the event, a Japanese journalist asked Nishimura about opposition to corporate governance changes in certain parts of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and in the Keidanren, a powerful business group. Nishimura responded that Abe’s government would continue to push for changes. “I really sense that this is the first step,” he said.

More

[legion]

basically the Japanese 1% have realized how much richer they can get following the US model

New labour laws - maximum 5 years renewing a yearly contract, then you either get made seishain or get the heave ho, guess which one it will be. This means a fluid,insecure labour force, next stop zero hour contracts.

[Coligny]

basically the Japanese 1% have realized how much richer they can get following the US model

New labour laws - maximum 5 years renewing a yearly contract, then you either get made seishain or get the heave ho, guess which one it will be. This means a fluid,insecure labour force, next stop zero hour contracts.

Depends, there is a limit for limitEd duration work contract in France, excessive numbers of terminations instead of conversion to non limited gets you fined into oblivion. Not perfect, but negate any possible profit for the company. (Also using official temp workers have a cost that make it non financially viable against regular employment... Capitalism do work... A little... When wearing a socialist straight jacket...)

[matsuki]

basically the Japanese 1% have realized how much richer they can get following the US model

New labour laws - maximum 5 years renewing a yearly contract, then you either get made seishain or get the heave ho, guess which one it will be. This means a fluid,insecure labour force, next stop zero hour contracts.

Major difference is the workforce size/skills/etc and Japan's (un)willingness to open up for immigration. Not so sure Japanese companies will be able to wield the power they have now once all the current skilled jijis retire/die/get plucked to other cuntries/get Alzheimers.

[inflames]

Japanese companies are a mess.... Most companies here are flying blind, desperately trying to do something in the hope that they'll find a product that makes money. The ironic thing is that they try to do this for products for overseas, but most people who design them have barely even been overseas and haven't the slightest clue what foreigners want. I bet most of them would shit their pants if they had to go overseas for a year and live, especially if its not on an expat package.

If companies got off their asses and got serious, it would be good - my stocks would probably go up in value (and dividend payments would also increase).

I love how people assume letting in lots of foreigners will solve the population problem. Japanese people don't want kids, so why the hell would foreigners want to come here and have kids?

[Wage Slave]

I love how people assume letting in lots of foreigners will solve the population problem. Japanese people don't want kids, so why the hell would foreigners want to come here and have kids?

That's what seemed to happen in the UK at least. Immigrants were keener on having babies and that seemed to stimulate the locals to produce more. I'll leave others to comment on France but would note that it too has had significant immigration since 1990.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:FRA:JPN&ifdim=region&tstart=641746800000&tend=1304434800000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false

[GargoyleTS]

Yellow fever. Duh.

[Coligny]

I love how people assume letting in lots of foreigners will solve the population problem. Japanese people don't want kids, so why the hell would foreigners want to come here and have kids?

A state without a nation... Is a self solving issue...

[matsuki]

I love how people assume letting in lots of foreigners will solve the population problem. Japanese people don't want kids, so why the hell would foreigners want to come here and have kids?

So...why do you think the Japanese don't want to have children?

[chibaka]

So...why do you think the Japanese don't want to have children?

The young male population seems to be too busy wacking off to AKB48, can't be good for the breeding program.

[inflames]

So...why do you think the Japanese don't want to have children?

The young male population seems to be too busy wacking off to AKB48, can't be good for the breeding program.

Exactly.

That, and statistics show they don't have kids (or at least enough to keep the population stable).

The dumb thing about letting in immigrants to solve your population problem is that you've missed the entire time when people are consuming and not producing anything (from an economic perspective, you want the young people there as this causes a lot of increased consumption).

[Mike Oxlong]

What percentage of the workforce either doing contract or "part-time" work? Something about 40% rings a bell. Saw on the TV where they were saying couples pay an average of over 10man out of pocket after gov't rebates for childbirth. Add to that the other costs of raising kids, and the time commitment once they reach school age...

[Russell]

What percentage of the workforce either doing contract or "part-time" work? Something about 40% rings a bell. Saw on the TV where they were saying couples pay an average of over 10man out of pocket after gov't rebates for childbirth. Add to that the other costs of raising kids, and the time commitment once they reach school age...

This!

Not enough economic security for young people and high costs to raise kids, especially if they have to go through private university.

Increasing immigration will not solve the problem.

[matsuki]

What percentage of the workforce either doing contract or "part-time" work? Something about 40% rings a bell. Saw on the TV where they were saying couples pay an average of over 10man out of pocket after gov't rebates for childbirth. Add to that the other costs of raising kids, and the time commitment once they reach school age...

This!

Not enough economic security for young people and high costs to raise kids, especially if they have to go through private university.

Increasing immigration alone will not solve the problem.

FTFY

[Wage Slave]

What percentage of the workforce either doing contract or "part-time" work? Something about 40% rings a bell. Saw on the TV where they were saying couples pay an average of over 10man out of pocket after gov't rebates for childbirth. Add to that the other costs of raising kids, and the time commitment once they reach school age...

This!

Not enough economic security for young people and high costs to raise kids, especially if they have to go through private university.

Increasing immigration alone will not solve the problem.

FTFY

Thank you Choko. At last a bit of balance. Immigration will most definitely increase the working age/tax paying population and it the only quick fix available. Lots of people consuming but not producing is not how a healthy economy is created - I'm unsure of the logic that says it is.

Whether in the long term population decline sets in again is dependent on a whole number of factors including just how minded people are to have kids no matter what the cost. Although it is a struggle to provide for kids now, when exactly was it ever easy? I doubt it was. It's just that's what the culture expected so that's what people did.

Meanwhile, the evidence from countries that have experienced immigration is that the birth rate has risen. Those well off countries who have remained closed like Japan and SIngapore, have seen it fall.

[Russell]

Nope Choco, no need to fix it for me. There is still the question why immigrants would breed more than the natives.

After all, their economic situation will not necessarily be better than that of the J-population at large, and they have the same or higher costs for educating their kids.

Rather than increasing immigration, the government should address the other factors I stated above (economic security & high costs of raising kids). And then I do not even start to mention the inability of the J-population to accept immigrants. Even at the current low density of foreigners, some Japanese are already becoming nervous...

[Wage Slave]

Nope Choco, no need to fix it for me. There is still the question why immigrants would breed more than the natives.

Cultural norms and expectations plus the feeling you are investing in the future. Further, the experience of the UK was that the higher immigrant birth rate kick started the locals. It often happens like that. The indolent indigent get away with more and more over time. Along come immigrants and suddenly it's not good enough any more. You see the same effect very strongly in schools in sink estates. Suddenly standards leap and its not just the immigrant's kids who are performing way better.

The real difficulty is that a lot of the indigent have not taken proper advantage of their opportunities and find it almost impossible to compete with the immigrants. They then turn to political movements like UKIP in frustration. Actually, they have a point. They are the losers in all this - the rest of us do very nicely thank you.

[Russell]

Cultural norms and expectations plus the feeling you are investing in the future. Further, the experience of the UK was that the higher immigrant birth rate kick started the locals. It often happens like that. The indolent indigent get away with more and more over time. Along come immigrants and suddenly it's not good enough any more. You see the same effect very strongly in schools in sink estates. Suddenly standards leap and its not just the immigrant's kids who are performing way better.

The real difficulty is that a lot of the indigent have not taken proper advantage of their opportunities and find it almost impossible to compete with the immigrants. They then turn to political movements like UKIP in frustration. Actually, they have a point. They are the losers in all this - the rest of us do very nicely thank you.

Doug agrees with you!

[Wage Slave]

He's right and it's shameful really that so many people have such a low level of skills and/or are so complacent that even with such a huge head start they just can't compete with immigrants for jobs.

Companies have been quick to take advantage - zero hours contracts and the rest - but that isn't the only reason people find themselves losing.

[Russell]

It is the Bell curve.

25% of people have a low IQ. Society has to figure out how to keep them engaged. I am not necessary against immigration, but this fact has always to be kept in mind...

[Mike Oxlong]

It is the Bell curve.

25% of people have a low IQ. Society has to figure out how to keep them engaged. I am not necessary against immigration, but this fact has always to be kept in mind...

Tangentially related...perhaps interesting to you.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2247869874

[Wage Slave]

I'd say that claiming 25% of a normal population are low intelligence is pushing it, but I take the point.



However, immigrants are subject to the same distribution unless you cherry pick very carefully. That is always tempting, but it isn't always so easy either. There most certainly is competition for the brightest and best. I'm also not convinced that that all a country with a demographic problem needs is highly skilled and educated workers. I saw a real impact of immigration in improving areas like hospitality and office services. Oh, and you could get a plumber without taking out a mortgage.

Anyway, there is of course a choice. Any country can of course refuse to accept immigration on the grounds they just don't like foreigners moving in. Fair enough. The debate then needs to move on to how the consequences of that decision are managed. That's the bit of the discussion which always seems to be completely absent. In some cases the consequences will be very difficult and may well also result in absolute and relative decline.

[Russell]

It is the Bell curve.

25% of people have a low IQ. Society has to figure out how to keep them engaged. I am not necessary against immigration, but this fact has always to be kept in mind...

Tangentially related...perhaps interesting to you.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2247869874

Interesting article, Mike, and I now see that I should not have mentioned the Bell curve, just to avoid those social genetics issues.

The point I was trying to make is how will one organize a society in which 25% of the people has a substandard skill set. I leave unmentioned whether that is because of genetics, upbringing, drugs abuse at young age, or whatever.

In Japan an apparent choice is made to employ these people in simple jobs, like controlling traffic with an orange stick, while in the West many of them are unemployable. What is better?

I made my post because of Wage Slave's mentioning of zero-hour contracts as a kind of justification of company policies. Should the bottom 25% of society be employed in such contracts?

Aarrggg, it's getting late. I need to sleep over these issues to get a clearer mind...

[Wage Slave]

I hate zero hours contracts. Immigrants and locals need legal protection, minimum wages, rigorous health and safety enforcement and all that jazz.

[IparryU]

Nope Choco, no need to fix it for me. There is still the question why immigrants would breed more than the natives.

After all, their economic situation will not necessarily be better than that of the J-population at large, and they have the same or higher costs for educating their kids.

Rather than increasing immigration, the government should address the other factors I stated above (economic security & high costs of raising kids). And then I do not even start to mention the inability of the J-population to accept immigrants. Even at the current low density of foreigners, some Japanese are already becoming nervous...

People seem to want to directly tie immigration and birth rates, which is a bit... Odd.

Immigration means lower end jobs would be taken by FOBs and they would blow their hard earned money in retail and basic necessities. Managers of these FOBs would be Japanese of course and would get unequal pay in comparison.

This would force move the Js to make damn sure that they won't be on the same level as a gaijin. Meaning education and better jobs. This would mean more household money and what not, bit it still doesn't equate to Js shacking up.

With more immigration means cheap(er) labor and things being cheaper for the middle class. This is where child birth and support money is more cheaper.

But Japan won't go that route and i just wasted my thumb endurance.

Immigration debate is the same globally, you want it for the lower shit to be done on the cheap and for the middle class (nationals...) to have an easier ride.

Sent from my SC-03E using Tapatalk

[Wage Slave]

People seem to want to directly tie immigration and birth rates, which is a bit... Odd.

That's where the data points but it isn't the crux of matter. This is - and expect much more of it. Which is fine, but let's be very clear what the consequences of following a policy of no immigration are:

ASTANA – Japan must not fail to complete the doubling of the consumption tax to 10 percent in October 2015 because its fiscal health is in a precarious state, a senior International Monetary Fund official said.

(snip)

Japan’s fiscal health is the worst among the major industrialized economies. Its public debt is equivalent to more than 200 percent of gross domestic product and central government debt topped ¥1 quadrillion last year for the first time ever.


The second tax hike is again aimed at covering swelling social security costs for the nation’s rapidly graying population.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/05/business/economy-business/dont-balk-on-next-tax-hike-imf/

[IparryU]

They are going to have to do a fuck of a lot more than this. This whole thing the Abenomics is doing is ass backwards.

Sent from my SC-03E using Tapatalk

[matsuki]

Nope Choco, no need to fix it for me. There is still the question why immigrants would breed more than the natives.

After all, their economic situation will not necessarily be better than that of the J-population at large, and they have the same or higher costs for educating their kids.

Rather than increasing immigration, the government should address the other factors I stated above (economic security & high costs of raising kids). And then I do not even start to mention the inability of the J-population to accept immigrants. Even at the current low density of foreigners, some Japanese are already becoming nervous...

While I agree with the jist of what you and many others are saying, immigration is definitely part of the equation. Obviously a flood of unskilled immigrants that will be more of a burden on the country than help bring it back to something we can call sustainable is not what I'm suggesting either. Anyhow, my point is they need to encourage immigration of skilled workers (engineers much?) and foreign investment. The whole Galapagos mindset where interaction/immigration with the rest of the world is always done on their terms isn't working anymore and the population (consumer AND skilled workforce) declining, they are in an even worse position.

Don't you think the country would benefit from interactions with more foreigners? Exposure at home to different mentalities, cultures, languages. Sure, they're be plenty of resistance but maybe there would be a few less people than think Cinco de Mayo is some sort of mayonnaise sushi roll. Also...for better or for worse, I think a lot of issues will be pushed into the spotlight, pressuring the powers that be to address them rather than ignore them.

[Mike Oxlong]

Is it the skilled workers like engineers that tend to have large families?

[matsuki]

Is it the skilled workers like engineers that tend to have large families?

If they're filling holes in the workforce, they tend to have the money to afford whatever family size they want.