????估算某經(jīng)濟體潛在GDP水平的一種方法是，將兩個商業(yè)周期的峰值用一條直線連起來……其背后的理念是，經(jīng)濟體在每個商業(yè)周期的巔峰時期，會向我們展示其最多能生產(chǎn)多少商品和服務(wù)……我們推測，安倍經(jīng)濟學(xué)的財政和貨幣過剩，使得日本的實際GDP短暫（在始于2013一季度的5個季度中）高于其潛在水平……隨著安倍經(jīng)濟學(xué)的支出停止，日本GDP正在下降。

????人口減少意味著工人少了，消費者少了，總需求也減少了。與此同時，不斷老齡化的人口，使得政府預(yù)算日趨緊張。這一切怎么可能不導(dǎo)致經(jīng)濟萎縮、物價下跌、政府債務(wù)上漲？正如溫伯格所寫：“日本需要增加人口，減少債務(wù)?！比欢?，除了已經(jīng)廢棄的增稅計劃，日本現(xiàn)行方案中沒有哪項舉措旨在解決人口和債務(wù)問題。

????當(dāng)然，如果日本人口不足，全世界多的是人想移民到日本這樣的發(fā)達國家。那么，日本為何不對這些人敞開大門？簡言之，對任何移民，日本有根深蒂固的文化排斥。在美國，爭論的焦點大多是圍繞將合法永久移民的數(shù)量維持在每年67.5萬人，還是讓更多人移民美國。人口統(tǒng)計學(xué)家估計，到2050年，日本人口將減少1900萬，而到2055年，日本工作人口與非工作人口的比例將降至1：1。盡管如此，日本并未放開永久移民政策。結(jié)果是，日本人口中，僅有1.63％的人在外國出生，該比例在世界各國中排名墊底。（美國人口中，有14.3％的人是移民）。

????近年來，日本決策者已經(jīng)采取措施稍稍放寬移民限制。來自印尼、菲律賓和越南等特定國家的數(shù)千名醫(yī)護人員，獲準(zhǔn)赴日工作并力求取得“永住”資格。但對上述人士的限制很嚴(yán)格：日本不承認他們此前的醫(yī)療訓(xùn)練，而且他們必須在三到四年內(nèi)學(xué)習(xí)日語，否則將被遣返。此項目每次引進的人才數(shù)量，都未達到允許人數(shù)上限。

????金融危機后，日本對于外籍勞工的態(tài)度更加冷淡，盡管該國顯然需要外籍勞工。同美國一樣，日本有些人認為，允許外籍勞工進入日本，對日本勞動者不利。日本厚生勞動?。∕inistry of Health, Labour and Welfare）的Nobuyuki Yumi于2012年向亞洲新聞聯(lián)盟（Asia News Network）表示：

????“我認為護理和醫(yī)療保健領(lǐng)域是日本創(chuàng)造就業(yè)的重要領(lǐng)域。如今，日本人，尤其是年輕一代的日本人就業(yè)困難……可以鼓勵已經(jīng)離職的護士重返工作崗位。”

????上述態(tài)度反映了日本更廣泛的民意。據(jù)《日本時報》（Japan Times）稱：

????“民意調(diào)查顯示，日本民眾越來越擔(dān)心人口減少的影響。然而，當(dāng)被問及該如何確保勞動力供給，在日本《讀賣新聞》（Yomiuri）于4月開展的民意調(diào)查中，排在前兩位的答案是：提高女性就業(yè)比例和鼓勵更多老人就業(yè)。只有37％的受訪者表示，應(yīng)該接納更多外籍勞工。只有10％的人表示，應(yīng)該引進體力勞動者。說到底，非移民國家這條宗旨仍然受到日本民眾的廣泛支持?！?/p>

????在資本主義國家，失業(yè)率始終是個問題。即使在經(jīng)濟繁榮時期，人們還是嫌就業(yè)機會不夠多。但宏觀經(jīng)濟學(xué)家?guī)缀跻恢抡J為，不斷增長的人口是經(jīng)濟持續(xù)增長的必要條件，尤其是在發(fā)達國家，社保計劃決定了必須要有足夠多的年輕勞工來撫養(yǎng)老年人口。

????移民在美國目前是個有爭議的問題，但相較于尚未認識到移民是解決國內(nèi)諸多問題良方的日本，美國可以大松一口氣：它對于移民的接受度要高多了。而對于其他發(fā)達國家來說，這應(yīng)該可作為警示：文化偏狹的代價可能相當(dāng)高。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Hunter

????審校：李翔

????One way to estimate an economy’s potential level of GDP is to connect the peaks over two business cycles with a straight line … the thinking is that an economy shows us the maximum amounts of goods and services it can produce at the peak of each business cycle…. We hypothesize that the fiscal and monetary excesses of Abenomics briefly–for five quarters beginning in the first quarter of 2013–pushed actual GDP above its potential level…. With the end of Abenomics spending, GDP is now declining.

????A shrinking population translates to fewer workers, fewer consumers, and less overall demand, all while a growing elderly population puts strains on government budgets. How could this not lead to a shrinking economy, falling prices, and higher government debt? As Weinberg writes, “Japan needs more people and less debt.” Nothing in the current program, besides tax increases that have already been scrapped, seriously addressed either of these problems.

????Of course, if people are the problem, the world is teeming with immigrants who would love to move to a country with a developed economy like Japan. So why don’t the Japanese just let these folks in? Simply put, there is a deep cultural aversion to any immigration whatsoever. Here in the U.S., the debate is centered mostly around keeping legal permanent immigration at 675,000 people per year, or allowing more people to enter the country. Despite the fact that demographers estimate that Japan’s population will shrink by 19 million people by 2050 and the ratio of the working to nonworking population will fall to 1:1 by 2055, it doesn’t allow any permanent, legal immigration whatsoever. The result of this policy is that just 1.63% of the Japanese population is foreign-born, one of the lowest percentages in the world. (In the U.S., 14.3% of the population is made up of immigrants.).

????Japanese policy makers have made moves to relax immigration restrictions, at least slightly, in recent years, by allowing a few thousands healthcare workers from select countries, like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, to enter the country and work towards long-term residency status. But the restrictions placed on these workers are strict: Their previous healthcare training is not recognized in Japan and the workers must learn Japanese within three or four years or they are sent back home. Not once has this program brought in the maximum allowed number of workers.

????Following the financial crisis, Japan has only become less inclined to welcome foreign workers, despite the obvious need. Just as in the U.S., some Japanese people believe that allowing in immigrant workers is bad for those already in Japan. As Nobuyuki Yumi of Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare told the Asian News Network in 2012:

????“I consider the fields of nursing and health care to be important ones that generate jobs in Japan. Now the Japanese, especially the younger generation, are struggling to find jobs…. Former nurses who have quit can be encouraged to return to work instead.”

????And this attitude is a reflection of broader public opinion in Japan. According to the Japan Times:

????“Opinion polls show the Japanese public to be increasingly worried about the effects of the declining population. However, when asked what should be done to secure the labor supply, the top two answers in an April Yomiuri poll were to increase the rate of working women and encourage more elderly to work. Only 37 percent said more foreign workers should be accepted, and only 10 percent of those said manual workers should be brought in. The bottom line is that the no-immigration principle continues to be broadly supported by the Japanese public.”

????Unemployment is always an issue in capitalist countries. Even during boom times, we all wish there were more jobs. But macroeconomists are in near-unanimous agreement that a growing population is an essential ingredient for a growing economy, especially in developed countries where social insurance programs need for there to be enough young workers to take care of the old.

????Immigration is a contentious issue in the U.S., but Japan’s failure to see it as an obvious solution to its problems puts into sharp relief how much more accepting of immigrants the United States is compared to its developed peers. It should also serve as a warning to the rest of the developed world that cultural insularity can come at a very steep price.