Japan’s government to send unemployed to work the farm?

8 Responses to “Japan’s government to send unemployed to work the farm?”

1. Steven Towns on January 14th, 2009 3:41 am

   That’s pretty harsh. However, “desperate times call for desperate measures.” I suppose one can make a strong case that public money is better spent on re-supplying the labor force in the countryside, where there is apparently real demand for labor, rather than trying to re-train urban office laborers against such a bleak economic environment. Now actually getting the recently/newly unemployed trained and deployed in ag is conceptually not only easier said than done, but begs the question of why it hasn’t been done before.

   With exports idled for the time being, I would be exploring tax holidays to try and stimulate elusive domestic demand and pray for the sparking of a virtuous cycle. Or how about something out of the U.S. play book, such as the economic equivalent of the Hail Mary pass: No down payment, no interest, no payments, until 2012 …!

2. YoungJames on January 16th, 2009 12:43 pm

   I don’t see anything wrong with this, in fact, I’m surprised they havent already been doing this, or funding projects like this to a greater extent. If you took a drive through Northern or Eastern Hokkaido (Places where they give away land for free if you agree to live there), there is an incredible amount of abandoned farmland, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was true in large amounts of the countryside throughout the country. A good portion of fisheries and agricultural related labor (think food processing, canning, etc) is already being done by migrant (Chinese) labor. There are certainly economic factors at play here (lower cost of chinese workers, better paying jobs in the city) but labor shortages from cultural issues(migragation to urban centers/low birthrate) are without a doubt a major factor.

   As one of the problems facing the agricultural sector is lack of interest/economic incentive, I would think that funding to help farmers better publicise and develop markets for their goods (i.e. direct internet marketing and sales - via blogs etc) would be one of the best uses of government money available, especially given the numerous advantages small farmers in Japan have over their american counterparts (Premier/Location based branding　（夕張メロン、北海道産）, Strong buy domestic(国内産） and slow life movements (LOHAS), well developed infrastructure networks, small geographic size etc)

3. DEAD BEATS FORCE DYING BANKS TO REFINANCE « Culture of Life News on January 18th, 2009 1:32 am

   […] Japan’s government to send unemployed to work the farm?  […]

4. Ken Worsley on January 18th, 2009 5:57 pm

   If you took a drive through Northern or Eastern Hokkaido (Places where they give away land for free if you agree to live there), there is an incredible amount of abandoned farmland, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was true in large amounts of the countryside throughout the country.

   Because no one wants to live there. These regions have depopulated as young people flee to urban areas. These places offer them no future. Migration to cities is an economic issue, not a cultural one - urbanization is hardly unique to Japan. If these places had anything to offer, the government would not have to bribe people to get them to live there.

   funding to help farmers better publicise and develop markets for their goods

   Funding from where? Not my tax money. This sounds like a way to continue ensuring that Japan’s agriculture remains globally uncompetitive.

5. YoungJames on January 19th, 2009 5:56 pm

   If these places had anything to offer, the government would not have to bribe people to get them to live there.

   And? governments bribe people all the time to live places they dont necessarily want to. Much less than winning national championships, no one would live in Gainesville, Florida if it werent for a government funded university there. North Carolina’s”Research Triangle”, a recent critical and press darling, would not exist without government funding, nor for that matter would Silicon Valley. I can think of any number of military towns (Newport News, VA; Jacksonville, Florida; any town with a boeing or lockheed assembly plant) that exist for much the same reason. Residents of Alaska receive $3,000 each year just for living there. Washington D.C. is a swamp. Were it not for government funds, no one would live there, either. (the economic impact of such government created incentives is the reason the Diet is always considering moving the capital outside of Tokyo)

   These places offer them no future. Migration to cities is an economic issue

   While Im sure that economics plays a role, it is hardly the sole reason for urban migration. Many Fisherman actually make suprisingly good money (and only work at most 9 months a year), Scallop farmers in northern Hokkaido tend to have large houses and nice cars, but its neither a glamorous life nor in a place that is particularly enjoyable to live - any sort of economic gain is offest by social costs. To give another example, working as part of the merchant marine (ie a sailor) over a 10-15 year span pays far, far, far, better than working for a shipping company on land, but almost no one wants to be a sailor.

   Funding from where? Not my tax money. This sounds like a way to continue ensuring that Japan’s agriculture remains globally uncompetitive.

   You’re already paying for unemployment insurance, using funds to actually retrain workers is hardly radical. further your tax money is being used to subsidize lots of other industries , subsidizing farming is simply a difference in emphasis and not in kind. The challenge for such subsidies should be whether they create more economic and social benefit then they cost, not whether you think they create competitive industries. (given that unused farmland provides no economic benefit, I imagine that economic multipliers could be rather large, and thats in addition to security concerns like ensuring food supply and quality, but these to ve compared to inrastructure costs etc, have to be offset with infrastructure)

   granted, you can argue whether such initiatives create effective economic stimulus (you can epecially debate whether the Japanese government is capable of instituting such programs) but it seems to me you’re arguing more against government involvement period, rather then cost effectiveness of any one program.

6. Ken Worsley on January 20th, 2009 12:01 am

   it seems to me you’re arguing more against government involvement period, rather then cost effectiveness of any one program.

   I’m not sure that’s an accurate reading, especially given what’s written in the original post.

   further your tax money is being used to subsidize lots of other industries

   And I would rather see this wasteful spending reduced rather than increased.

7. DaColl on February 7th, 2009 1:32 am

   Unemployment insurance is designed to provide short term income while between jobs. I have always felt that long term unemployed, and welfare recipients should earn their keep. I think this is a good program that should be expanded (for example, forestry workers are in short supply as well).

8. DaColl on February 12th, 2009 12:18 pm

   Let me clarify my previous comment, I certainly don’t think we should increase wasteful spending. By ‘Expanding’ this ‘farmhand’ program, I mean to suggest that we could get more unemployed and ‘welfare’ recipients off their couches and into more productive ‘work-fare’ programs.

Got something to say?