New Timeslot for Rider and Sentai

Do ratings ever factor in streaming services or DVD sales?

The only thing I don't agree with is lower birth rates. That wouldn't have anything to do with the ratings themselves, that's more because people aren't making enough money these days to be able to afford to have kids and people are working so much they don't have time to have kids.

Hasn't there been a recent wave of people who are actually refuting the lower birth rate narrative? Like, I get it's a thing that's possible, but like, I live in Thailand in the area that there's a ton of Japanese people who come over for their companies, and their wives have plenty of babies. Like, I see plenty of Japanese women with kids walking all over the place.

Dr Kain said:

The only thing I don't agree with is lower birth rates. That wouldn't have anything to do with the ratings themselves, that's more because people aren't making enough money these days to be able to afford to have kids and people are working so much they don't have time to have kids.

Click to expand...

No kids = no ratings because no one is watching the TV. The adult fans are more likely streaming or downloading from some place than watching on the networks on Sunday mornings.

Japaneseseriesfan said:

I live in Thailand in the area that there's a ton of Japanese people who come over for their companies, and their wives have plenty of babies. Like, I see plenty of Japanese women with kids walking all over the place.

Click to expand...

Have you considered the fact that they are in Thailand and it's probably cheaper to live there than Japan?

Black Fang said:

Have you considered the fact that they are in Thailand and it's probably cheaper to live there than Japan?

Click to expand...

Yes, I have. We also have satellite cable for Japanese TV Shows, and it airs at around the same time it does in Japan. My family runs a rental apartment, and we have a lot of Japanese tenants, so we had to install the channels they wanted as well.

My point is like, is the population of Japanese people actually decreasing, or is this just more of a fact that they're going to go give birth outside their country more now? Because that doesn't mean their population is actually decreasing at the rate most people would like to claim it is, and they're just looking at numbers the Japanese government will report, which probably isn't reflective of the whole when you take into consideration all the Japanese people that live outside of their home country as well.

Why would the Japanese government be counting people outside of the country? Are these Japanese in Thailand still Japanese citizens? In any event, foreigners watching Japanese TV channels via satellite probably aren't counted in the ratings with domestic audiences, any more than Bandai counts sales of its stuff on Ebay or Buyee by third parties as "sales".

Well, that's the point I'm trying to make right. Ethnically, they are Japanese whether or not they are born in Japan or not. And they DO go back to Japan once the companies contracts are over. When it comes to saying "the Japanese population is decreasing", that's not a true statement. Suppose I was born in Japan, like how I am in Thailand, yet Ethnically, I am not Thai, but Indian, a lot of people will still say I'm not "Thai". Yet, I consider myself one because I am a citizen here. I would be considered "Japanese", even if I'm ethnically not. Real Indians from India don't consider me Indian either, because my mannerisms reflect the culture I've been born into and grew up in. But these Japanese people who live with us DO go back to Japan and their parents are from Japan and grew up there. The kids go back pretty fast in most cases, so they have no trouble adapting back into their mother-culture. I have no idea how the process works for them to become citizens, but I do know that for me, in my case, I can get a dual citizenship with India if I pass the requirements for it at any point.

I guess my point is, what do you consider "part of the population", and how is it okay for someone to say you aren't this or that just because it's not part of the government's say so, even if you are either a citizen or of ethnic descent of it? Do we just throw random numbers at the board and say it's representative of the whole, instead of actually looking at it for what it is?

Maybe Japan is only considering ethnic Japanese, but it would still only be considering actual Japanese citizens in its analysis. Otherwise you might as well include Japanese in Brazil or Hawaii who have been there for generations and are citizens of those countries (USA, obviously, in Hawaii's case). I think it's pretty obvious that they're talking about citizens of Japan. Why would the government care about the descendants of Niseis and Sansei in California when factoring in birthrates?

I don't know honestly, but I think they should include the Niseis and Sanseis as part of the Japanese citizens, IF they aren't detached from the culture. Like with me, I find it illogical to even grant me a chance at getting a dual citizenship with India, since I am so far removed from being Indian, in terms of mannerisms and behavior. Also, I can't speak the mother tongue.

The thing I'm trying to point out is like, if those second and third generations somehow were able to maintain their cultural-ethnic background and practices, they should be somewhat considered, no? In every sense, the essence of being Japanese is still being passed onto the next generation without having been born in the mainland. Of course, I'm not saying all second and third generation offsprings are like this, I've lived in America long enough to know that most "Asian-Americans" are just pretty much Americans now who have no idea about their own cultural origins, so their claims of heritage for it is flimsy at best (which is why I don't really like the casting of Asian-American actors in Asian roles, they are pretty much clueless to their own backgrounds). At least I know enough of my own ethnic and cultural background's history that my parents tried to teach me about, but I don't even think it's enough to even say I belong to it because my mannerisms and behavior is more in line with a Westerner, somehow with predominantly Eastern values at it's core. I just know that, it's a thing that there are those like that out there, the ones that have proper claim. I mean, despite what I've said about myself, there are also Thai-Indians here who can slip back into the India and be a citizen quite easily, I'm just kind of a black sheep.

Japaneseseriesfan said:

I don't know honestly, but I think they should include the Niseis and Sanseis as part of the Japanese citizens, IF they aren't detached from the culture. Like with me, I find it illogical to even grant me a chance at getting a dual citizenship with India, since I am so far removed from being Indian, in terms of mannerisms and behavior. Also, I can't speak the mother tongue. The thing I'm trying to point out is like, if those second and third generations somehow were able to maintain their cultural-ethnic background and practices, they should be somewhat considered, no?

Click to expand...

No they shouldn't. They're not citizens of Japan. That's all there is to it. Your question really makes no sense. West African countries don't count American, Caribbean or South American blacks in their populations simply because they're descended from that part of the world. Nor does India count Fiji, Malaysia, Guyana, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc in theirs; nor does South Korea count Sakhalin Koreans in Russia. Whether or not someone has dual citizenship (I don't know about Japanese in Thailand, but the generational Japanese in the US certainly don't possess such, or mimics every single aspect of their country's culture, is irrelevant.

If you want to breakdown the birthrates by ethnicity, that's a different matter. But again that would only count for people who are citizens of Japan.