kuri wrote:
> <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > I was surprised it wasn't a higher figure, and suspect that if the
> > period was 5 years it would easily exceed 90%.
>
> I don't think so. A few years ago, my boss had a figure similar to yours for
> a 2 year stay and charts saying that :
> -the larger % of *giving up Japan* occurs in the 6 first months

And maybe even less. So what? Its all churn.

> -most people first get a short time visa when they arrive (1 year or less).

All work visas at the moment are initially for 1 year or less. That
would qualify as most.

> The majority  don't renew it, or don't even stay in Japan till the end of
> the first stint.
> -a number of people renew their visa only 1 time, then go away

Yes.

> Then after 2 years, people tend to stay, and even if they leave, they come
> back later.

Yes, including myself. I left after 12 months and return 20 months
later. Either way a "returning gaigin" (ie anyine without a re-entry
permit) would require a new certificate of eligibility and if they
subsequently left within 36 months be counted as such.

> > How many people are
> > prepared to risk having every single pension contribution after the 4
> > year mark being unfundable?
>
> How many people take the risk of making  *pension contribution* ? 99% of the
> gaigins and politicians in Japan have never been concerned by the problem.

Plenty. I don't know any foreigners who haven't paid in their pension
contributions, or any companies not complying with the law regarding
deducting contributions each month. Then again Aichi may not be typical
of the rest of the country in that respect.

> And well, that's a backshish among others. In many OECD countries, you
> contribute much more and you don't have more chances to get anything back.

Which OECD countries are so backward as to not have portable pension
funds/superannuation or pension treaties with other OECD countries? The
issue is not unfunded pensions, but portability.