Women don't love like men. They are biologically designed to only love who are "above" them. They complain about gender inequality mostly to just make them feel good. To be honest, the solution to feminism is just not to date (at least not date feminist) at all. Women in Europe and North American now have begin panicking why men don't even date anymore. East Asia will be next, especially when AI wipe out all cushy office jobs and women have less economic power.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Introductory course on the material:
I actually think the issue is worse in developed East Asian countries right now.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Yeah
Nawwwww (skip to paragraph 2)
Miscellaneous News
That's fine. The men can simply marry women from other countries https://www.youtube.com/@user-id4ff4pf4u https://www.youtube.com/@yameiniyaqiangzi https://www.youtube.com/@LucaRachele https://www.youtube.com/@mongnguyet9081 https://www.youtube.com/@user-ie6vj3nt4v...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
See these are common talking points that are politically correct on paper and sound good but aren't supported by empirical evidence. Many countries have tried birth subsidies with very little effect. At most you're going to increase TFR by 0.1-0.2 points by spending an unsustainable amount of money. It also subsidizes people already getting married (already well off compared to others), completely screwing over the under-educated men cohort who will get nothing.
Blaming bad economy, bad working conditions and macro is also a common cop-out. These issues have existed forever during much worse economic conditions, but people still had many kids. If house prices were high you'd be blaming house prices for low birth rates, but if house prices collapse you now blame "low consumer confidence" caused by house prices - see how circular this is.
Gaokao points for kids is a good idea, but need to be much higher to make a difference and should scale exponentially with more kids. Trying what other governments have done and failed will obviously not work. Any good solution will need to consider the unique status tournament structures in Confucian societies.
Also I reject GiantCanOfWater's framing. You seem to have read too much western China collapse narratives and are painting a picture of an economy in collapse. Read this on what the government actually thinks and plan on doing
Last edited:
Honestly, China shouldn't be worried about demographics because robotics + AGI will make almost all human labor redundant within a decade, maximum two, and China's current workforce is sufficient to get it across the finish line + deter the US from trying to do some sort of first strike.
I don't know if that is what the Chinese leadership is thinking (it's probably not), but they're making the correct decision to not panic about demography.
I don't know if that is what the Chinese leadership is thinking (it's probably not), but they're making the correct decision to not panic about demography.
What Chinese leadership is thinking is very simple, because it's the same thing anyone with more than two brain cells is thinking:
1. Demographics is one among many factors feeding into growth. Starving illiterate peasants with no equipment stuck in rural backwaters are not economically valuable just because they happen to be young. Nutrition, education, capex, housing, infrastructure, technology, all of these other factors which are much easier to address take precedence because China—like literally every other country in the world—is absolutely nowhere close to maxing out the economic potential of every worker it already has. So much wasted human capital in every sector.
2. A large population is absolutely a double-edged sword. People consume resources, both physically and in terms of governance capacity, neither of which is infinite. Quite the opposite, in fact. People, if well-led, can produce plenty of resources. But they always consume resources, no matter how well or poorly their leaders make use of them. And no leader, however perfect, can micromanage the entire national economy so there are always going to be subpar mediocre fools handling a lot of the day-to-day stuff. That's how too large of a population can easily become a curse instead of a blessing. Maybe you can see how it might very well be a good thing to have a controlled, emphasis on controlled, decline of the total population size.
3. Birthrates are inherently difficult to manage due to their universal and personal stakes, and pushing them one way or another (as OCP attested to) consumes a lot of those aforementioned physical and political resources. Is it really the best use of finite resources to embark on radical social engineering campaigns? Or maybe those resources are better spent on easier solutions to the same problem. Which is not fewer people, but less growth. There is a difference. Some factors are always pulling growth down, others are pushing it up, and all of those factors are constantly changing in type and magnitude. The trick to good leadership is to make sure the latter keeps outweighing the former in the net aggregate, and so far, Chinese leadership these past few decades has an excellent record in that department.
In any case, this is a stupid conversation through and through because it always degenerates into reductionist hyperbole. Fortunately, the leadership is not so stupid as to heed such nonsense.
Last edited:
China hit new highs in energy demand with 1.518TW, just huge demand. A lot of AC power needed.