That is the problem Japan stuck with，most of the wealth are in the hands of old people，yet these people don't consume much
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
China demographics thread.
- Thread starter gadgetcool5
- Start date
That is the problem Japan stuck with，most of the wealth are in the hands of old people，yet these people don't consume much
Encouraging ethnic Chinese to move back to China could be a temporary solution, but it isn't a great one strategically because ultimately it reduces the presence and thus influence of ethnic Chinese populations outside of China.
Long-term the solution must still be to raise birth rates at home. In an ideal scenario, China would be a net exporter of population (>2.1 fertility rate), since more ethnic Chinese around the world typically means more Chinese influence. But since influence can be obtained in other ways, it is not necessary. Just maintaining China's historical % of the world population (~20%) would be great.
What I definitely don't want to see is China becoming like 5% of the world population as despite all the talk about automation & robots, robots don't have identity or culture; demographics is still a nation's destiny.
Long-term the solution must still be to raise birth rates at home. In an ideal scenario, China would be a net exporter of population (>2.1 fertility rate), since more ethnic Chinese around the world typically means more Chinese influence. But since influence can be obtained in other ways, it is not necessary. Just maintaining China's historical % of the world population (~20%) would be great.
What I definitely don't want to see is China becoming like 5% of the world population as despite all the talk about automation & robots, robots don't have identity or culture; demographics is still a nation's destiny.
Speaking of exporting population:
With operation meat grinder happening in eastern europe right now, the sex ratio is bound to become skewed towards women there. Guess which country has an up and coming class of educated and affluent young men? Yup, that's right.
The Russian cougar and Chinese stud power couples will take over the world, mark my words. There'll be no limits to our strategic partnership .
With operation meat grinder happening in eastern europe right now, the sex ratio is bound to become skewed towards women there. Guess which country has an up and coming class of educated and affluent young men? Yup, that's right.
The Russian cougar and Chinese stud power couples will take over the world, mark my words. There'll be no limits to our strategic partnership .
South Korean TFR falls to 0.79, which is probably the lowest in the world. If historical association is of any indication, China lags South Korea about ~5-10 years in terms of TFR. This is the future of the East Asia, if drastic steps are not taken to reverse the TFR decline. For comparison, North Korea TFR is 1.9, indicating that this is not as much about East Asian culture, as it is about the highly materialistic hybrid of East Asian and Western culture that prevails across much of East Asia.
This is a historic moment and opportunity. The near term fate of East Asia will be determined by the strength and courage of its leadership to explore alternate solutions, separate from the West's largely absurd proposals of feminism being the solution (because we all just know feminists would love to have more children, but for the patriarchy) or immigration being the solution (because getting third rate immigrants that the US doesn't want is an obvious recipe for success, I'm sure).
The price is high, but so is the reward.
Succeed, and the country in question will likely become the model for other East Asian countries, if not the developed world as a whole. Solving TFR and achieving sustainable growth is the holy grail of post-industrial economic leadership. If a government wants to show to the world that it's got the superior system, this is one way you do it.
Fail, and a long period of economic stagnation and decline awaits; for though automation and AI can provide a degree of relief, there is no fundamental advantage that East Asian economies enjoy beyond their superior talent base and forward planning. Robot factories and AI systems can be replicated else where, and they only address labor, not demand, therefore being vulnerable to economic nationalism from importing countries.
By contrast, demographic advantages other countries enjoy cannot be replicated in East Asia. If you don't have young people, you don't have young people, and it's young people who tend to take risks, create start ups, new business strategies, products, and inventions. AI might be able to help with many of these tasks, but they cannot replace the energy of human youths. We see a great example of this in the decline of Japan as a post-industrial power - they are just too old, too slow, to keep up with the pace of change in business and technology. China must not suffer the same fate.
I encourage everyone to read this overview if you are serious about solving the demographic crisis in China or any other industrialized country. Reducing working hours is the most pragmatic solution. No need for immigration. no need to restrict women's rights like abortion which will only cause alienation, no need to wait needlessly for some automation or AI miracle, and no retarded mass artificial womb project
Reducing productivity (i.e. less working hours) will not lead to an increase in fertility rates.I encourage everyone to read this overview if you are serious about solving the demographic crisis in China or any other industrialized country. Reducing working hours is the most pragmatic solution. No need for immigration. no need to restrict women's rights like abortion which will only cause alienation, no need to wait needlessly for some automation or AI miracle, and no retarded mass artificial womb project
If anything it'll lead to the opposite.
A four day work week does not necessarily mean less working hours. The standard and also my ideal solution is 32 hours a week with 8 hours a day, but if you insist on 40 hours a week, you can just increase the amount of hours working from 8 to 10. Also, the overview mentions that salaries/wages should remain the say under this proposal.Reducing productivity (i.e. less working hours) will not lead to an increase in fertility rates.
If anything it'll lead to the opposite.
Also, I disagree with your claim that decreasing working hours will not lead to an increase in the total fertility rate(TFR).
Benefits From the Overview:
- Having an extra day off gives people people a better work life balance
- Less redundant meetings
- Increase in happiness
- Better physical and mental health
As for productivity, productivity remains. It turns out that having happy and healthy employees leads to them being more productive, which makes up for the fact that they are working less.
Lastly, even if it did reduce productivity slightly, so what? I hope you aren't a neoliberal who worships GDP as gospel. Which is more important in the grand scheme of things, short-term GDP growth or long-term TFR. I think the answer is obvious.
Reducing productivity (i.e. less working hours) will not lead to an increase in fertility rates.
If anything it'll lead to the opposite.
Productivity is output divided by hours worked, not hours worked. A guy who slaves away 16 hours a day to make a shoe is not very productive.