China demographics thread.

Botnet

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's not really news, Poland's population has been slowly declining since the late 90s.
The problem is the conservative government in Poland has been pushing a pretty pro-natalist agenda with swathes of child benefits, and yet it seems to have had no effect on the birth rate (although banning abortion doesn't seem to have helped). At this point I think its pretty clear financial incentives are not the answer, at least, not without bankrupting the state. Its cynical, but in my opinion at this point China should emphasize having 2 children as a national duty and use heavy amounts of propaganda to instill that belief, i.e. hinting to it in movies, in the media, etc. Also, I do think China needs to start encouraging immigration. That's the only thing mitigating the US's population growth problems. Literally look at Japan. The government has made it hard for foreigners to settle there and has no intention of changing that position. Look at the result...crashing birth rates, crippling debt, and yet they're still spending more on child benefits to no avail. It's either we accept a demographic collapse or encourage immigration to push off the problem like the US has done.

Its not just China, either. Population growth across East Asia is cratering. A lot of it can be blamed on work culture (996), cost of living, etc. In South Korea, for example, the work culture is brutal, competition is fierce, and your only purpose in life is to grow up and work for Samsung. Its not wonder they have the highest suicide rates and abysmal birth rates. So I understand why many couples in China are reluctant to have kids, as it would lead them to carry the burdens of two generations—their children and their parents—along with the 996 culture and cost of living. I dont see any easy solutions and I'm quite doubtful that the CCP will suddenly magically resolve all these issues (other East Asian countries seem to have had no progress resolving it), and I think we should all prepare for the worst.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think that fatalism and defeatism is not the answer here. If you look at Japan, the amount of GDP they spend on child rearing support is only half of Sweden, where the TFR for native born women was 1.47, compared to 1.26 for Japanese women. So such support does have an impact at the margins, which makes a big difference.

But the larger point is that if society really wanted more children, it is in no way impossible. But I do agree that the major battle is in the cultural sphere and not *just* in terms of money.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
I think that fatalism and defeatism is not the answer here. If you look at Japan, the amount of GDP they spend on child rearing support is only half of Sweden, where the TFR for native born women was 1.47, compared to 1.26 for Japanese women. So such support does have an impact at the margins, which makes a big difference.

But the larger point is that if society really wanted more children, it is in no way impossible. But I do agree that the major battle is in the cultural sphere and not *just* in terms of money.
Both Sweden and Japan throw large amounts of money to encourage women to have children. Very few countries can afford to do that.

The difference in fertility rate between Sweden and Japan is entirely attributable to immigration. Arabs and Africans who move to Sweden have much more children than native born Swedes, skewering the fertility rate. If you look compare the fertility rates of born women in both countries the numbers are comparable.
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
Both Sweden and Japan throw large amounts of money to encourage women to have children. Very few countries can afford to do that.

The difference in fertility rate between Sweden and Japan is entirely attributable to immigration. Arabs and Africans who move to Sweden have much more children than native born Swedes, skewering the fertility rate. If you look compare the fertility rates of born women in both countries the numbers are comparable.

Buy that's why I said the TFR for native born women in Sweden is 1.47, which is higher than the TFR for Japanese women (both native and foreign). So your statement that the difference is "entirely attributable" to immigration is an unsourced falsehood. That it is a falsehood is plain from the very post of mine which you quoted. Sweden also spends twice as much money as Japan as share of GDP on childrearing. So the evidence shows that spending more money is correlated with higher birth rates. The problem is the lack of will to spend.

Culture is an even bigger issue, but a separate one.
 

Proton

Junior Member
Registered Member
Buy that's why I said the TFR for native born women in Sweden is 1.47, which is higher than the TFR for Japanese women (both native and foreign).
You're right. But it's roughly the same as most of the western world, and it seems France and Ireland is at the helm of the pack.
The one outlier is Israel.
 

Eventine

Junior Member
Registered Member
The problem is the conservative government in Poland has been pushing a pretty pro-natalist agenda with swathes of child benefits, and yet it seems to have had no effect on the birth rate (although banning abortion doesn't seem to have helped). At this point I think its pretty clear financial incentives are not the answer, at least, not without bankrupting the state. Its cynical, but in my opinion at this point China should emphasize having 2 children as a national duty and use heavy amounts of propaganda to instill that belief, i.e. hinting to it in movies, in the media, etc. Also, I do think China needs to start encouraging immigration. That's the only thing mitigating the US's population growth problems. Literally look at Japan. The government has made it hard for foreigners to settle there and has no intention of changing that position. Look at the result...crashing birth rates, crippling debt, and yet they're still spending more on child benefits to no avail. It's either we accept a demographic collapse or encourage immigration to push off the problem like the US has done.

Its not just China, either. Population growth across East Asia is cratering. A lot of it can be blamed on work culture (996), cost of living, etc. In South Korea, for example, the work culture is brutal, competition is fierce, and your only purpose in life is to grow up and work for Samsung. Its not wonder they have the highest suicide rates and abysmal birth rates. So I understand why many couples in China are reluctant to have kids, as it would lead them to carry the burdens of two generations—their children and their parents—along with the 996 culture and cost of living. I dont see any easy solutions and I'm quite doubtful that the CCP will suddenly magically resolve all these issues (other East Asian countries seem to have had no progress resolving it), and I think we should all prepare for the worst.
The West's settler colonies are not models for China. A country like the US can support mass immigration because that's how the country was built - 97% of the US literally are immigrants from <300 years ago.

But welcoming mass immigration into your cultural and ethnic home land? Are you serious? That's a recipe for disaster. Why should Chinese give up their ancestral land to foreigners? Americans are/were willing to do so because it wasn't their land to begin with - they encouraged mass immigration in order to swamp and displace Native Americans and to prevent other European powers from doing the same. It was a deliberate strategy of land annexation that became institutionalized, over time, as an ideology. The whole idea behind America was to found a new country, not advance an existing one.

China? China is already a country, with an ancient history, culture, and territory. It isn't in China's interests to build a new country on its land or to form a new people to replace Chinese. So why would it practice mass immigration? Do not allow American propaganda to confuse you - the purpose of the US pushing mass immigration as a political strategy is to weaken the identity and unity of other nations, because it knows that, contrary to the US, those nations weren't built to be nations of immigrants and so will inevitably struggle to try and become such. We already see in France what happens when you try to copy the Americans.

No, the Japanese have the right idea when it comes to preserving their country's demographic identity. Where they went wrong is in how they approached the problem of getting their people to have children.

In short, the key is the education system. There is a well-known and firmly established association between higher education and low fertility. People push off marriage and children while in school, and the longer they spend in school, the more likely they are to pursue professional development and career advancement over family, because that's what school teaches, and it's human nature to want return on 20+ years of investment.

The most significant change from the medieval period to today is in how many years young people spend in school. The more a culture emphasizes higher education, the lower its fertility. This is why East Asians are among the worst affected. Consequently, the way out of the fertility trap is to reform the education system.

We have a saying, 成家立业. Look at the order, because it's important. 先成家后立业. This is the secret to demographics, and it's what China needs to push for if it wants to avoid the fate of South Korea and Japan. See, modern culture has it all wrong - modern culture encourages education and work for its own sake, but the historical purpose of education and work is to provide for the family. The fact that young people aren't starting families before they go into the work force is the reason they are lost, and the reason nations are failing.
 
Last edited:

Proton

Junior Member
Registered Member
The West's settler colonies are not models for China. A country like the US can support mass immigration because that's how the country was built - 97% of the US literally are immigrants from <300 years ago.

We have a saying, 成家立业. Look at the order, because it's important. 先成家后立业. This is the secret to demographics, and it's what China needs t push for if it is to have a chance at surviving the great modern demographics collapse.
The problem is that you're looking at it from a purely nationalist perspective.
China is socialist though, I don't expect the CCP to ever embrace Nationalism.
 

Quan8410

Junior Member
Registered Member
The West's settler colonies are not models for China. A country like the US can support mass immigration because that's how the country was built - 97% of the US literally are immigrants from <300 years ago.

But welcoming mass immigration into your cultural and ethnic home land? Are you serious? That's a recipe for disaster. Why should Chinese give up their ancestral land to foreigners? Americans are/were willing to do so because it wasn't their land to begin with - they encouraged mass immigration in order to swamp and displace Native Americans and to prevent other European powers from doing the same. It was a deliberate strategy of land annexation that became institutionalized, over time, as an ideology. The whole idea behind America was to create a new country on new land.

China? China is already a country, with an ancient history, culture, and territory. It isn't in China's interests to build a new country on its land or to form a new people to replace Chinese. So why would it practice mass immigration? Do not allow American propaganda to confuse you - the purpose of the US pushing mass immigration as a political strategy is to weaken the identity and unity of other nations, because it knows that, contrary to the US, those nations weren't built to be nations of immigrants and so will inevitably struggle to try and become such. We already see in France what happens when you try to copy the Americans.

No, the Japanese have the right idea when it comes to preserving their country's demographic identity. Where they went wrong is in how they approached the problem of getting their people to have children.

In short, the key is the education system. There is a well-know and firmly established association between higher education and low fertility. In short, people push off marriage and children while in school, and the longer they spend in school, the more likely they are to pursue professional development and career advancement over starting families, because that's what school teaches, and it's human nature to want return on 20+ years of investment.

The most significant change from the medieval period to today is in how many years young people spend in school. The more a culture emphasizes higher education, the lower its fertility. This is why East Asians are among the worst affected. Consequently, the way out of the fertility trap is to reform the education system.

We have a saying, 成家立业. Look at the order, because it's important. 先成家后立业. This is the secret to demographics, and it's what China needs t push for if it is to have a chance at surviving the great modern demographics collapse.
China for thousands of years absord more culture than you think. It's easy to be absorbed to the Chinese culture, not the other way round. The mongol, the manchus, Uighurs are all or being absorded to the Chinese culture Japan being a poor replicate of Tang dynasty cannot do that. It even starting way back in the warring states period when the "barbarians" like the Zhou and Qin usually defeated the more "civilized" states like the Shang and Zhao, but they are still drawn to the Chinese culture.
 

Eventine

Junior Member
Registered Member
China for thousands of years absord more culture than you think. It's easy to be absorbed to the Chinese culture, not the other way round. The mongol, the manchus, Uighurs are all or being absorded to the Chinese culture Japan being a poor replicate of Tang dynasty cannot do that. It even starting way back in the warring states period when the "barbarians" like the Zhou and Qin usually defeated the more "civilized" states like the Shang and Zhao, but they are still drawn to the Chinese culture.
Being able to absorb invaders after centuries of subjugation isn't a particularly attractive pattern of behavior. It is also a false narrative. The Song did not want to be conquered by the Mongols, and the Ming did not want to be conquered by the Manchus. They ended up that way because they were forced. Why are you trying to internalize being invaded and conquered as positive traits? Would you have cheered the Imperial Japanese on during World War 2?

My perception of Chinese history is different. External conquest was not a positive. The fact that Chinese civilization and culture survived being conquered is a positive, but that doesn't mean we should then hope to be conquered more. Actually, the best analogy for mass immigration isn't the Mongols or the Manchus or the Uyghurs. It's the 五胡乱华 that brought down the Jin Dynasty and ended five hundred years of unified Chinese rule in Northern China. The Age of Fragmentation that followed was neither glorious nor prosperous. It was, rather, violent and dark, and among the most destructive periods of Chinese history.
 

Quan8410

Junior Member
Registered Member
Being able to absorb invaders after centuries of subjugation isn't a particularly attractive pattern of behavior. It is also a false narrative. The Song did not want to be conquered by the Mongols, and the Ming did not want to be conquered by the Manchus. They ended up that way because they were forced. Why are you trying to internalize being invaded and conquered as positive traits? Would you have cheered the Imperial Japanese on during World War 2?
Either it is bad or good it is still a part of history and it showed that Chinese culture is very resilient. Besides, accepting immigrants is not the same as being invaded. The one in command is still the Chinese and they have the decision to accept one to become Chinese or not. They are not being forced to accept. All the narratives that immigrants will destroy Chinese culture is disapproved in history. Chinese culture still shine and persist even in dark time.
 
Top