China demographics thread.

[Eventine]

Ok let's use your numbers. Let's say china loses 10 mil people per year which you would say is even worse than catastrophic? So for a 1.4 billion population, chinas population will decrease to 1 billion in 40 yrs. Or if they lose 5 million a year, it would be 1 billion in 80 years. And that still more population than all but 1 country in the world. The Chinese govt has 40 years to increase birthrate. So calm down from your alarmist rhetoric.

Population decline tends to accelerate with sustained low TFR. What worries is not the absolute numbers but the per capita TFR. People throw around numbers like “South Korea will have half the population in 50 years” but that’s not the problem. Having half the people is fine if your population structure is healthy.

The problem is if their TFR remains <0.7, even within that 25 million people, 80% will be old and retired or young and not able to work, so your effective work force is like 5 million people, which cannot sustain the country so they are looking at total society collapse.

It's just math. TFR 0.7 means each generation is 33% as large as the generation previous to it. If we assume a standard four generations population structure, with 25 year generation windows, then the distribution will be ~66% of the population in the oldest group (75-100), ~23% in the second oldest group (50-75), 8% in the third oldest group (25-50), and 3% in the youngest group (0-25). This means like 80% of people are retired, 3% are children, leaving just 17% workers. Do you think a society like that, where 90% of the population are above 50, can function?

 

[Phead128]

It's just math. TFR 0.7 means each generation is 33% as large as the generation previous to it. If we assume a standard four generations population structure, with 25 year generation windows, then the distribution will be ~66% of the population in the oldest group (75-100), ~23% in the second oldest group (50-75), 8% in the third oldest group (25-50), and 3% in the youngest group (0-25). This means like 80% of people are retired, 3% are children, leaving just 17% workers. Do you think a society like that, where 90% of the population are above 50, can function?

For that math to work, you need to sustain TFR 0.7 for 4X 25 years = 100 years. Many factors can change over 100 years, decreased mortality, increased immigration, policy changes to increase TFR, new artificial womb or IVF technology. Population dynamics can change a lot over 100 years to just linearly extrapolate TFR at constant rate.

 

[tokenanalyst]

Population decline tends to accelerate with sustained low TFR. What worries is not the absolute numbers but the per capita TFR. People throw around numbers like “South Korea will have half the population in 50 years” but that’s not the problem. Having half the people is fine if your population structure is healthy.

The problem is if their TFR remains <0.7, even within that 25 million people, 80% will be old and retired or young and not able to work, so your effective work force is like 5 million people, which cannot sustain the country so they are looking at total society collapse.

It's just math. TFR 0.7 means each generation is 33% as large as the generation previous to it. If we assume a standard four generations population structure, with 25 year generation windows, then the distribution will be ~66% of the population in the oldest group (75-100), ~23% in the second oldest group (50-75), 8% in the third oldest group (25-50), and 3% in the youngest group (0-25). This means like 80% of people are retired, 3% are children, leaving just 17% workers. Do you think a society like that, where 90% of the population are above 50, can function?

Lets assume that your math makes any sense at all, that inverted pyramid will revert pretty quickly. For start you should forget about the idea of retirement, you will work until you drop death, and you will drop death in the coal mine because let be honest programming and "artistic" jobs that the current generation love too much will be totally AI automated in the next 10 years.
Also there is not healthcare system in the world that can take so many old people at the same time, heart and pulmonary related deaths are going to drop the median age pretty fast.​

 

[manqiangrexue]

Then why you even quote from this bias garbage site?

Because that's @gadgetcool5 's thing. Somebody makes some shit up about China that no one would pay attention to, and he will come in, quote it like it's a real source, and pretend to be in a panic for China!

"Oh no, I hope it's not true but what if it is? The Onion reported that all of China's nukes are empty tubes and that J-20's are made from recycled Coke cans that light up fighter radars 400Km away! I hope it's not true...but if it is... ALL OF CHINA IS DOOMED!! WE HAVE NO DEFENSE AND NO WAY TO SURVIVE A WESTERN ATTACK!! IT'S ALL XI AND THE CCP'S FAULT; WE NEED TO OFFER CONCESSIONS AND BEG THE US FOR BETTER RELATIONS!! I hope it's not true though..."

 

[Biscuits]

Chinese censors deleted an article on Wednesday that reportedly leaked full-year population figures for 2023, revealing a plummeting birth rate despite ongoing efforts by the ruling party to encourage people to have families.

While official figures won't be confirmed until Jan. 17, the Mother and Infant Daily news service said 7.88 million babies were born across China 2023, 1.68 million fewer than in 2022.

Given that 11 million people died this year, China's population has therefore fallen by 3.12 million, the population of a medium-sized Chinese city, the report said, citing the City Data account on Baidu's Tieba forum site.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If this is true, it's a catastrophe for China.

If this post isn't heavily veiled sarcasm, it's a catastrophe for your brain and it's ability to conduct critical thinking.

 

[gadgetcool5]

Oh, well. Since it's New Year's I'm going to try to see this news in a positive light. Which goes something like this.

Even if this number is true, China still had more births in 2023 than the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand (e.g. the Five Eyes, or the Anglo world), plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore (the East Asian developmental states), plus Germany, France, the Netherlands (home of ASML), Belgium (home of research institute Imec) and Luxembourg combined. That's still a pretty hefty number of babies if you look at it from a certain angle. And then when you add in China's allies like Russia, Iran, and especially Pakistan (which has a sizeable nearly 7 million births), and other potential markets and sources of talent including Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, it's not over yet.

Plus, this cohort is not going to graduate university until 2045, and all the cohorts before it are substantially bigger still. And while at that point they'll be replacing the very large 1985 born generation of 22ish million, there's always the possibility China raises the retirement age. Besides, most of those workers are underskilled; their graduation year for undergrad was 2007 and China had only around 5 million grads that year. China could also choose to accept some postgrads and highly skilled labor from BRI countries to work in China under long term visas, as long as it is high skilled and kept low enough in numbers so as to guarantee assimilation. So while the demographic hammer is going to come down on China eventually, from the standpoint of the educated labor force, it could conceivably be delayed until the late 2040s. The next couple of decades are China's golden age. Might as well enjoy it.

 

[Eventine]

For that math to work, you need to sustain TFR 0.7 for 4X 25 years = 100 years. Many factors can change over 100 years, decreased mortality, increased immigration, policy changes to increase TFR, new artificial womb or IVF technology. Population dynamics can change a lot over 100 years to just linearly extrapolate TFR at constant rate.

Sure, and we can assume that TFR will improve over time due to natural selection, where by the people who can't or won't have children will be weeded out of the gene pool more quickly in a low fertility environment, thus improving the propensity towards fertility within the population stock.

But even so, we can’t assume TFR will get back to normal - just look at Japan, which has one of the most supportive societies in the world when it comes to child care, education, etc. and hit rock bottom TFR 20 years ago. Japan's TFR has improved a bit since its 1.26 bottom in 2005, but it remains stuck in the <1.4 range today. Further, it's getting harder to sustain all those fertility policies because Japan's aging society and associated loss of competitiveness has gotten it more and more into debt. Japan's government debt to GDP is now around 270% - about double what it was a few decades ago. For a mature economy, that isn't what you want to see.

So while I agree it might self balance to an extent, and not be as bad as the math suggests, precedence indicates it’s a real problem, particularly since the collapse in South Korea and Chinese TFR is far more severe than that of Japanese TFR. Understand - Japan's TFR reached a minimum of 1.26 back in 2005. South Korean TFR, however, is now at an absurdly low 0.72, while China's seems to be following the same trajectory as South Korea.

1.26 is 175% of 0.72. We are not in known territory with TFR this low. People who are simply assuming that we'll reach a Japan like decline are not appreciating just how large this difference is. 1.26 results in a population structure where each generation is 60% as large as the last - while for 0.7, as stated above, it is only 33% as large. 1.26 is bad, but 0.72 is far worse.

Any way, I hope, if anything, I've illustrated the scale of the problem faced by South Korea and China, and why we can't assume it's going to be like Japan. If there is anything fortunate about this situation, it is that South Korea will face the music sooner than China does, by about a decade, and this will hopefully be a learning experience for the Chinese leadership on what the effects of <0.7 fertility looks like, when it still has time to react. Maybe it won't be that big of a problem, and maybe TFR will recover just as quickly as it fell off; but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Oh, well. Since it's New Year's I'm going to try to see this news in a positive light. Which goes something like this.

Oh, your "analysis" depends on whether you got the "data" on a holiday? Please go on about how we should take you seriously LOL

Even if this number is true, China still had more births in 2023 than the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand (e.g. the Five Eyes, or the Anglo world), plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore (the East Asian developmental states), plus Germany, France, the Netherlands (home of ASML), Belgium (home of research institute Imec) and Luxembourg combined. That's still a pretty hefty number of babies if you look at it from a certain angle. And then when you add in China's allies like Russia, Iran, and especially Pakistan (which has a sizeable nearly 7 million births), and other potential markets and sources of talent including Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, it's not over yet.

Not over yet? The West needs to milk this made-up fear a little more before they invent the next one? Just like every Western wish and made up theory about how China will stall, this demographic scare will turn out a big nothing burger and be over too. Quite similar to when you declared that China's economy was in terminal decline because its vehicle sales dropped over a brief period.

Plus, this cohort is not going to graduate university until 2045, and all the cohorts before it are substantially bigger still. And while at that point they'll be replacing the very large 1985 born generation of 22ish million, there's always the possibility China raises the retirement age. Besides, most of those workers are underskilled; their graduation year for undergrad was 2007 and China had only around 5 million grads that year. China could also choose to accept some postgrads and highly skilled labor from BRI countries to work in China under long term visas, as long as it is high skilled and kept low enough in numbers so as to guarantee assimilation.

Ok, that's just the right amount of wumao-ery for pretending you care about China. You can relax and go back to normal mode now... and... REVERT!

So while the demographic hammer is going to come down on China eventually,

LOLOL Came up with an imaginary hammer to hit China with now? Just like the "Hard" Landing that wasn't hard, the bubble "explosion" that wasn't and housing "crash" of perpetual tomorrow? This one's gonna be named the "hammer" of slight population decline?

from the standpoint of the educated labor force, it could conceivably be delayed until the late 2040s.

Conceivably, meaning absolutely, because highly educated people that innovate and run things typically work until at least 65, oftentimes a decade longer?

The next couple of decades are China's golden age.

That's the next cope, that China's already peaked and it won't last long? LOL These coming decades are only China's ramp up. Western countries have "golden ages" lasting a few decades; Chinese dynasties dominate for centuries.

Might as well enjoy it.

Generally, "Might as well" is used to try salvage a bad situation. For example, "Got a cold and the sniffles, might as well stay home and watch a movie with a bowl of soup instead of trying to peak at the gym as planned." In this situation of China's rise, I would instead say, "Let the good times fly!" You seem to be less excited for some reason... oh, wait, you said you were an "American" before, right? LOL

 

[mossen]

So while the demographic hammer is going to come down on China eventually, from the standpoint of the educated labor force, it could conceivably be delayed until the late 2040s. The next couple of decades are China's golden age. Might as well enjoy it.

This is the correct take, but given how fast AI/AGI progress is, I doubt demographics will even be much of an issue by the late 2030s. People always extrapolate from recent history and they still think the 21th century will look a lot like the postwar period (1945-2020), which is basically the same life but just a bit faster and more convenient. I don't think it will be like that, and so the demographic issue for China isn't really an issue (just as it won't be for Europe, Japan etc).

 

[AssassinsMace]

The demographic problem is a Western propaganda narrative. The West has a history of confining their Chinese populations to being male only because they didn't want the Chinese to breed. According to the West, when you have males only there's bound to be violence. Where in the West's history cites Chinese erupting in violence in their cities? You don't think they would proclaim that in their newspapers spreading that racism to get everyone afraid of Chinese it were happening...? Chinese men would be raping white women. You hear nothing of the sort. In fact San Francisco's Chinatown was a refuge for white women fleeing their abusive white men. Weren't they afraid to go into Chinatown where all non-whites desire white women and want to rape them? What's the white man's excuse for abusing their women? Are they being forced into bachelor societies?

I remember years ago when China was developing the KJ-200 early warning aircraft, one of them crashed with engineers on the project on board that died. The West said China suffered a major setback that they could never recover from. Today you have a Chinese KJ-500 that detected a US F-35 stealth fighter and led a Chinese J-20 to sneak up to it to be in kill range before the F-35 knew it was there. In turn the US E-3 Sentry AWACS didn't see the J-20 for it to warn the F-35 it was up its six. According to the West China should still be paralyzed not knowing what to do because of the KJ-200 crash over a decade before. In other words China adapts.

The West is applying their racist logic that China can't adapt to demographic changes. Chinese won't know what to do and crash to zero population. Who says you have to have this number of people under this age? Is this Logan's Run where once you age past thirty you serve no purpose? The West should be worried more because they have people that are younger and they're lazy and expect others to give them what they want and not work for it. I've seen an old Chinese woman carry a load on her back that any young white male wouldn't think of attempting. A thirty-five year old can't do the work of twenty-five year old? How does the US even function when China has more able-bodied people than they have in total population? Maybe because they think the Chinese throw their parents into old folks homes like they do and have the government flip the bill and take care of them? China does the same thing and has more people so therefore it must cost China exactly per person and therefore cost them more in being a burden hence why the US is in a better position.

The West is always charging how China is not like them. Then why are they always using themselves as example of how they understand how the Chinese think?