China demographics thread.

[sinophilia]

What you consider collapse is not what the government considers as collapse. Maybe you need to define your problem statement first. You also said "almost disappeared", which means you though it was approaching 0. You just want to cover your tracks and pretend like you know how to read a graph once I pointed it out to you. But too bad, the post is there for everyone to read.

Also what the government want is not a 1.5 billion country, the goal is a slightly less than 1 billion country. So having a much reduced birth rate is desirable. China is not India, we don't want 1.3 billion illerate peasants that can't do 1+1.

USA reached the peak of her power when she had 140 million. UK at 45 million.

Your first sentence implies that if the government considers something to be a non-issue then it MUST be a non-issue. Really promotes the Western critique that everyone is a mindless drone when people like you crawl out of the floorboards. Imagine having more of a religious devotion to "government" than Muslims do to Muhammad. It's pathetic. This is exactly how shit gets worse, people falling in line to any mandated opinion like thoughtless imbeciles, caring more about conformity than success.

Secondarily, you say the US was at the peak of her power at a pop. of 140m, well what were the populations of the other competitors? Was America still the most populous Germanic nation on Earth? Yea, it was. Doesn't take even an average IQ to realize it's all relative. Everyone's population was smaller back then. Everyone's population is bigger since then. Is this hard to understand?

What's next? You going to tell us how the Roman Empire was at the peak of her power when the population was at 60 million so that number is good enough for China? Maybe the Achaemenid population of 25 million at her peak is good enough for China too since she practically ruled the world at the time and consisted of 20-40% of the worlds population at the time.

I love too that you imply having 1.3 billion people (hint: it's actually 1.4b, surprised you didn't know that) implies that the majority have to be illiterate peasants that can't even do basic arithmetic. Shows how silly you are. The literacy rate in China is approaching 100% for all mentally capable citizens (not including mentally ill, syndromic, etc). It will likely be 100% whether China has a population of 10 million or 10 billion going forward.

Also Chinese students, regardless of socioeconomic status, score better than Western countries. The poorest 5% of Chinese score better than the average American or even the average Swede or German or Brit. Imagine having to lie about the capabilities of your own people and make it seem like they are even less capable than they are just to prove some abstract point the government is making about population growth.

Utterly pathetic. Enjoy your "slightly less than 1 billion country" with 60% of the population over the age of 70 in a few decades. What an unbelievably incompetent policy. I don't care whether that is the policy of the government but I certainly don't see you posting supporting links supporting your belief that it IS the policy. But hey, I'm not a mindless drone so even if it were true I would still disagree with it. I, after all, have a functioning brain.

 

[PiSigma]

Geriatric consumers power.

It doesn't matter if it is 1B or 1,5B or 100m, it matters how the population structure of the country looks like. Look before what was the American population structure when it had 140m ppl. Good luck for a country which will have 500m old people who don't work and the rest 500 m who works and study.

One child policy was a failure, period. It should have been implemented from a start as a two-child policy. Chinese demographers drank a kool-aid sponsored by Soros and C.O.

Remember one more thing, Chinese TFR isn't comparable to other countries with healthy women to men balance. Because there are many more young men than young women in China, a Chinese TFR of 1.0 would result in lower births per capita if e.g. USA had the same TFR of 1.0.

When did I say 500M retirees and 500m working? Making assumptions are we? It's about productive members of society and making everyone doing meaningful jobs. Having 500 M peasants that can be done by 50m means the productivity of 450 m wasted.

 

[PiSigma]

Your first sentence implies that if the government considers something to be a non-issue then it MUST be a non-issue. Really promotes the Western critique that everyone is a mindless drone when people like you crawl out of the floorboards. Imagine having more of a religious devotion to "government" than Muslims do to Muhammad. It's pathetic. This is exactly how shit gets worse, people falling in line to any mandated opinion like thoughtless imbeciles, caring more about conformity than success.

Secondarily, you say the US was at the peak of her power at a pop. of 140m, well what were the populations of the other competitors? Was America still the most populous Germanic nation on Earth? Yea, it was. Doesn't take even an average IQ to realize it's all relative. Everyone's population was smaller back then. Everyone's population is bigger since then. Is this hard to understand?

What's next? You going to tell us how the Roman Empire was at the peak of her power when the population was at 60 million so that number is good enough for China? Maybe the Achaemenid population of 25 million at her peak is good enough for China too since she practically ruled the world at the time and consisted of 20-40% of the worlds population at the time.

I love too that you imply having 1.3 billion people (hint: it's actually 1.4b, surprised you didn't know that) implies that the majority have to be illiterate peasants that can't even do basic arithmetic. Shows how silly you are. The literacy rate in China is approaching 100% for all mentally capable citizens (not including mentally ill, syndromic, etc). It will likely be 100% whether China has a population of 10 million or 10 billion going forward.

Also Chinese students, regardless of socioeconomic status, score better than Western countries. The poorest 5% of Chinese score better than the average American or even the average Swede or German or Brit. Imagine having to lie about the capabilities of your own people and make it seem like they are even less capable than they are just to prove some abstract point the government is making about population growth.

Utterly pathetic. Enjoy your "slightly less than 1 billion country" with 60% of the population over the age of 70 in a few decades. What an unbelievably incompetent policy. I don't care whether that is the policy of the government but I certainly don't see you posting supporting links supporting your belief that it IS the policy. But hey, I'm not a mindless drone so even if it were true I would still disagree with it. I, after all, have a functioning brain.

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension. I said 1.3 billion useless people in India that can't read. I didn't say 1.4 useless people in china. However, in order for China to improve GDP/capita to equal or higher than US, need to have a more productive populace

 

[sinophilia]

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension. I said 1.3 billion useless people in India that can't read. I didn't say 1.4 useless people in china. However, in order for China to improve GDP/capita to equal or higher than US, need to have a more productive populace

Misattributing your population numbers is hardly relevant. The rest of the argument speaks for itself.

Productivity is increasing as economic growth continues. Growth doesn't just slow down at some magic population number. You will probably refer to natural resource depletion or food scarcity some other nonsense as a relevant excuse. Yet this is always being predicted and never ends up happening. Technology and efficiency improves faster than pop growth rates.

Human capital matters FAR more than natural resource inputs. Most of Europe lacks in natural resources, yet there are 700 million people at a level of pop density higher than China living at very advanced levels, with the only major problem they have being an ageing population. They sought to fix that by importing people with far lower human capital than their indigenous population and now have to deal with that forever. China would do best by improving its own indigenous birth rates but incompetent opposition and insecurity at the strength and resilience of its population in facing those new challenges will inhibit it.

 

[broadsword]

Love 'em. Some of the best women I've dated are Chinese and not just in the looks department.

Good. How about the men?

 

[PiSigma]

Misattributing your population numbers is hardly relevant. The rest of the argument speaks for itself.

Productivity is increasing as economic growth continues. Growth doesn't just slow down at some magic population number. You will probably refer to natural resource depletion or food scarcity some other nonsense as a relevant excuse. Yet this is always being predicted and never ends up happening. Technology and efficiency improves faster than pop growth rates.

Human capital matters FAR more than natural resource inputs. Most of Europe lacks in natural resources, yet there are 700 million people at a level of pop density higher than China living at very advanced levels, with the only major problem they have being an ageing population. They sought to fix that by importing people with far lower human capital than their indigenous population and now have to deal with that forever. China would do best by improving its own indigenous birth rates but incompetent opposition and insecurity at the strength and resilience of its population in facing those new challenges will inhibit it.

Resource depletion is not an issue like you said. China can just buy more from South America or Africa for now. But the problem is competition for those resources. Adding a billion rich people to the current billion rich would cause a resource crunch. If you want everyone in china to have the same standard of living as people in North America, there definitely isn't enough resources.

Europe and NA is only able to maintain the current standard of living through massive amounts of debt and resource exploitation from the global south. If China becomes rich and does the same, then there won't be enough for anyone else.

The purpose of BRI is to get the global south richer so China can sell their manufactured goods. U think there will be enough resources for 2 billion rich people and 3 billion and more of middle income?

 

[HybridHypothesis]

Resource depletion is not an issue like you said. China can just buy more from South America or Africa for now. But the problem is competition for those resources. Adding a billion rich people to the current billion rich would cause a resource crunch. If you want everyone in china to have the same standard of living as people in North America, there definitely isn't enough resources.

Europe and NA is only able to maintain the current standard of living through massive amounts of debt and resource exploitation from the global south. If China becomes rich and does the same, then there won't be enough for anyone else.

The purpose of BRI is to get the global south richer so China can sell their manufactured goods. U think there will be enough resources for 2 billion rich people and 3 billion and more of middle income?

The Americans openly boast about increasing their population to a billion by the end of the century so they obviously dont care about the so called resource crunch. They just want to maintain their position at the top, and if useful idiots in China make that easier for them, then so much better for them.

Globalism is a lie.

 

[gadgetcool5]

The average American family of four lives in a house like this. The average American family of four has 3 cars. Compared to the average Singaporean who has only 1 car for a family of five.

America taxes the world because it is extremely wasteful. If you have more people but increase your resource usage efficiency then between renewable energy, desalinzation, and environmentally friendly lifestyle there are plenty of resources to go around.

 

[KYli]

View attachment 71592
The average American family of four lives in a house like this. The average American family of four has 3 cars. Compared to the average Singaporean who has only 1 car for a family of five.

America taxes the world because it is extremely wasteful. If you have more people but increase your resource usage efficiency then between renewable energy, desalinzation, and environmentally friendly lifestyle there are plenty of resources to go around.

You are delusional. Average Americans don't live in homes like this.

 

[Xizor]

You are delusional. Average Americans don't live in homes like this.

But he isn't totally wrong. What he cited applies to the white middle class suburban population and that picture signifies the upper crust. They aren't a minority.

I mentioned few posts back how suburban lifestyle and big homes are a factor in the decision of couples to have more kids.