China demographics thread.

[manqiangrexue]

Issues haven't been addressed, they have just been discussed,

Being addressed is the same as being discussed.

and I am firmly against the addressals that people are providing.

Then you're gonna have to argue with something better than just showing the TFR is low.

I agree with everything that you have said. The problem is NOT in the short term. Say 5 years. But over the long term >10 years, the problem is severe.

However, to handle that long term problem, arrangements need to be made now (so in the short term).

Why is it severe? Answer point-to-point below for why automation will not take over. Answer for why there will even be a labor force reduction when so many eager country folk who don't have the oppertunity to work in the cities can now migrate and do so.

It does, but only to an extent.
There are 2 points I would like to make:

1. Let's say automation, AI etc. make 90% of today's jobs obsolete. (Very bold and IMO unrealistic goal).

I did not claim 90% and there is nowhere near a 90% reduction in labor. You're starting off from a very unrealistic point. It's much closer to a 10% reduction in labor force with a 50% reduction in automation-led need to manual labor.

1. This doesn't mean humans are not important, it just means that humans shift to higher value stuff. We have already seen this before. Before Industrial Revolution, 90% or so of population was engaged in agriculture, what if the Qing dynasty officials have said that okay since we can now replace 90% of human jobs with mechanization, let's just decrease population by 90%?

90% is too far divorced from reality to continue. This paragraph makes no sense.

1. 
   Humans always shift to higher value added stuff. More humans ==> More demand & More Innovation
   Some people claim that this time it will be different (people have been saying that for every tech leap over last 3 centuries, and AI will be no different in my opinion).

It will be no different. Increases in technology lead to reduced need for manual labor or massive increases in output as always.

1. Even the wildest predictions for robotics, AI growth (realistic made by experts and not PPT bros to get investor money), doesn't forecast reaching any where near the fidelity or dexterity of humans. As such, humans, even low educated ones are going to be needed. For shipbuilding, For agriculture etc. etc. (though mechanization and automation will keep increasing)

You are in an imaginary argument where people are not needed and machines can take over. The actual argument is that technology, plus humans can output more than just a massive number of humans. A very simple example is that whereas it would take 50 farmers all day to harvest a field with hand tools, one farmer driving a $500K tractor can do it by himself.

The people born in China last year were lower than the total number of graduates that year. So by definition, the number of college graduates will have to decline in near future.

OK and there can be such a decline but it will not correlate to a decline in China's power. College grads are increasingly more educated and more useful than they used to be. Add next generation research tools to their inventory and they can achieve even more.

And useful population is not only of college grads or middle class as explained earlier.

Right, people coming out of the country side from a life where they barely sustain themselves into the city where they can enter the blue collar labor force are useful. That's why I said lower middle class as well. And China right now has hukou restrictions. If the cities weren't producing enough people from birth, they would be replaced by allowing these hardly useful country folk to become useful city folk.

Again couple of points:

1. Population metrics show the past, not the future. For future, look at births where China is barely over 2x that of US births. On top of that, US is a huge net immigrant country, which supplements that even further.

First of all, I'm seeing 3.6M for the US in 2023 and 9M for China; that's 250%, not barely over double. Secondly, China's game is an increase in the quality and per capita contribution of people. That can and has grown wildly, even when the population changes mildly. That is why China grows so much faster than the US. It's not because our population is out-growing them.

Secondly, regardless of American immigration, (which itself causes problems because it often attracts the wrong type of people and when it attracts the right type of people, those people have no sense of loyalty because if they were bought by promises once, they can be bought out again), Chinese people are the highest achieving group and China still has and is still producing at least 2.5X more of these people than the US. Once they are armed with the right tools, their quality will far outstrip a US with even a 1 to 1 match in population. But if they are not properly armed, like in the past, even 4 to 1, we cannot win. That's why China's game is improvement to quality, not adding more people.

 

[manqiangrexue]

1. US has huge alliances, and as such it should be West that should be considered as a unit, not the US. Like literally, for a while Australians wanted US in pacific more than US itself! West has population of around billion people.

They are incoherent with each other; they are not united. They have problems, dissentions, slackers (most of them are useless) some can be bought out for their own benefits, etc... Their teamwork is very poor. It makes more sense to add Russia's population to China than to add the Western countries together.

1. US attracts the best talent from over the world, even its adversaries. Recent Iranian woman fields medalist was in the US not Iran.

Addressed above. Those who can be bought once can be bought again. It's called brain circulation. It's an American weakness more than a strength that its brain army is composed of scattered mercenaries. I'd be very worried if my operations required people from all over the world to work on the most sensitive areas.

1. Quality is important, but not the only thing. And there are limits to getting a qualitative leap. Let's assume for argument's sake that Chinese are the most efficient, but even then it wouldn't be hard for India to come to say 80% efficiency of China.

India? 80% of China?? LOLOL India's like 6% of China. They spend all day doing stupid religious garbage and hyping up incompetent things. That's why China is still outgrowing them by leaps and bounds and the dream of them catching China is farther by the day. On the contrary, quality has no limit, but population growth is very very limited. You can only fit so many people into the same space before it becomes a very unpleasant place... like India. But quality... well, let's just say there are homeless drug addicts and there are people like Elon Musk. All the hobos in the works couldn't equal one highly educated super contributor. A trillion to one wouldn't cut it. That's the power of quality over quantity.

1. When I hear this claim that somehow for whatever 10 reasons Indians can't even be half the GDP per capita of China, I am basically reminded of what Japanese used to think of Koreans and Chinese, and what Koreans thought (and think) of Chinese. The cycle keeps repeating.

Well, that's true in some cases and not true in others and that difference is what makes the country fearsome. They said this about us, but we broke them. They say this about India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ecquador, Somalia, etc... all these countries, and it's just true. To bunch India with China is like saying that a kid who fails math will become the next Einstein.... when the vast vast majority who fail math... are just stupid.

1. Don't panic, be paranoid and always aware. To American credit, they are paranoid about emerging competitors. Only the paranoid survive.

They are not paranoid; if America was paranoid, they would have stopped Western engagement with China when China was still backwards. Americans fell asleep and only woke up to a China that they could no longer stop. Now they are button-mashing in vain. That is NOT paranoia but false complacency.

Except this generation is not passing. All trends show that this trend and generation is increasing. There are more people foregoing to have kids. The fertility rate has reduced to barely around 1. The fertility trend in major urban centers is around 0.7. This trend is not reversing its strengthening.

My comment does not say it will reverse but that the people who don't have kids will be gone and their influence dead. Those who do have kids will have more and they will inherit China. That can be a smaller population but it will be a more wholesome population with better values, and most likely in a less stressful world where the tentacles of the West have been defeated. Those factors will set the stage for China's next increase in population... after the current decrease, which is inevitable.

Korea has been used as an example to study the effects, future, and consequences of fertility and births. It's for China to study, learn, and avoid mistakes by looking at Korean and Japanese examples.

Korea has no reason; it is difficult to study. China has a reason. We are in a fierce competition and we can reduce stress after the competition to return to a healthier and easier life to increase TFR. Korea... they have nothing going on but just like to work to death. China's the guy who only sleeps 4 hours a day to beat a project deadline. Korea's the guy sleeping 4 hours a day with nothing going on but just because it likes suffering. We can't learn from them.

 

[manqiangrexue]

But wouldn't a massive pool of elderly folks lead to more pressure on China's already stretched healthcare system, forcing the government to cut programs on other much-needed spendings? If the government does not shift the social expenditures to look after those elders, there's always the moral kidnapping card 道德绑架 some of these elders could play to try to force the government and taxpayers to increase their healthcare coverage.

Meanwhile, there is indeed a real risk that China's pension system could be stretched to the breaking point by 2035, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Science.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

First of all, it is completely impossible to take you or your concerns for China seriously after our previous conversation in which you were banned...

Moving past that, first of all, what you said is not a long term continuous issue but a single problem that will get worse, then get better. Secondly, if the moral kidnapping card worked, we'd be screwed already. The government will reply to them that they can take care of themselves with what they saved. If they don't have children, that's on them; the government advised them to have 2, then 3. Now they are dying with no one to care for them and it is their fault alone. They can serve as excellent examples for what happens to people when they don't listen to the CCP's directive. Lastly, as the pension system is stretched, increases in technology and efficiency will be able to help. How much it can achieve will depend on how well Chinese tech can advance under the CCP.

 

[doggydogdo]

That's not a good analogy. India is not a part of that cycle at all, and there are many legitimate reasons to be skeptical about India's future. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese people are similar to each other, so the success of one suggests, but doesn't guarantee, that the others can also succeed. On the other hand, India has absolutely nothing to do with East Asia. Indians (not including northeastern Indians) are not even remotely related to East Asians because of the Himalayas. East Asia's success does not imply that India can succeed, although it may succeed in the future.

Race has nothing to do with the success of these countries. It was good government policies and state-led development that led to the successes of those countries. Same with Taiwan, Singapore and USSR.

 

[didklmyself]

Race has nothing to do with the success of these countries. It was good government policies and state-led development that led to the successes of those countries. Same with Taiwan, Singapore and USSR.

Exactly, people bringing up race as a factor in development is disgusting. Chinese and Indians have been on the receiving end of racism. There are many other factors involved here nothing to do with race.

 

[azn_cyniq]

Race has nothing to do with the success of these countries. It was good government policies and state-led development that led to the successes of those countries. Same with Taiwan, Singapore and USSR.

Stop playing dumb. Genetics absolutely played a role in the rise of East Asia. I'm not saying that East Asians are better or worse than Indians. I'm just saying that Indians are not related to us, so their path to success, if it exists, is going to look different.

 

[resistance]

1. Let's say automation, AI etc. make 90% of today's jobs obsolete. (Very bold and IMO unrealistic goal). This doesn't mean humans are not important, it just means that humans shift to higher value stuff. We have already seen this before. Before Industrial Revolution, 90% or so of population was engaged in agriculture, what if the Qing dynasty officials have said that okay since we can now replace 90% of human jobs with mechanization, let's just decrease population by 90%?
   Humans always shift to higher value added stuff. More humans ==> More demand & More Innovation
   Some people claim that this time it will be different (people have been saying that for every tech leap over last 3 centuries, and AI will be no different in my opinion).
2. Even the wildest predictions for robotics, AI growth (realistic made by experts and not PPT bros to get investor money), doesn't forecast reaching any where near the fidelity or dexterity of humans. As such, humans, even low educated ones are going to be needed. For shipbuilding, For agriculture etc. etc. (though mechanization and automation will keep increasing)

1. You need to know that it's industrial revolution that lead to population boom. This time it will make things more abundant and persuade people to have kids.
2. That theory is true untill there will be something called "humanoid robots". Which can led to total replacement in shipbuilding, For agriculture etc. etc.

The people born in China last year were lower than the total number of graduates that year. So by definition, the number of college graduates will have to decline in near future.
And useful population is not only of college grads or middle class as explained earlier.

Many majors are quite useless. 50% of the grads are just STEM or science related. Also many white collar are getting disrupt too. Doesn't need much of non science profession. What we should care is STEM grads demographics, not all college grads demographics.

 

[didklmyself]

Stop playing dumb. Genetics absolutely played a role in the rise of East Asia. I'm not saying that East Asians are better or worse than Indians. I'm just saying that Indians are not related to us, so their path to success, if it exists, is going to look different.

What kind of genetic advantages exist between East Asians and Indian/Africans/Latin Americans/South Asians that has resulted in them being successful?

 

[gadgetcool5]

There is no genetic advantage. The only advantage is being Confucian and having extreme educational attainment as a quasi-religion, similar to how the Protestant Work Ethic helped Northern Europe. But the worship of educational attainment also has negative effects on the birth rate so it's not necessarily a good thing in the long run. I wish Confucius had said "and one more thing, the most important thing. Multiply so that your children are like the stars in the sky", but he forgot to say it, or else he said it but his sayings were burned down during the "Burning of Books and Burying of Scholars" period of insane Legalism in 213 BCE.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

First of all, it is completely impossible to take you or your concerns for China seriously after our previous conversation in which you were banned...

Moving past that, first of all, what you said is not a long term continuous issue but a single problem that will get worse, then get better. Secondly, if the moral kidnapping card worked, we'd be screwed already. The government will reply to them that they can take care of themselves with what they saved. If they don't have children, that's on them; the government advised them to have 2, then 3. Now they are dying with no one to care for them and it is their fault alone. They can serve as excellent examples for what happens to people when they don't listen to the CCP's directive. Lastly, as the pension system is stretched, increases in technology and efficiency will be able to help. How much it can achieve will depend on how well Chinese tech can advance under the CCP.

I know this forum is biased toward jingoistic nationalists like you and dozens of other. I understand, and I am ready to move on! I am not going to challenge your narrative dominance on this forum anymore. Let facts on the ground decide for themselves. We are just observers. No need to get personal!

Having said that, I think we can all agree that many of China’s problem should not be over looked, including declining birth rate and the social problems causing young people not to get married and have kids. I absolutely agree with you that when today’ youths who refuse to get married and have kids get old, they do not deserve to get a penny from the government besides their own meagre social security and savings. In fact, I argue that there should be a monthly tax/fine levied on social groups (including WeChat/Weibo/WhatsApp forums) and their members who actively encourage young women and men not to have kids. The money would ideally then be used to subsidised the livelihoods of single families and families with 3 or more kids. Tax the single advocates to subsidise the hardworking mothers and fathers.

But I don’t quite understand your confidence in technology. Technology will cost money, so will doctors and nurses hired to operate them. The AI softwares running them also require maintenance of which the IT tech folks would certainly demand higher pays. That would higher tax (or another round of massive economic expansion) to generate more revenue. Given the fact that China will no longer return to the 8-10% growth of the 2000s, and real-estate is no longer the goose that lays the golden egg, whilst demands for public healthcare (particularly birth, childcare, and elderly care) will continue to increase, there needs to be additional sources of tax revenue. And government-subsidised public healthcare is one way to ameliorate China’s birth rate decline.