China demographics thread.

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Just look at Hungary , the failure of theirs to push TFR. I guess it is more of a cultural issue, women are being independent, they want to achieve in their workspace.
No one is simply going to pump out children just because the Healthcare, education or other child services are cheaper.
Those who want children will mostly reproduce irrespective of costs, those who don't won't even if they are paid to...

This is fine. As an individual choice, if a man or a woman chooses career over family, that’s a justified choice. It should be respected. However, what we have in China and Korea (and sometimes the U.S. and EU, too) are radical feminists who use social media and other propaganda tools to encourage hatred to toward men of their own country on top encouraging the destruction of traditional family structures. I think that’s where freedom of speech should end. You do what you have to do as an individual, but certain disruptive ideologies should not be propagated en masses as part of of an influence operation, especially when such operations have the result of turning societies upside down with no ends in sight. That was the reason why Clinton had a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the military. You have every right to responsibly pursue your gender/sexual identities outside of work, but please don’t negatively influence the normal functioning of society and public institutions. Having said that, on the individual level, if he or she doesn’t want to get married, it’s fine. It is his or her rights. But just don’t try to make fuss out of it by generating social pressure for other women and men not to get married. Don’t ask, don’t tell!!!

 

[ember]

I have changed my stance on this issue. The government should mostly not intervene and let evolution run its course.

First of all, nature abhors a vacuum. Even the smallest difference in reproductive success caused by genetic factors will in the long run lead to total numerical domination of the more fertile group. There are mathematical models that show this fact. Given enough time the current slump in TFR is a temporary phenomenon.

We know that less intelligent women have more children. They are immune to feminism and prefer to follow their instincts. One standard deviation increase in general intelligence decreases women's odds of parenthood by 25%, even if we factor out education and earnings.

At the same time men still have to compete for resources and become successful in society in order to find a suitable partner. There is no free lunch for men. Educational success, income and social status are positively correlated with intelligence.

So what will happen in the long run? Strong sexual dimorphism. It already exists in humans - men have twice the upper body strength compared to women.

Imagine a future utopia where the average woman is far less intelligent than the average man but completely immune to feminist propaganda and instinctively happy to life her life birthing and raising children.

If the government considers financial incentives they should be restricted to smart couples. China has a unique history of deciding who is allowed to have children, and how many. The goal of such an intervention would basically be a breeding program for smart people. The rest can follow the path of natural evolution.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Would increasing the 9-year mandatory education to 12 years (high school included) be too prohibitively expensive?

Another option is to give private school more space to grow, so rich kids would go to certified privately owned middle and high schools out of their families’ pocket books, whilst public schools would be for the lower middle class and blue collar kids. But this option by itself would exacerbate the wealth gap and social stratification, as high-skilled professors and teachers would all join private schools as opposed to public ones. One way to regulate it is to set up party cells in private schools to indoctrinate rich kids and require them to go though basic military trainings, but such political moves do little to address the disparity in educational resources. It is the same issue with every country’s medical system, including those of the U.S. and China.

How about for both post-graduate doctors and school teachers, they must serve in public hospitals and schools for 7-10 years before they could receive the licenses to work in private clinics and teach in private schools? In this sense, whilst imperfect, there would at least be a supply to doctors and teachers for public institutions, whilst the upper middle class and rich could still enjoy the superior service if they are willing to pay out of their own pocket?

I think mandatory 12 year more than doable. It is already subsidized, very few go to work after grade 9 anyways (even blue collar needs trade school 职校 now) and with declining student count + higher GDP and revenue, it can be supported.

That way some of the pressure is pushed backwards to high school level. Increasing university admission will then reduce the high school pressure, especially increasing admission for associate degree and public low tier universities.

That is still not enough but could increase TFR from Japan, SK and Singapore levels to maybe something like European levels.

Housing is another issue.

 

[ChongqingHotPot92]

Housing is another issue.

Yesssss! In addition to increasing the retirement age to 68, another thing I am supportive for (including forcefully pushing through measures in face of widespread opposition) is a nation-wide property tax to fund affordable housing for migrant workers and college kids right out of graduation.

However, property tax should not be levied on owners who own only one property, as many of these single-property owners were pensioners who inherited their apartments during the 1990s SOE restructuring and live on meagre pensions in the hundreds per month. Since the values of their properties have grown hundreds of times, levying property taxes on these single-property owners would simply destroy them.

Nonetheless, property taxes should target the novel rich of Beijing and Shanghai who own dozens of apartments, if not more. These novel rich also get to keep one of their own family homes (or even one apartment owned per member of family) free from taxation. All the rest would be subjected to 1-2% annual property tax similar to those in the U.S. The money could then be used to fund the construction and maintenance of affordable apartments for migrant workers and students without local Hukou.

 

[resistance]

I think mandatory 12 year more than doable. It is already subsidized, very few go to work after grade 9 anyways (even blue collar needs trade school 职校 now) and with declining student count + higher GDP and revenue, it can be supported.

That way some of the pressure is pushed backwards to high school level. Increasing university admission will then reduce the high school pressure, especially increasing admission for associate degree and public low tier universities.

That is still not enough but could increase TFR from Japan, SK and Singapore levels to maybe something like European levels.

Housing is another issue.

University expansion is on the way. But people still cram in top tier university. What china should also do is get rid of English skills requirements in top tier university but retained in lower ones so the lower one have chance to collaborate with international university.

Also reducing class size to about 25 will not only improve quality, but also bring jobs like teacher and TA.

 

[doggydogdo]

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.

No, it doesn't. Why don't you actually look at the economic policies of east Asian countries instead of just saying chauvinistic shit that makes you feel superior

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

University expansion is on the way. But people still cram in top tier university. What china should also do is get rid of English skills requirements in top tier university but retained in lower ones so the lower one have chance to collaborate with international university.

Also reducing class size to about 25 will not only improve quality, but also bring jobs like teacher and TA.

I think English requirements are already dropped for graduation, only requires for MS/PHD entry.

1 other problem is that there aren't enough jobs for mid tier university graduates. Pay gap is too big. 211 and 985 graduates are in huge demand while even regular tier 1 graduates are struggling.

Demographics is really complicated now and nobody has really figured it out.

Historically we only know of 3 eras of significant demographic expansion:

1. Colonialism bringing high calorie potato to Europe and Asia in 1500s. Increased population but not per capita income.

2. Coal based industrialization and Haber-Bosch process in 1870-1920 which led to both increased population and per capita income. But by 1920 birth rates were declining again.

3. Oil and electricity based industrialization after WW2 to 1990. Biggest leap in population by far as this finally changed manual farming to mechanical farming. And now there is a birth rate decline again since 1990s.

In no other eras were there continuous population growth.

 

[Serb]

No, it doesn't. Why don't you actually look at the economic policies of east Asian countries instead of just saying chauvinistic shit that makes you feel superior

But why do they (East Asians) have better economic policies than Indians, for example, fundamentally in the first place?

Everything comes down to the innate quality of the population itself (intelligence, culture, and general personality traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness).

Population decides its political system, population decides its politicians, hence even economic policies. It doesn't come out of thin air.

Also, economic policies are not everything that matters for development, there are 5-10 other factors as well.

You can have the best economic policies, in the world, but if your population is unqualified (not intelligent enough) to work and compete in higher-valued-added industries and manufacturing broadly, and compete on a global stage, you did nothing.

But even before then, if your population isn't willing to be patient enough to work hard in factories over time in low-value industries, extremely intense jobs, for good portions of their lives, until you as a nation accumulate enough capital required to invest in those fixed assets, required for higher-value-added, and higher quality jobs, for next generation, it similarly can't happen.

East Asian countries are the only countries empirically shown to be able to economically develop to a decent level without any colonialism and extremely late when the West already had hundreds of years of accumulated economic advantages.

So, why did no country in the hundred+ of different countries in the Global South manage to do the same as them?

There have to be much deeper cultural, but mostly biological factors (seen how all East Asians have certain similarities).

It is not only about some kind of general intelligence but also biological predisposition to certain 'collectivistic' personality traits.

That kind of Western hypocritical way of thinking "anyone could accomplish anything, grow wings and fly", is false and "fairy tale".

 

[Moonscape]

I think English requirements are already dropped for graduation, only requires for MS/PHD entry.

1 other problem is that there aren't enough jobs for mid tier university graduates. Pay gap is too big. 211 and 985 graduates are in huge demand while even regular tier 1 graduates are struggling.

Demographics is really complicated now and nobody has really figured it out.

Historically we only know of 3 eras of significant demographic expansion:

1. Colonialism bringing high calorie potato to Europe and Asia in 1500s. Increased population but not per capita income.

2. Coal based industrialization and Haber-Bosch process in 1870-1920 which led to both increased population and per capita income. But by 1920 birth rates were declining again.

3. Oil and electricity based industrialization after WW2 to 1990. Biggest leap in population by far as this finally changed manual farming to mechanical farming. And now there is a birth rate decline again since 1990s.

In no other eras were there continuous population growth.

Humanity will either (a.) implement a post-scarcity economy and figure out the "Gligamesh project" (immortality, including extended childbearing years), or (b.) go extinct.

 

[AndrewS]

There have to be much deeper cultural, but mostly biological factors (seen how all East Asians have certain similarities).

The 2 go together.

Culture selects for certain biological characteristics, and vice-versa.