China demographics thread.

[FairAndUnbiased]

In Africa women usually take their children with them to work, especially in rural areas, is common sight. In more advance economies and in cities women have to leave their children in daycare which is more expensive.

China was similar. If you remember the headlines and even professional medical papers from back in the 1990s, the biggest worry from westerners was how 1 child policy was ineffective and that Chinese women would be having kids like crazy in avoidance of it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As a result, irrespective of the particular directives at any given time, the proportion of women with one child who went on to have a second (almost universal behaviour in the late 1970s) fell only to 90% by 1990.

In 1991-2, perhaps a quarter of all births were missed. As a result, although China’s official total fertility rate for 1990-5 was 1.92 children, it may be more realistic to assume total fertility around the replacement level—that is, a little over two children per couple.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China's family planning policy is successful, in that people are in general bearing fewer children than they would prefer to have. But government control of fertility in China is far from absolute.

If the count of young children was complete in the 1990 census, one can estimate that the total fertility rate in the late 1980s dropped to about 2.4 births per woman in 1988 and 1989 and further to around 2.2 in 1990. If babies and children were undercounted, then fertility was slightly higher. There is evidence of further reduction in the TFR to an estimated 1.9 births per woman in 1992. The report argues that a continuing unstable equilibrium can be expected in the 1990s, with Chinese authorities trying to hold fertility below the level desired by the people, and each year millions of women attempting to carry unauthorized pregnancies to term. Fertility per woman might remain steady under this scenario, or decline slightly under the impact of continuing urbanization and further reduction of fertility among the minority groups. It is also possible that changes in China's government policies could result in less vigorous support of the current approaches to family planning, in which case fertility would rise.

 

[tygyg1111]

At some point it becomes a worthy tradeoff to let some people go so that the rest can procreate at reasonable levels. While many people left China for the west when it was at its worst, most stayed. While they weren't the brightest and most qualified, It is their descendants who built the country to what it is today.
Same goes for the gaokao and university thing, what's the point of achieving so many technological accomplishement today if later on most of the population becomes old and stubborn. Look at Japan, it is now mostly inhabited by elders whose stubborness and conservatism might be the biggest contributor to their country's eventual downfall. In the seventies and eighties, they used to lead the world in many technologies including cars, ships, motorcycles, semiconductors, robots, lean manufacturing and others. But now, they still insist on using fax, have barely started phasing out disquettes (LMAO) and their newest computers (as in for the japanese market) look like they're from the 2000s. They also keep electing the same party over and over again, and are extremely averse to any daring policy that might cause radical changes to their existing system. At some point a war will break out (that's certain if you follow history), and they're at a huge risk of getting wiped out.
It is well known that as people grow older, they become more resistant to change and set on their "old" ways. This is extremely dangerous for a civilization's survival, especially when it gets compounded with the fact that they cause younger people to work longer and harder to support them, preventing them from procreating and leading to a vicious cycle. We're already seeing the consequences in Japan and Europe, which are on their way to getting deleted.
To get back to your point, if deploying somewhat radical measures through a carrot and stick approach leads to some bright people leaving and to some college graduates becoming dumber, so be it. As long as the Chinese civilization stays alive, they'll rise once again (assuming they'll fall from grace in the first place). Otherwise, all the hardwork that's been done in the last 70 years will be wasted.

I still believe any policy change to increase birthrate at this point is premature; trying to convince the public (who already believe that the population is too high) otherwise via media, incentives, etc. is going to be a tough call with very limited success.

Policy needs to be timed with development and external events and circumstances that generate a real need (or opportunity) for increasing population. For instance, in response to a population threat from abroad, in response to a newly opened opportunity to resettle a 'recently vacated' area with cheap land and abundant resources, or technological or institutional advances allowing much easier and cost / time effective raising of children.

The most effective way in the shorter term might be setting up institutions similar to standardized, high quality, low cost government subsidized / run boarding schools which outsource and concentrate the labor intensive part of raising a child (mainly education and education related activities) away from being the sole responsibility of the parents.

 

[Iracundus]

Need to offer bigger incentives and alter the workplace culture so that women are not disadvantaged in their careers by having children. Perhaps something like a permanent tax credit per year per child for both parents? This could be paid for by having a childlessness tax if one is still childless beyond a certain age (and impose it on men too to be fair to everyone).

The workplace culture for men has to also change to become more accommodating for fathers. The problem is a workaholic modern life leads to people being too physically and mentally tired for parenting and wanting to use what free time they do have on personal relaxation. It's not purely about financial matters.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I still believe any policy change to increase birthrate at this point is premature; trying to convince the public (who already believe that the population is too high) otherwise via media, incentives, etc. is going to be a tough call with very limited success.

I would agree if China's TFR was slightly below replacement. In fact, in my view I believe overall TFR of 1.6-1.8 would be ideal. The problem is China's TFR is trending too far below replacement and at far too rapid a pace. Decreasing population would be good, but only if it can be done so at a moderated and controlled rate.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Need to offer bigger incentives and alter the workplace culture so that women are not disadvantaged in their careers by having children. Perhaps something like a permanent tax credit per year per child for both parents? This could be paid for by having a childlessness tax if one is still childless beyond a certain age (and impose it on men too to be fair to everyone).

The workplace culture for men has to also change to become more accommodating for fathers. The problem is a workaholic modern life leads to people being too physically and mentally tired for parenting and wanting to use what free time they do have on personal relaxation. It's not purely about financial matters.

Workforce culture absolutely does have a huge impact on couples decisions with regards to have children, but it's not an easy problem to tackle. Taxation reform based on number of children is much easier to implement.

 

[manqiangrexue]

At some point it becomes a worthy tradeoff to let some people go so that the rest can procreate at reasonable levels. While many people left China for the west when it was at its worst, most stayed. While they weren't the brightest and most qualified, It is their descendants who built the country to what it is today.
Same goes for the gaokao and university thing, what's the point of achieving so many technological accomplishement today if later on most of the population becomes old and stubborn. Look at Japan, it is now mostly inhabited by elders whose stubborness and conservatism might be the biggest contributor to their country's eventual downfall. In the seventies and eighties, they used to lead the world in many technologies including cars, ships, motorcycles, semiconductors, robots, lean manufacturing and others. But now, they still insist on using fax, have barely started phasing out disquettes (LMAO) and their newest computers (as in for the japanese market) look like they're from the 2000s. They also keep electing the same party over and over again, and are extremely averse to any daring policy that might cause radical changes to their existing system. At some point a war will break out (that's certain if you follow history), and they're at a huge risk of getting wiped out.
It is well known that as people grow older, they become more resistant to change and set on their "old" ways. This is extremely dangerous for a civilization's survival, especially when it gets compounded with the fact that they cause younger people to work longer and harder to support them, preventing them from procreating and leading to a vicious cycle. We're already seeing the consequences in Japan and Europe, which are on their way to getting deleted.
To get back to your point, if deploying somewhat radical measures through a carrot and stick approach leads to some bright people leaving and to some college graduates becoming dumber, so be it. As long as the Chinese civilization stays alive, they'll rise once again (assuming they'll fall from grace in the first place). Otherwise, all the hardwork that's been done in the last 70 years will be wasted.

1. Punitive measures do not work. They are too insulting to work; they trigger rebillious intent that would further drop the fertility rate. Chinese people are too smart for this shit; we are loophole finders and sanction busters. We are not sheep to be cowed. The smarter the people the better they are at getting what they want regardless of what the policies say. Even if punitive measures worked, you'd be breeding stupid people.

2. You are overreactingg by far. Right now, China has a population of 1.4B and is on the cusp of overtaking the US. It is nowhere near the need for drastic measures to stay alive at the expense of performance. If anything, it is too early to sacrifice performance for population at all. Suddenly introducing a force that would drain China of talent to flood universities with stupider kids would be exactly what the US would want, and for what purpose? To get the population to 1.6, 1.8 billion?? What good is a large population of underachievers? We can comfortably drop to a leaner and more educated, richer sub 1B force that can overtake the US, get a commanding lead where we can keep ahead on cruise mode, then slowly ease back into the population question of how many people China needs. If this equilibrium is 900M, that's fine. If it's 1.4B, or 1.6B, that's fine too. But that's not even a question we should be distracted by now. This is the final push for China top place in the world and we've got far enough juice in the tank population-wise to achieve it.

 

[Eventine]

I would agree if China's TFR was slightly below replacement. In fact, in my view I believe overall TFR of 1.6-1.8 would be ideal. The problem is China's TFR is trending too far below replacement and at far too rapid a pace. Decreasing population would be good, but only if it can be done so at a moderated and controlled rate.

Indeed, there’s a huge difference between 2015 and now. China’s TFR stayed between 1.5 and 1.8 for most of 2000 to 2018. Then dropped like a rock in the last five years.

People will blame the virus and that isn’t totally ridiculous. But more likely the virus was merely one of several factors. A much larger effect is the very disappointing fertility of the one child generation and their individualist cultural values, which has led to a collapse in marriage rates much like in South Korea where the gender war is reaching fever levels.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Just want to add perhaps China can catch two birds with one stone by combining real estate tax reform with pro-natal tax reforms. Ie, property tax should be based on number of properties owned as well as number of children, such that for each child a couple has, they can pay no property tax on that number of homes owned. Combined with a graduated "childless" tax on income such that couples with two or more children pay no addition tax, while high income childless couples pay a significant additional tax of 10-20% of their income depending on income. Spin it as "tax benefit" for couples with children rather than punitive tax for couples without children and single adults.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I still believe any policy change to increase birthrate at this point is premature; trying to convince the public (who already believe that the population is too high) otherwise via media, incentives, etc. is going to be a tough call with very limited success.

Policy needs to be timed with development and external events and circumstances that generate a real need (or opportunity) for increasing population. For instance, in response to a population threat from abroad, in response to a newly opened opportunity to resettle a 'recently vacated' area with cheap land and abundant resources, or technological or institutional advances allowing much easier and cost / time effective raising of children.

The most effective way in the shorter term might be setting up institutions similar to standardized, high quality, low cost government subsidized / run boarding schools which outsource and concentrate the labor intensive part of raising a child (mainly education and education related activities) away from being the sole responsibility of the parents.

that is in fact how many rural Chinese lived. High school is boarding school. Parents didn't even used to think about it, but now they're worrying about all sorts things.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Virtup]

1. Punitive measures do not work. They are too insulting to work; they trigger rebillious intent that would further drop the fertility rate. Chinese people are too smart for this shit; we are loophole finders and sanction busters. We are not sheep to be cowed. The smarter the people the better they are at getting what they want regardless of what the policies say. Even if punitive measures worked, you'd be breeding stupid people.

2. You are overreactingg by far. Right now, China has a population of 1.4B and is on the cusp of overtaking the US. It is nowhere near the need for drastic measures to stay alive at the expense of performance. If anything, it is too early to sacrifice performance for population at all. Suddenly introducing a force that would drain China of talent to flood universities with stupider kids would be exactly what the US would want, and for what purpose? To get the population to 1.6, 1.8 billion?? What good is a large population of underachievers? We can comfortably drop to a leaner and more educated, richer sub 1B force that can overtake the US, get a commanding lead where we can keep ahead on cruise mode, then slowly ease back into the population question of how many people China needs. If this equilibrium is 900M, that's fine. If it's 1.4B, or 1.6B, that's fine too. But that's not even a question we should be distracted by now. This is the final push for China top place in the world and we've got far enough juice in the tank population-wise to achieve it.

1. Punitive measures can work with the right propaganda, just look at the US. the CPC should (imho) spread a bit of doom and gloom, leading to slight panic among the public, before they start deploying them. As for your point about breeding stupid people, that has yet to be proven. The US used to have such laws (marriage being a requirement for work or promotion, my evidence is anecdotal at best so plz correct me if I'm wrong), but they still became a superpower in the early 1900s.
2. I think you might be misunderstanding what I wrote. The problem here is not the number of people inhabiting the country. That's kinda fine as it is now and can be left for much later. The real problem is that with the TFR being as low as it is now, the majority of chinese population might quickly become elderly. I think we all know that an average elder is conservative and stubborn/inflexible. When such traits are applied to the majority of chinese citizens, it could lead to severe, unintended consequences. We can see examples of such consequences in Japan (my previous post) and Europe (Brexit and others). When coupled with the large number of elderly being a huge drag on the economy and on the younger ones, this could invalidate all the hardwork that's been previously done (again, look at Japan). While I understand that China is currently in the midst of a race with the west, one must not sacrifice his future to win it.