China demographics thread.

[Eventine]

I don't think you really understand what you're talking about at all. This is a new problem that hasn't done anyone in yet and no one has bothered to solve. So what is your purpose? What do you suggest be done? There's nothing valuable in what you say if you can't answer that.

Looks like it's gonna cost everybody everything, isn't it? All the richer countries die off first. Then all the poor countries with huge TFR eventually develop to become rich, then they all experience low TFR and die off too. Off goes the human race, eh? Nothing specific about China if you're going to be pulling wild extrapolations hundreds of years into the future.

It will not cost "everybody everything," because while lower TFR is global, it is not uniform.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is due to the cultural / religious factor, which acts as a differentiating factor between equally developed countries:

Countries also aren't equally rich and poor at the same time. Developing countries, especially those in Africa, have much higher TFR than developed countries.

So the end result will not be uniform. It will be a shift in power dynamics. Low TFR countries that are wealthy and developed today will peak, stagnate, and descend into geriatric poverty (since old people don't produce and are net dependents). So-called "windows of opportunity" will then open for countries with better population structure to displace and dominate them. Some of these windows will be seized; others, lost.

During this process, the weaker nations will indeed be extinguished, as it will be easy for a young, powerful country to conquer and colonize a geriatric, poor country, unless the latter has asymmetric factors like nuclear weapons to help protect their borders. Even easier, in fact, if they are inviting them in via immigration due to desperate labor demands. "It's not the end of the world, just the end of you," as a popular saying goes.

And then the cycle repeats.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It will not cost "everybody everything," because while lower TFR is global, it is not uniform.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is due to the cultural / religious factor, which acts as a differentiating factor between equally developed countries:

Countries also aren't equally rich and poor at the same time. Developing countries, especially those in Africa, have much higher TFR than developed countries.

So the end result will not be uniform. It will be a shift in power dynamics. Low TFR countries that are wealthy and developed today will peak, stagnate, and descend into geriatric poverty (since old people don't produce and are net dependents). So-called "windows of opportunity" will then open for countries with better population structure to displace and dominate them. Some of these windows will be seized; others, lost.

During this process, the weaker nations will indeed be extinguished, as it will be easy for a young, powerful country to conquer and colonize a geriatric, poor country, unless the latter has asymmetric factors like nuclear weapons to help protect their borders. Even easier, in fact, if they are inviting them in via immigration due to desperate labor demands. "It's not the end of the world, just the end of you," as a popular saying goes.

And then the cycle repeats.

China has a population bulge for the 2nd echo boom generation born in the 2000s-2010s, the last echo of the 1960s and 1980s baby booms. So we still have 1 chance.

South Korea and Japan don't. Their echo boomers are exhausted.

Don't have to outrun the bear only the man next to you.

 

[Eventine]

This is very much similar to our case. It is absolutely stupid, against all biology, to say that an incredibly low TFR will continue until you have 15 people left of the 1,000 founders because drops in population will lead to an abundance of land and resources per capita, which will then lead to lack of stress and competition, self-correcting to boost the population again. We simply haven't gotten that far yet in today's developed nations with low TFR and also the world is under extra stress as we are no longer in Pax anything, rather in a frictitious transition from the Pax Americana to what is likely the Pax Sinica or at least a multi-polar Pax.

There is no evidence of this effect and low TFR is not a new phenomenon - it's been going on for two decades in Japan and certain countries in Europe (especially Russia, Ukraine, etc.) Do you think these countries are doing well on TFR recovery right now with their "greater abundance of land and resources"?

Abundance (measured in wealth, level of education, development, etc.) does not lead to better TFR. Poverty, lack of education, and religious fundamentalism, however, do. The most logical interpretation is that populations will not recover until a country has become so impoverished from geriatric transformation that it has reverted to a pre-industrial status. Then, yes, populations will likely recover as cities empty and people return to their rural communities.

But that's a long way down, and much can happen while the country is at its weakest.

China has a population bulge for the 2nd echo boom generation born in the 2000s-2010s, the last echo of the 1960s and 1980s baby booms. So we still have 1 chance.

South Korea and Japan don't. Their echo boomers are exhausted.

Don't have to outrun the bear only the man next to you.

Agree, if China can raise its TFR to ~1.7 in the next 5-10 years, it should be able to avoid the worst of the coming population crunch in East Asia.

But if it stays at 1.0 or falls below 1.0, then we're back to hoping "technology will save us."

 

[august1]

Agree, if China can raise its TFR to ~1.7 in the next 5-10 years, it should be able to avoid the worst of the coming population crunch in East Asia.

You and I both know that's next to impossible, Eventine. I don't know if you're Chinese or not, but if you've spent any amount of time with modern Chinese anywhere, you know that's not even remotely possible. If that's your baseline for giving up on China, then there's no need to carry on the conversation. If, however, you accept that China's TFR isn't going to recover to remotely that number until a date much later on - closer to the end of this century than the beginning - then at least there's still something to talk about.

 

[Eventine]

You and I both know that's next to impossible, Eventine. I don't know if you're Chinese or not, but if you've spent any amount of time with modern Chinese anywhere, you know that's not even remotely possible. If that's your baseline for giving up on China, then there's no need to carry on the conversation. If, however, you accept that China's TFR isn't going to recover to remotely that number until a date much later on - closer to the end of this century than the beginning - then at least there's still something to talk about.

It’s not binary. There’s a range of values between 2.1 (sustain), 1.7 (US) and 0.7 (South Korea). Each level below 2.1 will have consequences but those consequences follow an exponential curve (since fertility is multiplicative). The higher you can raise it, the better the outcome.

I don’t have a base line for giving up on China but I do think there needs to be less copium and more action, even if that action is just towards awareness.

The strategic dimensions of demographics are extremely obvious but the policy response is extremely unpopular, so the typical government reaction has been to “talk loudly and do little.”

They can get away with this because by and large the public is okay with decreasing population (“more jobs for me, less competition”) but not okay with imposed solutions (“don’t try to force me to have kids”).

For this to change the public has to have far more awareness of the dire consequences of low TFR and that will take time to instill in the population. But the sooner we start, the sooner we stop the copium, the better it will be.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It’s not binary. There’s a range of values between 2.1 (sustain), 1.7 (US) and 0.7 (South Korea). Each level below 2.1 will have consequences but those consequences follow an exponential curve (since fertility is multiplicative). The higher you can raise it, the better the outcome.

I don’t have a base line for giving up on China but I do think there needs to be less copium and more action, even if that action is just towards awareness.

The strategic dimensions of demographics are extremely obvious but the policy response is extremely unpopular, so the typical government reaction has been to “talk loudly and do little.”

They can get away with this because by and large the public is okay with decreasing population (“more jobs for me, less competition”) but not okay with imposed solutions (“don’t try to force me to have kids”).

For this to change the public has to have far more awareness of the dire consequences of low TFR and that will take time to instill in the population. But the sooner we start, the sooner we stop the copium, the better it will be.

Should look to Vietnam. Unlike some countries, Chinese believe that everyone has something to teach (maybe a negative lesson though). 三人行必有我师.

Can they escape the East Asian fertility trap? Vietnam currently is at 2.0 fertility rate, the best among all East Asian countries.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When China was at Vietnam's GDP per capita in 2010, China's fertility rate was 1.7, so Vietnam is doing substantially better.

Vietnam's national government is superficially similar to China's.

Vietnam's compulsory education system shares all the benefits and faults of China's.

There is 1 big difference: Vietnam still has not gone through the equivalent of China's 1998 higher education reform and expansion and investment into science.

Its Nature Index share this year is 35.33

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Adjusted for per capita, it would be the equivalent of 350 for China. China's in 2016 was 7500.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So Vietnam needs to 20x its Nature Index share to catch up to China of 2016, even adjusted per capita.

20x is 10% growth in Nature Index share for 31 years, just to be 8 years behind.

Looks like the big difference between China and Vietnam that may be correlated to fertility is that China traded fertility for basically a 30 year leap in technological capability.

Was this effective? I can't say - but you can compare BYD with Vinfast, and the answer is right there.

 

[gadgetcool5]

July marriages hit record surge in S. Korea​

Newlywed count rises 33% year-on-year; newborns up 8%, driven by housing benefits and incentives

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It seems like the absolute worst country in the world for demographics, South Korea, is seeing a rise in marriages and rise in births now.
"

The number of marriages in South Korea surged unexpectedly during the July off-season, continuing the upward trend from April and May, when weddings increased by over 20% compared to the previous year. After 11 years of decline due to low birth rates and the rise of non-marriage trends, the country’s marriage rate finally grew by 1% last year, driven by a wave of “endemic weddings” from couples who delayed their ceremonies due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The increase in marriages is attributed to policy incentives, such as the expanded gift tax exemption for marrying children and marriage subsidies from local governments. Many couples expedited their marriage registrations to apply for special housing allocations for newlyweds in key metropolitan areas in July. Daejeon reported the highest marriage growth rate at 50.1%, providing newlyweds with up to 5 million won in marriage incentives, followed"

Why is this relevant for China? Well, it's another East Asian country, and it proves that policy works. If the government gets serious about offering huge incentives for marriage and childbirth, then people will respond. So the situation is not hopeless. But the main thing is, that the government must act and use a sufficiently forceful policy package to raise the birth rate to sustainable levels, and keep them there; just like it stimulates the economy if the economy weakens too much.

In order for that to happen, there needs to be a serious societal reckoning that yes, this is a problem, and not just copium.

 

[broadsword]

Should look to Vietnam. Unlike some countries, Chinese believe that everyone has something to teach (maybe a negative lesson though). 三人行必有我师.

Can they escape the East Asian fertility trap? Vietnam currently is at 2.0 fertility rate, the best among all East Asian countries.

Could be due to China's one-child policy.

 

[fatzergling]

Should look to Vietnam. Unlike some countries, Chinese believe that everyone has something to teach (maybe a negative lesson though). 三人行必有我师.

Can they escape the East Asian fertility trap? Vietnam currently is at 2.0 fertility rate, the best among all East Asian countries.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When China was at Vietnam's GDP per capita in 2010, China's fertility rate was 1.7, so Vietnam is doing substantially better.

Vietnam's national government is superficially similar to China's.

Vietnam's compulsory education system shares all the benefits and faults of China's.

There is 1 big difference: Vietnam still has not gone through the equivalent of China's 1998 higher education reform and expansion and investment into science.

Its Nature Index share this year is 35.33

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Adjusted for per capita, it would be the equivalent of 350 for China. China's in 2016 was 7500.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So Vietnam needs to 20x its Nature Index share to catch up to China of 2016, even adjusted per capita.

20x is 10% growth in Nature Index share for 31 years, just to be 8 years behind.

Looks like the big difference between China and Vietnam that may be correlated to fertility is that China traded fertility for basically a 30 year leap in technological capability.

Was this effective? I can't say - but you can compare BYD with Vinfast, and the answer is right there.

It's a horrifying thing to consider if you think about it.

Perhaps the USG has realized this. Hence the demand for no abortion without the corresponding surge in social services: they know what is needed to keep birth rates up, even if they won't admit it in public.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Could be due to China's one-child policy.

Based on World Bank data and the fact that Vietnam also had family planning policies, this cannot be the distinguishing factor. It would not explain the 1970's drop, or the post 2019 decline, which predate and postdate the 1 child policy.