China demographics thread.

[Ringsword]

Yeah it is from the superstition about dragon boy/girl. Probably will dip in year of the snake. Not many in China like snakes except for the Cantonese, and only then for culinary purposes.

Hey that hurts!!!

 

[coolgod]

Fake

I don't think the claim "China is said to be on track to having the largest Christian population in the world by 2030." is fake, although the sources used by the tweets might not be very credible. The rise of underground churches in China plus the rapid decline of Christianity in western countries can make the claim come true.

 

[fishrubber99]

China’s population dropped by 1.39 million to 1.4083 billion in 2024, but the number of births rose to 9.54 million, up from 9.02 million newborns in 2023.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is a 5.7% increase in births from 2023, but since marriage numbers dropped in 2024 relative to 2023, I don't think this is a sustained trend.

 

[Quan8410]

China’s population dropped by 1.39 million to 1.4083 billion in 2024, but the number of births rose to 9.54 million, up from 9.02 million newborns in 2023.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is a 5.7% increase in births from 2023, but since marriage numbers dropped in 2024 relative to 2023, I don't think this is a sustained trend.

9.54 mil is weak. This is a good year. Expect next year to drop to 8.xx

 

[gadgetcool5]

9.54 mil is weak. This is a good year. Expect next year to drop to 8.xx

Honestly this was more than I expected for 2024 by about 400,000 births.

But it'll likely drop to the 7.xx level quite soon, depending on marriages. The situation remains difficult.

 

[Quan8410]

Honestly this was more than I expected for 2024 by about 400,000 births.

But it'll likely drop to the 7.xx level quite soon, depending on marriages. The situation remains difficult.

This forum usually talk about feminism or liberalism causing demographic decline, which is true but the biggest reasons people are not having children (based on my social circle) are money, money and money. Raising a child in a non-agriculture economy is expensive and no financial incentive can make it economical enough for people to have children (unless we reach utopia)

 

[fishrubber99]

This forum usually talk about feminism or liberalism causing demographic decline, which is true but the biggest reasons people are not having children (based on my social circle) are money, money and money. Raising a child in a non-agriculture economy is expensive and no financial incentive can make it economical enough for people to have children (unless we reach utopia)

Have the new government incentives where certain municipalities promise to give cash to families help increase the willingness to have kids in your circle? Or do they think it's not enough support?

 

[gadgetcool5]

This forum usually talk about feminism or liberalism causing demographic decline, which is true but the biggest reasons people are not having children (based on my social circle) are money, money and money. Raising a child in a non-agriculture economy is expensive and no financial incentive can make it economical enough for people to have children (unless we reach utopia)

Well better reach utopia (or raze all civilization except farms to the ground) then, if you want humanity to survive.

Either that or turn Israeli lol.

 

[gadgetcool5]

People say the reason is money, but I dont think so. Generally the richer a country gets, the lower the birth rate. Then people will say "well agricultural society society is different, and all poor societies are agricultural". But that doesn't explain why some non-agricultural countries like Israel have a higher birth rate even for secular families.

I think the real reason is cultural. If you have a culture that values kids, then people will have them. People have to see having kids as having intrinsic value IMO. This is something totally subjective, but the cultures that place value in reproduction will be a larger share of the world's population in the future.

 

[Moonscape]

Well better reach utopia (or raze all civilization except farms to the ground) then, if you want humanity to survive.

Either that or turn Israeli lol.

I said this before - it's literally impossible for a modern society to reach replacement fertility. It's not just a money issue - I am financially comfortable but I will never ever consider more than two kids because kids are absolutely exhausting and take up all your spare time.

People who don't have kids year really can't appreciate how tiring being a parent is. And it's not something that money can solve, because as a responsible parent, you really do need to spend X hours with each kid each week, and there's absolutely a minimum value for that X. You can't buy your way out of putting in the time and effort necessary to be a good parent. And beyond ideology (e.g. religion) there's basically no personal or practical benefit to having more than 2 kids.

Yeah this. It's really hard to bribe people into having kids, because the economics of not having (more than 1 or 2) kids is so powerful, no government can afford to bribe people out of this mess.

As an example, let's take a look at what I think is close to a best-case TFR for a modern industrialized society:

Start with 100 couples

20% of them won't get married. The women might have waited too long, the men might be too financially incapable or too short/unattractive, etc. The latter is not necessarily a bad thing--you don't necessarily want the bottom of the gene pool to reproduce. I don't think any government can realistically decrease this number, especially not without affecting the quality of the population.

80 couples left

10% of the couples won't have kids. Mostly due to health reasons/waited too long before trying. A minority probably bought into the DINK propaganda. Again, I don't think any government can realistically decrease this number, since it's honestly pretty low.

72 couples left

30% of the couples who have kids stop after having 1 kid. Either 1 is too much to handle, or health reasons. This is where government assistance might make a small difference.

50% of the couples who have kids stop after having 2 kids. This is the realistic maximum for most couples because it becomes exponentially more difficult to raise children when you don't have at least 1 parent per child.

10% of the couples who have kids have 3 kids.

10% of the couples who have kids have 4 kids. This is probably a bit high. It's probably more like 5% of families have 4 or more.

Total TFR for the above example would be (0.3*72+0.5*2*72+0.1*3*72+0.1*4*72)/100 = 1.44. Well below replacement, yet it's hard to see how this can be increased to replacement.

Even something really drastic, like somehow getting half of 1-child families to have a second kid, and half of 2-child families to have a 3rd kid, still isn't enough for replacement: (0.15*72+0.4*2*72+0.35*3*72+0.1*4*72)/100 = 1.73

Like you'll have to coerce 90% of the population into getting married, get all married couples to have kids, and have everyone have at least 2 kids and a significant portion to have 3 kids to get to 2.1:

Like this gets to 2.1:
100 couples
only 10% don't get married
95% of married couples have kids (86 couples with kids)
10% of the married couples with kids have 1 kid
50% of the married couples with kids have 2 kids
25% of the married couples with kids have 3 kids
15% of the married couples with kids have 4 kids

(0.1*86+0.5*2*86+0.25*3*86+0.15*4*86)/100=2.11

I don't see how in hell that is possible with any amount of government support that can be realistically provided


Perhaps the best solution would be to increase lifespans dramatically instead of trying to get people to have more children when modern parents are heavily disincentivized from having more than 2