China demographics thread.

[GiantPanda]

asking for a friend. How would someone get a slice of this welfare without going broke first?

I think the atttitude is this: "Don't worry, the streets are paved with Gold (welfare)! You just have to get there. You can always pay off the snakeheads later with your welfare checks."

Seeing the way cities in the UK, Canada and EU have changed, this attitude works!

 

[Biscuits]

If Beijing is already worried and doing everything (except opening immigration) then we have nothing to worry about.

I really can't see anyone else doing better. The one fear is China ignoring it I guess.

The truth is most of us will never see China's population drop below 1.3B in our lifetime never mind below 1B. You have to project go out to 2060 to see a drop below 1.3B. Any further and it's basically sci-fi. I don't know how the world turns out. Climate change with rising sea levels can make feeding a large population a major liability by 2100. Who knows?

This will be America in 2060:
Only 179M of its 404M projected population will be white (44%). I'm willing to bet 1.2B Han Chinese in 2060 is gonna do better than 179M whites and the 225M minorities that is currently eating up its welfare system. Demographics is going slam every other contender far HARDER than China. The US is lucky if doesn't completely turn into an India -- a democracrazy with horrendous infrastructure, welfare and "castes" based on skin color -- by then.

The non-Hispanic white population in the United States is projected to be around 179 million in 2060, down from 199 million in 2020. This is due to a decline in birth rates and an increase in deaths as the white population ages.

• The U.S. population is projected to grow to 404 million by 2060, which is about a quarter more than today's population.

China historically only had about the same population as the west. The current higher population is mostly due to people having a lot of children after the disaster period started by the Qing ended.

Housing is the main issue preventing a higher birth rate, and it's *mostly* solved now. It will take yet another few years to get more benefits from it, but we're already seeing more marriages and more births lately.

We are likely heading towards an adjustment down to 1.1-1.2 billion, at its lowest point when the boomer generation dies off. It's more than enough to maintain hegemony when you consider that 2060s China won't just be the home territories, but also de facto colonies contributing to it across the world.

There are ecological disasters coming to the subcontinent and subsaharan Africa. People there will be displaced, not necessarily to China due to strict immigration policies, but to third world countries controlled by China, in that way also indirectly contributing to "China's" population.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

China historically only had about the same population as the west. The current higher population is mostly due to people having a lot of children after the disaster period started by the Qing ended.

Housing is the main issue preventing a higher birth rate, and it's *mostly* solved now. It will take yet another few years to get more benefits from it, but we're already seeing more marriages and more births lately.

We are likely heading towards an adjustment down to 1.1-1.2 billion, at its lowest point when the boomer generation dies off. It's more than enough to maintain hegemony when you consider that 2060s China won't just be the home territories, but also de facto colonies contributing to it across the world.

There are ecological disasters coming to the subcontinent and subsaharan Africa. People there will be displaced, not necessarily to China due to strict immigration policies, but to third world countries controlled by China, in that way also indirectly contributing to "China's" population.

During the Ming Dynasty China peaked in % of world population with 30% (!!) of the global population. This is not a dream, it can return to this state again.

One thing that can really contribute to a large pool of 'new' Chinese population would be to promote Chinese schools with a light version of the PRC curriculum compatible with local requirements in as many countries as possible. Note that the US does this already with their American International Schools that they invite local elites to. China has an advantage in this aspect because there's likely an immigrant population nearby already. These schools would basically be teaching overseas Chinese and interested non-Chinese "how to be Chinese" while supported in part by foreign tax money.

Many non-Chinese Asians are yearning for identity and purpose. The 5th generation Chinese-Indonesians who are interested in learning more and working in their old homeland? The Vietnamese who rediscover their historical connection to southern China? Even discontented Asian Americans who don't want to play the role of code coolie or laughing stock? Give them the tools to contribute to China. Make it as easy for them as possible to join the race and then whether they stay or go home with a positive impression after a few years, is up to them. Remember, these would be the most motivated people. Motivation is #1.

 

[Eventine]

China historically only had about the same population as the west. The current higher population is mostly due to people having a lot of children after the disaster period started by the Qing ended.

Housing is the main issue preventing a higher birth rate, and it's *mostly* solved now. It will take yet another few years to get more benefits from it, but we're already seeing more marriages and more births lately.

We are likely heading towards an adjustment down to 1.1-1.2 billion, at its lowest point when the boomer generation dies off. It's more than enough to maintain hegemony when you consider that 2060s China won't just be the home territories, but also de facto colonies contributing to it across the world.

There are ecological disasters coming to the subcontinent and subsaharan Africa. People there will be displaced, not necessarily to China due to strict immigration policies, but to third world countries controlled by China, in that way also indirectly contributing to "China's" population.

Incorrect.

China was historically home to 20 to 30% of the global human population, with an average of ~25%. The Qing was on the higher end at around 30% in 1800, but still within range.

This was not a matter of mere geographic size - China never had 25% of the world's land - it was rather because China was a highly successful, intensive agriculture based civilization located in one of the world's great fertile valley regions.

There were other civilizations situated in regions just as fertile - example: North American natives - but because they either lacked political centralization and organization, or because they lacked key technologies such as plows, they were never able to achieve similar population sizes.

Europe had <20% of the world population for most of its history. The European sub-continent is also quite fertile, but also mountainous and historically decentralized, prone to regional wars that kept populations in check.

If global population distributions stayed as they did in the last two thousand years, China's population should be 2 billion today. But of course, that is not practical because the main population increase in the past century or so have been in regions that historically "under performed" - e.g. Africa, Southeast Asia, North America, Central Asia, and the Middle East. These regions historically did not have nearly as many people as they do today, and their modern populations are mainly a consequence of new imported agricultural technologies, globalization, etc.

We should not expect China to be 20 to 30% of the global population going forward. But we should expect it to out match Europe and not fall significantly behind India - or rather, South Asia - with which China was historically competitive with. Indeed, if not for the one-child policy, we might expect China's population today to be around 1.7 billion, against South Asia's 2 billion.

Fact is, China has fallen behind for various reasons on the demographics side, and South Asia will double China's population in the coming decades. This will create both dangers and opportunities, as historically China has never had to contend with a neighbor civilization twice its population size, having always had the demographic advantage vs. any rival. Decisions made today to either address Chinese fertility rates - or not - will have consequences for the next hundred years.

 

[GiantPanda]

Fact is, China has fallen behind for various reasons on the demographics side, and South Asia will double China's population in the coming decades. This will create both dangers and opportunities, as historically China has never had to contend with a neighbor civilization twice its population size, having always had the demographic advantage vs. any rival. Decisions made today to either address Chinese fertility rates - or not - will have consequences for the next hundred years.

Have you looked at the overcrowded cesspool that is South Asia?

If South Asia develops it will also hit a wall in population growth.

If it doesn't then you will have a literal shitload more of this in a future of AI, climate change and rising sea level:

An incredibly filthy, severely undernourished and immensely overcrowded region getting even more people with coastlines swamped (check Bangladesh after every monsoon) and AI killing off new jobs? What exactly do you expect the outcome to be?

 

[Biscuits]

Incorrect.

China was historically home to 20 to 30% of the global human population, with an average of ~25%. The Qing was on the higher end at around 30% in 1800, but still within range.

This was not a matter of mere geographic size - China never had 25% of the world's land - it was rather because China was a highly successful, intensive agriculture based civilization located in one of the world's great fertile valley regions.

There were other civilizations situated in regions just as fertile - example: North American natives - but because they either lacked political centralization and organization, or because they lacked key technologies such as plows, they were never able to achieve similar population sizes.

Europe had <20% of the world population for most of its history. The European sub-continent is also quite fertile, but also mountainous and historically decentralized, prone to regional wars that kept populations in check.

If global population distributions stayed as they did in the last two thousand years, China's population should be 2 billion today. But of course, that is not practical because the main population increase in the past century or so have been in regions that historically "under performed" - e.g. Africa, Southeast Asia, North America, Central Asia, and the Middle East. These regions historically did not have nearly as many people as they do today, and their modern populations are mainly a consequence of new imported agricultural technologies, globalization, etc.

We should not expect China to be 20 to 30% of the global population going forward. But we should expect it to out match Europe

I didn't write just Europe, I wrote the whole united western empire, which in ancient times would have been Rome and today would be NATO.

and not fall significantly behind India - or rather, South Asia - with which China was historically competitive with. Indeed, if not for the one-child policy,

Incorrect, all the one child policy did was prevent a small subset of working class women from having an unsustainable (for the government's welfare expenses) amount of children.

If you look at birth rate, it had precisely zero effect when introduced and continued to have no effect for more than a decade. The drop happened after China reached East Europe development level when a lot of people became rich/educated.

Up until the removal of the one child policy, Han Chinese were still at the same birth rate as native Germans. Which is, above 1. Meaning the vast majority of the population could afford to pay the welfare cost for "additional" children.

we might expect China's population today to be around 1.7 billion, against South Asia's 2 billion.

Fact is, China has fallen behind for various reasons on the demographics side, and South Asia will double China's population in the coming decades. This will create both dangers and opportunities, as historically China has never had to contend with a neighbor civilization twice its population size, having always had the demographic advantage vs. any rival. Decisions made today to either address Chinese fertility rates - or not - will have consequences for the next hundred years.

China is not just the core lands of China. It draws resources from the third world, it has open access to Russia, the largest land piece in the world, and in the future, it is possible to integrate ASEAN and east Asia into this growing empire as well. Especially with climate changing peeking up, it doesn't matter by how much the south Asian population is larger than China's core, when all of China's population can be put on productive tasks because they're being fed by other countries, while south Asians have to devote a ton of population to perform subsistence tasks.

 

[Eventine]

Have you looked at the overcrowded cesspool that is South Asia?

If South Asia develops it will also hit a wall in population growth.

If it doesn't then you will have a literal shitload more of this in a future of AI, climate change and rising sea level:

An incredibly filthy, severely undernourished and immensely overcrowded region getting even more people with coastlines swamped (check Bangladesh after every monsoon) and AI killing off new jobs? What exactly do you expect the outcome to be?

Whether South Asia is crushed under its own demographic weight or finds a way to make use of it, it doesn’t change what I said. China has never faced a rival that is twice its population size before. The threat of South Asian colonization / immigration in the littoral regions around East Asia (presuming East Asian leaders are wise enough not to allow them to swamp East Asia) will fundamentally change the geopolitical landscape.

Further, India isn’t entirely incompetent, it does have nukes and it has worked itself into a position to access military technologies such as the F-35. If India wanted to reshape its regional dynamics, such as by engaging in settler colonialism against weak littoral states like Myanmar or Bhutan, it clearly can. China will without question be forced into the regional great game to help contain India.

All this means is - having a larger population allows for opportunism that simply doesn’t exist with lower or equal populations. I don't think people really appreciate what having more, younger humans allows a culture to do. Yes, AI will provide a balancing factor for the aging states of East Asia and the West, but ideologies would also inevitably have to shift in response. We're actually already seeing it happen in the US with the rise of the radical right-wing, white nationalism, and nativism. The same will happen in East Asia as China simply cannot afford to support anything like an open society if Indians are demographically stronger.

I didn't write just Europe, I wrote the whole united western empire, which in ancient times would have been Rome and today would be NATO.

Incorrect, all the one child policy did was prevent a small subset of working class women from having an unsustainable (for the government's welfare expenses) amount of children.

If you look at birth rate, it had precisely zero effect when introduced and continued to have no effect for more than a decade. The drop happened after China reached East Europe development level when a lot of people became rich/educated.

Up until the removal of the one child policy, Han Chinese were still at the same birth rate as native Germans. Which is, above 1. Meaning the vast majority of the population could afford to pay the welfare cost for "additional" children.

China is not just the core lands of China. It draws resources from the third world, it has open access to Russia, the largest land piece in the world, and in the future, it is possible to integrate ASEAN and east Asia into this growing empire as well. Especially with climate changing peeking up, it doesn't matter by how much the south Asian population is larger than China's core, when all of China's population can be put on productive tasks because they're being fed by other countries, while south Asians have to devote a ton of population to perform subsistence tasks.

The Roman Empire was comparable to China in population because it included regions that were not European/Western. Post-Roman collapse, Europeans - or "Westerners" if you will - did not have similar population sizes.

The Chinese government claims the one-child policy prevented 400 million births. Experts estimate the number may have been closer to 200 million in the immediate sense, but there are also enduring effects on fertility from the cultural change of promoting single-child families, so I averaged it to 300 million.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

All this means is - having a larger population allows for opportunism that simply doesn’t exist with lower or equal populations. I don't think people really appreciate what having more, younger humans allows a culture to do. Yes, AI will provide a balancing factor for the aging states of East Asia and the West, but ideologies would also inevitably have to shift in response. We're actually already seeing it happen in the US with the rise of the radical right-wing, white nationalism, and nativism. The same will happen in East Asia as China simply cannot afford to support anything like an open society if Indians are demographically stronger.

Yes, this is a very important part of demographics: ideology.

Anyone that has ever worked anywhere, even at a restaurant, knows that older people are more conservative. Not as in right wing necessarily, but as in they don't adapt well to changes.

The average age of all countries declined by 10% from 1950-1970. And this led to extremely rapid social and technological change. We can literally see it with our eyes - look at how the Mig-17 changed to the Mig-29 or how computers changed.

In contrast, since the 2000's, at least in the US, society has basically frozen in time.

That is why you get so many who want to go back to the 'good old days' and it looks like they're running out of ideas - because it is true! They are literally running out of ideas because in general the same guys in charge in 2000 are still in charge in 2025! Obama is the youngest US president and he is a boomer born in 1961. Then there's a huge gap between him and the 2nd youngest, Bill Clinton, who was born in 1946. There are US presidents born when armies were still fighting with horses in WW2. They were closer in time to the Chinese Exclusion Act's aftermath than with modern China.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

@Eventine

I think that the idea of demographics driving ideology and innovation, rather than production, is quite underrated. It is well known that people are resistant to new idea after age 40 or so.

Last post I referred to US presidents when I said the US froze in time in 2000 or so, because their youngest president was born in 1961. But the population isn't much better. The modal white American age was 58 in 2018.

Ever wonder why their policies and beliefs, even at the lowest levels, look like they're straight out of the 1970's? Because they are! The modal cohort's formative experience was in the late 1970's, early 1980's. They kept improving at a slower rate in the 1990's and 2000's as this cohort entered mid-career, but at this point, their beliefs are set in stone.

The median age is only holding steady (but at a high value) because the US is importing adult immigrants. And those adult immigrants aren't having kids either.

Just in case you think this is limited to the US, ever wonder how come Japan or Lithuania is behaving like its still the 1980's, trying to push China around and threatening China, even when its hard power is nowhere near enough to do so?

In contrast, look at the population pyramid for China.

The big spikes at age 30-35 and 50-55? Correspond to China's baby boom in 1965-1970 and their children born in 1985-1990. When was China developing fastest? When the baby boom demographic matured in the workforce at around age 30-35 for the first round of reform in the mid 1990's and then when their kids entered the workforce around 2010.

It is no wonder that China is outmaneuvering these guys. It is literally putting 35 year olds against 58 year old grandpas. And while the 58 year old grandpas laughed at the 35 year old's parents for being uneducated, these 35 year olds are just as educated as the grandpas.

In the late 2020's and 2030's China will shine bright. The wave of youth in their 20's and 30's will drive huge innovation, while a flexible leadership concentrated in the 1980's generation raised in an era of great change will be able to respond readily to challenges.

But then, the situation gets dark. The huge cutoff in the age 0 category (those born in 2020) and the further decline afterwards means that China's population will no longer be replenishing the baby boomers, while China's leadership will have ossified at the 1980's generation, kind of like how the US is ossifying its leadership around the 1960's Baby Boomer cohort.

Immigration will not solve this problem as even in the US, most immigrants or their descendants will never be able to truly enter the leadership class (sorry Vivek and Yang, the only 2nd generation immigrant that will lead is Trump).

Will China's leadership be more flexible? I doubt so - think about how the fact that on XHS, there's so many people who thought illegal dishwashers in the US could buy a house after working for 6 months or that toilets in Japan are clean enough to drink out of. How the fuck do these rumors survive contact with the truth even with millions of visitors to US and Japan? Because this was a widely printed rumor in 读者文摘 and 意林 in the 1990's and the vast majority of people will have this thought engraved into their head as just a simple fact.

There is still a window to reverse this but if this is not done, then unfortunately I see the same complacency and stagnation that came to tcome to China.

 

[Neurosmith]

@Eventine

I think that the idea of demographics driving ideology and innovation, rather than production, is quite underrated. It is well known that people are resistant to new idea after age 40 or so.

Last post I referred to US presidents when I said the US froze in time in 2000 or so, because their youngest president was born in 1961. But the population isn't much better. The modal white American age was 58 in 2018.

Ever wonder why their policies and beliefs, even at the lowest levels, look like they're straight out of the 1970's? Because they are! The modal cohort's formative experience was in the late 1970's, early 1980's. They kept improving at a slower rate in the 1990's and 2000's as this cohort entered mid-career, but at this point, their beliefs are set in stone.

The median age is only holding steady (but at a high value) because the US is importing adult immigrants. And those adult immigrants aren't having kids either.

Just in case you think this is limited to the US, ever wonder how come Japan or Lithuania is behaving like its still the 1980's, trying to push China around and threatening China, even when its hard power is nowhere near enough to do so?

In contrast, look at the population pyramid for China.

The big spikes at age 30-35 and 50-55? Correspond to China's baby boom in 1965-1970 and their children born in 1985-1990. When was China developing fastest? When the baby boom demographic matured in the workforce at around age 30-35 for the first round of reform in the mid 1990's and then when their kids entered the workforce around 2010.

It is no wonder that China is outmaneuvering these guys. It is literally putting 35 year olds against 58 year old grandpas. And while the 58 year old grandpas laughed at the 35 year old's parents for being uneducated, these 35 year olds are just as educated as the grandpas.

In the late 2020's and 2030's China will shine bright. The wave of youth in their 20's and 30's will drive huge innovation, while a flexible leadership concentrated in the 1980's generation raised in an era of great change will be able to respond readily to challenges.

But then, the situation gets dark. The huge cutoff in the age 0 category (those born in 2020) and the further decline afterwards means that China's population will no longer be replenishing the baby boomers, while China's leadership will have ossified at the 1980's generation, kind of like how the US is ossifying its leadership around the 1960's Baby Boomer cohort.

Immigration will not solve this problem as even in the US, most immigrants or their descendants will never be able to truly enter the leadership class (sorry Vivek and Yang, the only 2nd generation immigrant that will lead is Trump).

Will China's leadership be more flexible? I doubt so - think about how the fact that on XHS, there's so many people who thought illegal dishwashers in the US could buy a house after working for 6 months or that toilets in Japan are clean enough to drink out of. How the fuck do these rumors survive contact with the truth even with millions of visitors to US and Japan? Because this was a widely printed rumor in 读者文摘 and 意林 in the 1990's and the vast majority of people will have this thought engraved into their head as just a simple fact.

There is still a window to reverse this but if this is not done, then unfortunately I see the same complacency and stagnation that came to tcome to China.

The bold part is the key, IMO. China is able to achieve what she has because there are more engineering & STEM graduates in China than anywhere else. Sure, it is nice to have a youthful population, but far more important is what they will be contributing to society. A large talent pool with limited top-tier job positions means that whomever fills those spots would be the cream of the crop when it comes to their discipline. You can bet that engineering careers in CAC or the Chinese space program or large Chinese AI startups are extremely tough to get precisely because there is more competition for those jobs.

Of course, there is also the challenge of retaining the brightest as well as re-attracting educated folk from abroad.