China demographics thread.

[FairAndUnbiased]

China should now launch a grand repatriation initiative for all ethnic Chinese living in the US, both citizens and those of Chinese ancestry. In direct imitation of Israel’s law of return US citizens of Chinese descent should be granted the automatic right to relocate to China and obtain Chinese citizenship. Similar to Israel, this right would only be revoked if the person is engaged in "anti-Chinese activities, is a hazard to the security of the state, or has a criminal past that may endanger public welfare. [Wiki]" China should also match Israel's benefits, such as "a unified price for flights home, tax benefits for returning residents, extra hours and supplementary teaching for children and programs earmarked for entrepreneurs in industry and excelling academics."

The strategic objective is to deprive the U.S. of its most capable and crucial immigrant group and accelerate US decline into a fractured mongrel society.

That would be great for overseas Chinese but what do natives get out of it? Japan tried repatriation of Japanese Brazilians in the 1970s and 1980s and found that Japanese Brazilians were culturally western already.

At the minimum overseas returnees must submit to all laws and not demand any special treatment. That sounds reasonable until you realize many can't actually do that. And that is a problem.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Science and technology are a consequence of demographics; and a scientific and technological advantage that is not transformed into a demographics advantage, will eventually be lost. That's what Europeans were so effective at and why their dominance has lasted for so long (even after mother Europe ceased to be geopolitically relevant). They seeded their population across five major regions (North America, South America, Australia, Africa, and Siberia), and now dominate four of them. Even if the US collapses, European descendants will still control 50% of the world, which gives them a strong chance of emerging again as the dominant power a few centuries later. That is the power of demographics.

Qing had a ten-fold demographic advantage over Europe, look how it played out for them. Overpopulation and scarcity of resources hindered the Qing more than anything, similar to India today. During the rise of European powers- the largest European nations had populations in the single millions.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

That would be great for overseas Chinese but what do natives get out of it? Japan tried repatriation of Japanese Brazilians in the 1970s and 1980s and found that Japanese Brazilians were culturally western already.

At the minimum overseas returnees must submit to all laws and not demand any special treatment. That sounds reasonable until you realize many can't actually do that. And that is a problem.

Also the vast majority of Chinese Americans would find it very difficult to be competitive in the Chinese job market. Would Google engineers want to return to China to become delivery drivers?

 

[Eventine]

Qing had a ten-fold demographic advantage over Europe, look how it played out for them. Overpopulation and scarcity of resources hindered the Qing more than anything, similar to India today. During the rise of European powers- the largest European nations had populations in the single millions.

The population of Europe in 1800 was ~150 million, hardly a ten-fold advantage.

Also, as we've said repeatedly in this thread, it's not the absolute population size (though that does matter), but the population structure that matters.

In the 19th century, every country was relatively young, and had a normal population pyramid; thus they had tremendous amounts of people (relative to their size) to push into industry, military, etc. The Qing just squandered its own human resources (compared to Japan, which didn't). That's not comparable to the situation today.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I like that idea and that feeling very much. Unfortunately, the problem is that China's job market is saturated, especially white collar positions with high educational requirements. Unless one is truly a globally outstanding scientist with significant contributions to make, the Mainland populace answer to sea turtles wanting to return home for patriotic reasons is, "Stay where you are and don't come to fight over our rice bowls (compete with us for jobs). That is the most patriotic you can be."

Maybe it will be useful in a future where China is actually suffering a demographic issue with unfilled jobs.

I am so sick of the rat race personally. If I can sell all of my assets and just stay in a moderately wealthy village I think I’m okay with it. Not very social person myself.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The population of Europe in 1800 was ~150 million, hardly a ten-fold advantage.

Also, as we've said repeatedly in this thread, it's not the absolute population size (though that does matter), but the population structure that matters.

In the 19th century, every country was relatively young, and had a normal population pyramid; thus they had tremendous amounts of people (relative to their size) to push into industry, military, etc. The Qing just squandered its own human resources (compared to Japan, which didn't). That's not comparable to the situation today.

A major factor behind Europe's industrialization was that scarcity of labor (low population) greatly incentivized investments to be made towards increasing productivity. On the other hand, the abundance and cheapness of labor and scarcity of resources were major reasons why the Qing failed to do so. Living standards and per capita productivity at the start of the 19th century in Qing were actually lower than during Song/Ming times.

 

[Eventine]

A major factor behind Europe's industrialization was that scarcity of labor (low population) greatly incentivized investments to be made towards increasing productivity. On the other hand, the abundance and cheapness of labor and scarcity of resources were major reasons why the Qing failed to do so. Living standards and per capita productivity at the start of the 19th century in Qing were actually lower than during Song/Ming times.

Here's a picture of the birth & death rates in Great Britain in the period just before the Industrial Revolution (started in 1760).

You can tell from this that there was a huge working age bulge in Great Britain in the late 1700s, due to high birth rates in the 1730s, 40s, and 50s, and a collapse in death rates around the same period due to the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and vastly improved infant mortality rates (from abundance of food, improvements in medicine, etc).

If you super imposed China's demographics history around the start of CCP rule (1950s, 60s, 70s), you'll see a very similar trend of rapid population increase combined with a drop in mortality rates. In fact, It's the same effect at play - a demographic dividend, in more plain terms, a youth bulge after a period of elevated mortality rates.

No, having tons of children when your country is already at carrying capacity does not help, because that's just going to translate to wide spread suffering and a rapid increase in mortality rates from famine, disease, etc.

But the most effective catalyst for development is a large, young working population during a time of rapid change. This is due to the induced competition (tons of people competing with each other to take ownership of newly freed up resources) and energy (young people are more energetic) brought about by a demographic dividend. Just because the Qing failed to do it doesn't mean it wasn't what was behind the rise of Britain, Japan, etc.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

No, having tons of children when your country is already at carrying capacity does not help, because that's just going to translate to wide spread suffering and a rapid increase in mortality rates from famine, disease, etc.

But the most effective catalyst for development is a large, young working population during a time of rapid change. This is due to the induced competition (tons of people competing with each other to take ownership of newly freed up resources) and energy (young people are more energetic) brought about by a demographic dividend.

Over the last few decades, China had just enough people at just the right time, and population growth is slowing right near carrying capacity. The drivers for growth and development in the coming decades are very different from that of the previous decades.

 

[Eventine]

Over the last few decades, China had just enough people at just the right time, and population growth is slowing right near carrying capacity. The drivers for growth and development in the coming decades are very different from that of the previous decades.

The main driver in recent decades has been education.

Educated labor is, however, still labor. And like all labor, there's an age range in which they are most effective. That age range tends to be 25-55. Countries with vast quantities of well educated, 25-55 years old workers are succeeding, and China is the best example.

The trick is not to fall into the trap of having that cohort age out, and the later generations all being smaller than it, such that you end up with an inverted population pyramid of too few age bodied people supporting too many old people.

 

[Randomuser]

I wanna ask. Where do these guys get the confidence to predict stuff in the 2100 when they have trouble just predicting the next 10 years?

Maybe we have ww3 in a few years but it turns out the Reapers from Mass Effect secretly gave China their large spaceship and laser technology so everyone gets blown up except China. How's that for a forecast.