China demographics thread.

[ZeEa5KPul]

Thanks for conceding the point. It is a factual statement that China's birth rate dropped more in 2020 than in 2019 (and it can't even largely be blamed on COVID given that births on or before September 2020 reflect sexual activities in 2019). The actual COVID effect won't be known until later this year though preliminary data from the US state of Florida (~7% of the US population) suggests that 2021 birth rates are flat or slightly higher than 2020 birth rates though birth rates from reported CN jurisdictions are continuing to plunge in 2021.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1420007834587127808

In any case, it's not a projection and not a forecast of future birth rates as much as it's a note of current trends: US births are declining far slower than China births though substantial intervention may change that.

Also, incentives for increasing birth rates are far weaker than coercive effects. The Nordics with some of the most generous social welfare systems and easy-going lifestyles all have TFRs <2.1. Getting births in China to stay around 4x the United States should be the perpetual goal.

I conceded nothing, Sleepystudent. Your innumeracy was demonstrated very clearly (and humorously) by @manqiangrexue, but you show similar difficulties with reading comprehension as well. If any concession was made, it was you when you refused to post data from the NBS. I'm not going to bother with your silly cherry-picking from SCMP and other rags - proper sources only. You used the CDC for US data, show similar sources for China.

I will say, however, that your data negates the proposition that incentives don't raise birthrates. Finland showed 6.2% growth whereas the US showed a 5.2% decline, plunging its TFR to 1.55.

Who said that China's goal was to raise TFR to greater than 2.1? China doesn't need growth, it needs its population stabilized and if there's any growth, it should be slow and among the most productive segments of the population. China doesn't need more Meituan delivery drivers, it needs more scientists and engineers.

There are also policies available to China given the comprehensive authority its government wields. For instance, China can introduce the following affirmative action policy: bonus points on the gaokao if you have a sibling. That would shift the calculation of parents overnight - if sufficient points were added (say, 2x the difference in score between a hypothetical student with normal tuition and study and the same student on the current pathological tuition schedule), then no parent would spend a fortune educating a single child when the improvement in score would just be wiped out by a student with a normal tuition and a sibling to grab those bonus points.

It also incentivizes the transition from one child to two children, which is exactly what China needs and is sustainable, but no more effect since having three children doesn't give them any more bonus points (they just each grab the bonus for having a sibling). It's also my favourite kind of policy, a coercive one that masquerades a penalty as a bonus. The true aim of the policy is to punish the pathological behaviour of having just one child and pouring a disproportionate amount of resources into educating him.

This will work, because education is the gland that animates the Chinese psyche. And the CPC has figured that out.

What good is 996 if you have shit income?

This is a side-effect of the rampant capitalism of the post-Deng era. The Chinese supreme court ruled the 996 schedule illegal. Given how seriously the CPC has shifted to a pro-natal policy, I foresee heavy fines on the tech industry if they continue to practice. This will also have the benefit of creating more jobs since individual engineers can no longer be hyperexploited.

Well said. The zero or one child thinking is a death sentence. Three children or more per couple is what we need.

How many children do you have, tidalwave, and what do they do?

 

[ansy1968]

Well said. The zero or one child thinking is a death sentence. Three children or more per couple is what we need.

@Appix bro my relative in China had 3 to 4 children registered to different family members and one of them want to use my name as the father to escape the restriction, that was 6 years ago. And many Chinese nationals residing here in the Philippine had more than 3 children. Old habits die hard, many folks in the countryside still adhere to old ideas, I think if China achieved a 70% urbanization rate then its a problem, so it had some breathing space to remedy it coupled with the new regulation and policy support.

And one last thing if China is able to improve the quality of life which they are currently doing, A reverse brain drain may happen as there are more job opportunities and maybe one day my children will lived there and experience their Chinese dream.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Well said. The zero or one child thinking is a death sentence. Three children or more per couple is what we need.

There's a number that's not 0 or 1 or >=3 that you missed...

 

[ODEPDE]

I conceded nothing, Sleepystudent. Your innumeracy was demonstrated very clearly (and humorously) by @manqiangrexue, but you show similar difficulties with reading comprehension as well. If any concession was made, it was you when you refused to post data from the NBS. I'm not going to bother with your silly cherry-picking from SCMP and other rags - proper sources only. You used the CDC for US data, show similar sources for China.

The NBS website is shitty but it's beyond the point. I had numbers from Global Times as well. And in any case, the 2021 numbers weren't particularized strong evidence as much as of jurisdictions already reported where selection biases are definitely at play. Also, not sure what SCMP's editorial line has to do with reporting straight facts such as the number of births in Hunan up to July 2021. I've only been able to find Arizona, Florida & California that publish monthly birth rates. You don't need 10 significant digits to calculate the general directionality of trends when the difference is a few million.

I will say, however, that your data negates the proposition that incentives don't raise birthrates. Finland showed 6.2% growth whereas the US showed a 5.2% decline, plunging its TFR to 1.55.

Never said that. I said they weren't particularly effective at raising growth rates, not that they didn't raise them at all.

There are also policies available to China given the comprehensive authority its government wields. For instance, China can introduce the following affirmative action policy: bonus points on the gaokao if you have a sibling. That would shift the calculation of parents overnight - if sufficient points were added (say, 2x the difference in score between a hypothetical student with normal tuition and study and the same student on the current pathological tuition schedule), then no parent would spend a fortune educating a single child when the improvement in score would just be wiped out by a student with a normal tuition and a sibling to grab those bonus points.

I conceded nothing, Sleepystudent. Your innumeracy was demonstrated very clearly (and humorously) by @manqiangrexue, but you show similar difficulties with reading comprehension as well. If any concession was made, it was you when you refused to post data from the NBS. I'm not going to bother with your silly cherry-picking from SCMP and other rags - proper sources only. You used the CDC for US data, show similar sources for China.

I will say, however, that your data negates the proposition that incentives don't raise birthrates. Finland showed 6.2% growth whereas the US showed a 5.2% decline, plunging its TFR to 1.55.

Who said that China's goal was to raise TFR to greater than 2.1? China doesn't need growth, it needs its population stabilized and if there's any growth, it should be slow and among the most productive segments of the population. China doesn't need more Meituan delivery drivers, it needs more scientists and engineers.

There are also policies available to China given the comprehensive authority its government wields. For instance, China can introduce the following affirmative action policy: bonus points on the gaokao if you have a sibling. That would shift the calculation of parents overnight - if sufficient points were added (say, 2x the difference in score between a hypothetical student with normal tuition and study and the same student on the current pathological tuition schedule), then no parent would spend a fortune educating a single child when the improvement in score would just be wiped out by a student with a normal tuition and a sibling to grab those bonus points.

It also incentivizes the transition from one child to two children, which is exactly what China needs and is sustainable, but no more effect since having three children doesn't give them any more bonus points (they just each grab the bonus for having a sibling). It's also my favourite kind of policy, a coercive one that masquerades a penalty as a bonus. The true aim of the policy is to punish the pathological behaviour of having just one child and pouring a disproportionate amount of resources into educating him.

I will be interested in reading the paper if and when it eventually comes out.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

The NBS website is shitty but it's beyond the point.

That's your problem. You make a claim backed by garbage sources, your claim is garbage. I need to see a proper source if your claim is to have any credibility.

You don't need 10 significant digits to calculate the general directionality of trends when the difference is a few million.

No, but I do need datasets that don't vary more than the effect you purport to show.

Never said that. I said they weren't particularly effective at raising growth rates, not that they didn't raise them at all.

You're moving the goalpost, Sleepystudent. Another of your tiresome dodges.

I will be interested in reading the paper if and when it eventually comes out.

Was that an attempt at humour? I'll be truthful, the joke's on me for even engaging with you; I'll stop doing that. I'll just report my suspicions that you're an alt to the moderators.

 

[ODEPDE]

That's your problem. You make a claim backed by garbage sources, your claim is garbage. I need to see a proper source if your claim is to have any credibility.

I ended up finding the numerical sources of the data. strait from the NBS
15.23 million births in 2018.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

14.65 million births in 2019.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

12 million births in 2020, can be deduced from 2 NBS series, one on China's total population at 1.4b and the other one on the crude birth rate at 8.5 per thousand,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No, but I do need datasets that don't vary more than the effect you purport to show.

The 2021 dataset was scattered. The best formatted series was the Florida one which is fairly large and a mysterious report from SCMP about birth rates in Hunan

 

[ODEPDE]

You're moving the goalpost, Sleepystudent. Another of your tiresome dodges.

I said they were far weaker coercively to reduce birth rates than incentives are to raise birth rates. Verbatim, "Also, incentives for increasing birth rates are far weaker than coercive effects". A 6% rise in Finland's TFR doesn't compare nearly as much to the consistent double-digit drops in China's TFR after the OCP was introduced. There's no goalpost shifting.

Was that an attempt at humour? I'll be truthful, the joke's on me for even engaging with you; I'll stop doing that. I'll just report my suspicions that you're an alt to the moderators.

Nope, genuinely curious whether that policy, if/when implemented does increase birth rates and/or has odd selection effects

 

[ODEPDE]

If @ZeEa5KPul cares, I did end up linking the NBS data sources (rereading my post, lol so many inaccuracies)

 

[Phead128]

As a civilization, China has a duty and obligation to its's people to allow them to reproduce babies.

Now that 'One Child' policy is gone (an artificial gov't barrier to natural reproduction), we need to eliminate the Defacto 'One Child' social norms (e.g. 996 culture, Hyper-competitive private education w/ tutors, Anti-pregnant women stigma in work culture, lack of work-from-home flexibility, and all these other social artificial bullshit).

The key is to force private businesses to ensure more flexibility and work-life balance, such as remote work-from-home, hybrid work-from-home and office, paid 3 to 6 months time-off for pregnant women with guaranteed job protection, government subsidized FREE childcare so women can return to workforce, or the nuclear option of paying $50K for each baby born after the 1st one, or a recurring stipend (UBI) for each newly born baby. If US can print $2.2 Trillion dollars to waste in fucking Afghanistan, I'm sure China can do something with financial incentives to boost birth rates, which actually increases tax-revenue.

 

[broadsword]

China's one-child policy was to rein in its over-population during an era when it was poor and could hardly feed its masses. Now that it had proven successful in a time when China is more prosperous, it is time to prepare for the future era. That the population growth has slowed down more than the US is hardly calamitous as its population is still huge and the decline is only very recent.

China has decided to reverse course with sound policies but that will surely need some fine-tuning down the road. That's the way of sound governance in any successful country. That's the way of the Chinese government for the past several decades. Instead of the government being ridden with internal strife as we see elsewhere, it just forges forward into another era with fresh policies. There is no need to lose sleep over the growth decline.