Chinese Economics Thread

[NiuBiDaRen]

The 20th century? In the 20th century, Japan was stronger than China. In 1940, Japan's population was only 73 million, whereas China's was 400 million. America became #1 even though it had a smaller population. In the 20th century, technology was more important than population. Even then, population was not a hinderance, but it was much less important.

In today's globalizing world however, population is going to become increasingly important. China's rise itself is a sign of this. Much of it had to do with its large population, which gave it a stable base from which to rise. While the population growth of the US, Europe, and Japan are insufficient, declining, and now falling.

The key to China's strength is its large internal market and labor force. The larger the market, the better. It means that China's success is in its own hands and does not depend on exports or other countries. Further, China's large population means a larger pool of potential skilled labor. It means a greater chance for the next genius scientist, who comes up with the next breakthrough. It means more people making better code and improving business logic and AI. Yes, all these things are important, but a large talent pool is a part of the equation.

China is moving to a more inclusive population policy and away from the anti-natalist policy of the past. From one child policy to two child policy, and soon payments for having children. This will help stabilize the population which will be a good thing.

I'm not sure why your content suddenly changed, maybe you edited it, but just stop! You said in your original edit that China doesn't have enough people for its talent pool. I mean what the heck did I just read? You want 2 or 3 billion people so there'll be enough talent in China? Look we can have 2 billion people in the future, say a hundred years from now, but we first need to solve the wealth and environmental problems.

I mean if you think 1 billion Chinese is not a big enough population, I have to just tell you: what is it are you smoking??

Is he some CIA sockpuppet disinformation dude?

 

[gadgetcool5]

I'm not sure why your content suddenly changed, maybe you edited it, but just stop! You said in your original edit that China doesn't have enough people for its talent pool. I mean what the heck did I just read? You want 2 or 3 billion people so there'll be enough talent in China? Look we can have 2 billion people in the future, say a hundred years from now, but we first need to solve the wealth and environmental problems.

I mean if you think 1 billion Chinese is not a big enough population, I have to just tell you: what is it are you smoking??

Is he some CIA sockpuppet disinformation dude?

The CIA wants fewer Chinese people, not more. If you look at the websites of Western expatriates in China like Shanghaiist back in the day, they were always celebrating news of China's birth rate going down. Comments like "The fewer Chinese the better", and "we need to get rid of Chinese, etc."

I am not saying we need 2 billion, just that there is strength in numbers. We shouldn't forget it.

 

[NiuBiDaRen]

I just ignored what he wrote all the time, but honestly his logic is just twisted. China doesn't have a problem of not enough coders and scientists, it's not having enough colleges and vocational schools for value added jobs. The problem now is quality, not quantity.

Why are you going off on some tangent about having more people? Are you an Indian troll? @Gatekeeper honestly you were right in the past when you said he could be Indian pretending to be Chinese American. He prescribes solutions that India keeps promoting, like more people and births to solve economic problems.

There's a serious lack of jobs for all the millions and millions of graduates in China every year. There's so much competition for every available job posting. Just looking at the country with the most similar population size to China, there's a scramble for low level jobs like patrol guards and train drivers. Do we want Chinese people rushing to apply to be janitors etc because there job supply is too low and applicant demand is too high? When too many qualified university graduates are around, many of them have to settle for less well-off jobs like delivery drivers and laborers in other countries.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[gadgetcool5]

I just ignored what he wrote all the time, but honestly his logic is just twisted. China doesn't have a problem of not enough coders and scientists, it's not having enough colleges and vocational schools for value added jobs. The problem now is quality, not quantity.

Why are you going off on some tangent about having more people? Are you an Indian troll? @Gatekeeper honestly you were right in the past when you said he could be Indian pretending to be Chinese American. He prescribes solutions that India keeps promoting, like more people and births to solve economic problems.

There's a serious lack of jobs for all the millions and millions of graduates in China every year. There's so much competition for every available job posting. Just looking at the country with the most similar population size to China, there's a scramble for low level jobs like patrol guards and train drivers. Do we want Chinese people rushing to apply to be janitors etc because there job supply is too low and applicant demand is too high? When too many qualified university graduates are around, many of them have to settle for less well-off jobs like delivery drivers and laborers in other countries.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No one is saying be like India. I don't support the Indian solution because India never developed it's people. But nor do I support the Western solution of a stagnating/falling population and importing mass numbers of immigrants to cover up the problem. In any case, a rapidly ageing population with a high old age dependency ratio is not a good thing. In some major cities the fertility rate has dropped below 1, which means halving the population in a single generation. And no sign of slowing for this trend. So policy makers don't need further policy to reduce the population. I'm saying we need quality and quantity.

The problems with competition for jobs is about the application to job ratio. It could happen to any country no matter what the population. Australia with a population of only 20 million has intense competition for jobs:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Creating more quality and high-paying jobs is a major economic problem that every country has, it can not be solved just by reducing the population. Remember, everyone who is a worker is also a consumer who is contributing to demand.

 

[zgx09t]

In any case, a rapidly ageing population with a high old age dependency ratio is not a good thing.

You can keep the seniors in active workforce longer, either full time or part time, thus keeping the overall productivity more or less the same.
Maintaining a high domestic saving rate wouldn't require foreign borrowings to cover for the fiscal shortfalls. Also an increased percentage in R & D and government spending on social welfare for seniors would smooth out the total expenditure. There will be a lot more innovative ways to handle this issue than making more babies who may or may not help to solve the problems the way you anticipate.

 

[hashtagpls]

Big picture this is just wrong....

If the world cant solve and mass commercialize fusion in the next 30 or so years we are all collectively screwed, China included...

Climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, deminish EROEI, these are all why the pyramid scheme of perpetual growth simply cannot continue forever on a finite earth... all the low hanging fruits were exploited first....

Earth natural capacity of humans is under 500 million total... today food that keeps 7 billion alive is grown using oil... without oil there is no fertilizer, no pesticides, no automated farming, no transportation of food logistics... nothing


AI is akin to conservation in this regard. Airline when buying new plane now only care about fuel efficiency, no longer faster, larger more comfortable... AI is about productivity via efficiency... so is work from home or remote work etc... scaling back, cannalbalism and efficiency is the new growth... its whats temporarily holding this unstable system together... but it cant last forever

But if global population doesnt decrease dramatically and fast, we will all be in a world of hurt

Call me cold blooded, but i won't shed a tear if more Chinese were had at the expense of other competing nations, like say the continent of Australia or the subcontinent of india.

But lebensraum aside, we can already see the problem of low birthrates, irrespective of population growth: look at the ageing of europe, when there arne't enough people to act as consumers and tax payers, you have Globohomo policies like importing the 3rd world, which is what "1 billion americans" hopes to achieve, a billion draftees for anglo america's race war against China.

A sustained and growing population is required to support China's ageing population; simply importing the 3rd world to act as (hopefully) taxpayers, as opposed to benefits consumers (like in sweden) is a stupid idea that could only have come from mass inbreeding in the atlanticist collective.

 

[quantumlight]

You can keep the seniors in active workforce longer, either full time or part time, thus keeping the overall productivity more or less the same.
Maintaining a high domestic saving rate wouldn't require foreign borrowings to cover for the fiscal shortfalls. Also an increased percentage in R & D and government spending on social welfare for seniors would smooth out the total expenditure. There will be a lot more innovative ways to handle this issue than making more babies who may or may not help to solve the problems the way you anticipate.

Apparently some people are stuck in the age of horse carriages when the reality is all electric self driving cars... still using outdated methods and metrics of the past to predict and model for the future... hardly can they think outside the box...

 

[zgx09t]

Call me cold blooded, but i won't shed a tear if more Chinese were had at the expense of other competing nations, like say the continent of Australia or the subcontinent of india.

But lebensraum aside, we can already see the problem of low birthrates, irrespective of population growth: look at the ageing of europe, when there arne't enough people to act as consumers and tax payers, you have Globohomo policies like importing the 3rd world, which is what "1 billion americans" hopes to achieve, a billion draftees for anglo america's race war against China.

A sustained and growing population is required to support China's ageing population; simply importing the 3rd world to act as (hopefully) taxpayers, as opposed to benefits consumers (like in sweden) is a stupid idea that could only have come from mass inbreeding in the atlanticist collective.

It will be very challenging to successfully manage a sustained overpopulation problem long term. The bottleneck is the sources and production of energy to maintain steady economic growth to support ever growing population. As a specie, a human population of about 10 billions mark would be really pushing the earth's capacity. Looking for economic growth in that situation would be very risky and unstable proposition for any sensible reasonable leader, unless we have a massive revolution in energy production and efficient consumption.

 

[NiuBiDaRen]

Anyway I've totally given up on Western media.



I remember this headline came out of a reputable newspaper, I think UK. I guess they really want to see all of us Chinese as Fu Manchu types...

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Look, the senior "problem" is a problem only if China lets it be a problem. I don't recall seeing the article in the Chinese constitution that stated that senior citizens must be supported by the state as its highest priority at whatever cost. China will look after its old people as best it can, but it's an inescapable fact that a lot of them will just die poor. Tough, but those are the breaks. China is a developing country - why should we expect elderly standard of care to match that of developed countries?

The core of the demographic "problem" that China faces is an elderly bulge as a result of a previous youth bulge when the TFR fell from 6 to below 2 (and this was before the one child policy). The only solution is for this bulge to pass.

And there's another factor besides automation that people never consider - the possibility that aging itself could be comprehensively brought under medical control. That there could be medical procedures in the distant future (beyond 2050) that would keep people biologically young indefinitely. How does birth rate factor into a world where the death rate is near zero because no one is dying of old age anymore? This seems like science fiction now, but it's a relevant consideration on the timescales we're talking about (decades).