China must relax birth controls to defuse population time bomb, top think tank warns

[Yingluck]

The prognosis is worse than Chinese commenters would like to admit. The least fertility occurs on the most IQ population, in cities such as Beijing and Shanghai.

While the village got higher fertility.

On the long run, Chinese will have lower IQ, due to reverse Darwinism.

Blame China elites.

 

[Mista]

You need a stable population, it's not as if people are just suddenly going extinct. Initial stage, China will experience sharp drop in population from 1.4bil to maybe a more sustainable 800mil, then the population will stabilize when socio-economic conditions improve. Anything less, we can import from other Asiatic and even Caucasoid populations, fair skin people are easily assimilated by the Chinese Nations, darker skin are harder. after 1 or 2 generations, you can't even differentiate a mixed Central Asian from normal Chinese.

It's not just the shrinking of population, but the aging too. It will increase the strain on social securities and health services.

And the shrinking of the population will continue as long as the TFR is below 2.1. It may 'stabilize' in the sense that the population decreases at a slower and acceptable rate, at a TFR of at least around 1.8. This is the most ideal for the world since our population can't expand forever anyway. All developed countries (with the exception of Israel, probably due to their religious nature) has a TFR below 2.1 and are headed for a reduction of population if there's no immigration.

But East Asia has exceptionally low TFR, that's the problem. The fast rate of decrease and aging is untenable. China's recorded TFR in 2016 is 1.05 and estimated TFR is 1.5 (although I think they overestimated it). It's highly unlikely China's TFR will rise to replacement rate.

Immigration to solve the demographic time bomb is just not feasible for China because of the sheer scale of China's population. Only India has the same scale and it's highly unlikely for China to accept hundreds of millions of Indians into their country.

 

[Dungeness]

Exactly. That is why firstly you shouldn't have population control.

And you should still invite people who can either earn 3 times your national average (so in sum they support national economy rather than the reverse), OR are good in maths and science (the skills of the future)

China contemplates for next century, and India plans for next election. Two people have different mindsets, and they just can't comprehend each other well enough. Let China be China.

 

[Han Patriot]

It's not just the shrinking of population, but the aging too. It will increase the strain on social securities and health services.

The key question is how fast is China aging? Every western society is aging, so? It is only natural to have a large aging population during the population reduction process. In the past, people around 60 years old is considered old and unproductive, but new technology and training enabled workers to work until there are above 70. An aging society will create new economic demands, nursing, medical, healh care industries will boom. You need to understand just because a large population is old, doesn't mean everybody is old.

And the shrinking of the population will continue as long as the TFR is below 2.1. It may 'stabilize' in the sense that the population decreases at a slower and acceptable rate, at a TFR of at least around 1.8. This is the most ideal for the world since our population can't expand forever anyway. All developed countries (with the exception of Israel, probably due to their religious nature) has a TFR below 2.1 and are headed for a reduction of population if there's no immigration.

That is China's plan. A gradual reduction, however in the initial stages, we needed to reduce it drastically because else, we would have added another 300 mil people. When the one child policy was conceived, the TFR was around 4 to 5. Without it, we would have been another India.

But East Asia has exceptionally low TFR, that's the problem. The fast rate of decrease and aging is untenable. China's recorded TFR in 2016 is 1.05 and estimated TFR is 1.5 (although I think they overestimated it). It's highly unlikely China's TFR will rise to replacement rate.

You need to stop correlating age with productivity. In the future, a 60 year old operating automated systems can outproduce 30 Indians doing manual work. East Asia is aging but it is not going exstinct, understand, there will be immigration from other fairer skinned nations, hell even South Americans are more acceptable than Indians.

Fertility rates can be increased once you give better socio-economic conditions for your population. Women actually don't mind having 2-3 kids if there are enough support. A major population reduction is necessary before China can reach that level of social development.

Immigration to solve the demographic time bomb is just not feasible for China because of the sheer scale of China's population. Only India has the same scale and it's highly unlikely for China to accept hundreds of millions of Indians into their country.

How is a reduced population equivalent to a demographic time bomb? and a overpopulated Indian isn't? India cannot keep on hoping of using overpopulation as a strategy for growth and flooding the world with Indians. You will end up destroying it with your blame, brag and excuse culture. You f-up India, please don't f-up the world.

 

[Mista]

The key question is how fast is China aging? Every western society is aging, so?

Rapidly.

All developed societies are aging, including the Western society. However the reduction in their TFR is gradual, while for China it's rapid because of the OCP which led to an unnatural population pyramid.

You need to stop correlating age with productivity.

The fact is most economist does.

And it's not only about the productivity, it's the society's ability to support the elderly in healthcare and social security along with a decreasing labor force. Taxes have to go up.

East Asia is aging but it is not going extinct, understand, there will be immigration from other fairer skinned nations, hell even South Americans are more acceptable than Indians.

Of course, East Asia is not going to extinct lmao.

As I said, immigration isn't feasible in China due to the sheer scale. Especially if you only want people from fairer skinned nations which the pool is shrinking too.

Do you consider Southeast Asia as one of the 'fairer-skinned'?

Fertility rates can be increased once you give better socio-economic conditions for your population. Women actually don't mind having 2-3 kids if there are enough support.

If look at the statistics, 2 kids is actually the most common in Singapore and Japan among married couples; around 40% in Singapore. 3 kids is also surprisingly common at around 20%, as common as 1 kid.

So what's the caveat here? 30% of our women are single and not married. That significantly pulls down our total fertility rate, which include non-married women. Our married females actually have a average of 2.1 children.

https://data.gov.sg/dataset/average...group-of-resident-ever-married-females-annual

Here's an extract from an article in China.

由于总有部分人不婚不育，或只愿生育一两个孩子，少数家庭生育特别多孩子对维持民族繁衍至关重要。在一个正常社会中，不同家庭的生育意愿千差万别。假定意愿孩子数呈如下的分布：6、3、2、2、1、1、0，且所有家庭都能如愿，那一共7个家庭将生育15个孩子，生育率为2.14，勉强接近更替水平。而在这15个孩子中，来自三孩或六孩家庭的有9个，占总数的2/3；来自两孩家庭的孩子只有4个；而独生子女只有2个，不到总数的1/7。这也意味着，当来自三孩和三孩以上家庭的孩子非常普遍时，生育率才刚处于更替水平。

　　这也说明，全面二孩政策远远不够。在该政策下，上述家庭的生育数量将分别变成2、2、2、2、1、1、0，即7个家庭总共生育10个孩子，生育率仅为1.43。即当人们感觉二孩家庭孩子非常普遍时，生育率已经远低于更替水平了。

http://opinion.caixin.com/2016-10-31/101002084.html

In Singapore, at least 3 in 10 woman have '0' children because they are unmarried. That explains the low TFR.

How is a reduced population equivalent to a demographic time bomb?

A reduced population isn't the crux of the problem, but the aging of the population is.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

But East Asia has exceptionally low TFR, that's the problem. The fast rate of decrease and aging is untenable. China's recorded TFR in 2016 is 1.05 and estimated TFR is 1.5 (although I think they overestimated it). It's highly unlikely China's TFR will rise to replacement rate.

Where did you get this ridiculous number from? China's TFR was 1.57 in 2015, and that's before the One Child Policy was abolished.

Why is it highly unlikely China's TFR would rise to replacement rate? Take a look at Russia's impressive TFR recovery.

The fact is most economist does.

The fact is most economists are wrong. They're doubly wrong when it comes to China because of China's rapidly rising productivity. And given the speed of that rise in productivity, it doesn't matter how fast China is aging. Being "rapidly aging" is like being a fast snail -- you're still slow.

Furthermore, this discussion completely ignores potential advancements in medicine that can begin to really tackle the diseases of aging and radically extend healthy lifespan.

 

[Mista]

Where did you get this ridiculous number from? China's TFR was 1.57 in 2015, and that's before the One Child Policy was abolished.

The National Bureau of Statistics China (中华人民共和国国家统计局). The 'China Statistical Yearbook 2016' released last year recorded a TFR of 1.05 in 2015. It's based on a sample from 1% of the population.

The figure of 1.57 is from the National Population and Family Planning Commission (中华人民共和国国家人口和计划生育委员会). This figure is estimated and other international organizations such as the UN uses this figure. The reason why they used the figure of 1.57 instead of 1.05 because they think many Chinese did not report the births to the authorities to escape the heavy fines. Therefore they estimated the TFR higher at 1.57.

But do you really believe 1/3 of Chinese babies doesn't have any form of official identification? Hospitals, schools etc?

How accurate is the estimate? The UN uses figures from the NPFPC. The estimated TFR of China from 1995-2000 by UN has been revised from 1.80 in 2010 to 1.56 in 2012. That's a very big downwards revision of the estimated TFR.

Why is it highly unlikely China's TFR would rise to replacement rate? Take a look at Russia's impressive TFR recovery.

Although Russia's TFR recovery is impressive, it's still only 1.75. It's still significantly lower than 2.1. And Russia, like China, is still a developing country. 1.75 is not high considering Russia's state of development. Without immigration from other ex-USSR states, Russia is also headed for population reduction in the long term.

And China has very different culture from the Russians. East Asian countries have low TFR.

The fact is most economists are wrong. They're doubly wrong when it comes to China because of China's rapidly rising productivity. And given the speed of that rise in productivity, it doesn't matter how fast China is aging. Being "rapidly aging" is like being a fast snail -- you're still slow.

It does matter in the long term, say 50 years, when productivity growth slows down and approaches developed countries level.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

But do you really believe 1/3 of Chinese babies doesn't have any form of official identification? Hospitals, schools etc?

I don't know if it's as high as a third, but I don't have any trouble believing that at a very significant percentage of Chinese births (especially of female first babies) went unreported, particularly in rural areas.

I don't know why one body has such a ridiculously low estimate for the TFR - I find it very hard to believe, quite frankly. If the situation is that bad then the Chinese government should implement a law that bars any childless person from a state pension and grants couples with only one child a partial pension.

 

[Nan Yang]

Study finds millions of China's 'missing girls' actually exist
By Emiko Jozuka, CNN

• A new study finds discrepancies in population data in China
• Researchers say millions of "missing girls" were registered later in life

(CNN)It sounds like the plot of a mystery novel.

A controversial one-child policy that resulted in as many as 60 million "missing girls" in China, the most populous country on Earth.

But in a new study, researchers suggest that around 25 million of these girls aren't actually missing, but went unreported at birth -- only appearing on government censuses at a later stage in their lives.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/12/01/asia/china-missing-girls/index.html

 

[Shajida Khan]

You need a stable population, it's not as if people are just suddenly going extinct. Initial stage, China will experience sharp drop in population from 1.4bil to maybe a more sustainable 800mil, then the population will stabilize when socio-economic conditions improve. Anything less, we can import from other Asiatic and even Caucasoid populations, fair skin people are easily assimilated by the Chinese Nations, darker skin are harder. after 1 or 2 generations, you can't even differentiate a mixed Central Asian from normal Chinese.

The issue is not just the size of population but the composition as well. It has happened before. Japan is essentially China in about another 30-50 years. A huge aging population and a small young working force.

This is a very very well founded fear. China may grow older first before growing richer.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

The issue is not just the size of population but the composition as well. It has happened before. Japan is essentially China in about another 30-50 years. A huge aging population and a small young working force.

This is a very very well founded fear. China may grow older first before growing richer.

Not to worry, China will always have cheap Indian labour to do its low-pay, dirty work. Legions of Indians will toil day and night on China's construction sites and in China's factories (those that haven't automated).

No pensions or anything else for them -- the second they stop being useful, it's back to India.

 

[Shajida Khan]

Not to worry, China will always have Indian cheap labour to do its low-pay, dirty work. Legions of Indians will toil day and night on China's construction sites and in China's factories (those that haven't automated).

No pensions or anything else for them -- the second they stop being useful, it's back to India.

Japan is trying to do that for quite sometime and to no avail. Foreigners and specially Indians stay the hell away from Japan. Heck Japanese immigration plan on exactly the same lines bombed quite spectacularly with very few foreigners lining up for their visa to the point they were not even able to fulfill their quota. Unless you offer obscene amounts and no taxes as UAE does or a pathway for better life, Indians are not lining up for your work visas.

Point is simple, for homogenous societies like Japan and China, immigration is not even an option. Add to that difficulty in learning and assimilating with their culture, it will not going to work. What will happen is quite the otherway round. They will move factories to India. Which is not exactly bad for India.

 

[U-571]

prepare mars because unlike europeans, no inch of land free for humans, all jampacked

 

[Shajida Khan]

You need to stop correlating age with productivity. In the future, a 60 year old operating automated systems can outproduce 30 Indians doing manual work. East Asia is aging but it is not going exstinct, understand, there will be immigration from other fairer skinned nations, hell even South Americans are more acceptable than Indians.

You make me laugh. China seems to have learned 'Chinese Exceptionalism' from USA first before learning critical thinking. There are many issues in what you are proposing.

1. If automation was the answer, then why the heck you need to have automated factories in China? It can be closer to consumption!
2. I wonder how will you capture 'skin color' in your immigration policy. It will look really nice.
3. Chinese tommorow is Japan of today. Sure as hell Japanese are feeling the sustained slow down and burden of supporting a huge aging population. You can try, but it is very doubtful that you will be able to beat them.

Fertility rates can be increased once you give better socio-economic conditions for your population. Women actually don't mind having 2-3 kids if there are enough support. A major population reduction is necessary before China can reach that level of social development.

Another fallacy! Its quite the opposite. In most capitalist and most developed economies, women have childern much later in their lives and much lesser. Look at Japan, Canada, Germany and you will see your future in terms of demographics.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Japan is trying to do that for quite sometime and to no avail. Foreigners and specially Indians stay the hell away from Japan. Heck Japanese immigration plan on exactly the same lines bombed quite spectacularly with very few foreigners lining up for their visa to the point they were not even able to fulfill their quota. Unless you offer obscene amounts and no taxes as UAE does or a pathway for better life, Indians are not lining up for your work visas.

Point is simple, for homogenous societies like Japan and China, immigration is not even an option. Add to that difficulty in learning and assimilating with their culture, it will not going to work. What will happen is quite the otherway round. They will move factories to India. Which is not exactly bad for India.

That's simply untrue. You have in mind members of the higher social classes, well-educated and well-off skilled Indian workers. That's not who China needs, China has plenty of its own people that can do those jobs.

What it needs are Indian nurses to wipe the behinds of elderly Chinese and unskilled construction workers who can build skyscrapers. India has plenty of such people, and will have plenty more in the years to come -- they did this for Dubai:

They can do the same for a future China.

You think I'm talking about Indians immigrating to China, settling down, raising families, etc. Nothing of the sort; what I have in mind is, to put this bluntly, more like wage-slavery. As for factories "moving", whether to India or elsewhere, this is a vastly overblown phenomenon. What's actually happening is that factories are automating and staying put, and more of that will occur as robotics technology advances.

That is really bad news for India. It's great news for China because it kills two birds with one stone -- improves the productivity of the workforce and ameliorates any demographic problems.