China's population is projected to decline to 800 million, while US goes to 450 million.

[AndrewJin]

I cannot wait to see Hindu population surpass 2 billion in such a tiny place.

Come on Bro! Don't burst delusional Indians bubble

All Indians have is a big population and they seem to think that this is what will give them an edge in future, over China. However, everyone who isn't a delusional Indian knows that having a huge population, with a clumsy and inefficient democracy and governance, is just going to lead to more problems. Indians think that just by breeding more and growing in population will mean that they will magically overtake China and become super-advanced in due course.

Let's let them keep believing that

I believe our Muslim brothers will once again dominate Hindu land and create a bigger Pakistan!

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

So you think your own numbers, on the basis of which your created this thread, are bullshit?

No, the Fertility rates tend to decline. So the population for almost all nations here have been overestimated.

 

[INDIAISM]

List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Population in 2100:

1 Nigeria 2733011
2 India 2668911
3 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1739617
4 Ethiopia 1058786
5 Pakistan 1006666
6 Niger 960646
7 Uganda 924481
8 Tanzania 922882
9 China 801925
10 Angola 659865
11 Indonesia 515567
12 Mozambique 481350
13 Kenya 464808
14 Mali 460827
15 Egypt 438620
16 United States 436618
17 Afghanistan
18 Iraq
19 Sudan
20 Chad

OP just can't wait for India, armed with 2.7 Billion population, to be #1 superpower in the world.

Sorry to disagree with you as per other projections Indian population will peak by 2060 at around 1.7 Billion after it will start declining....

India's population will peak at 1.7bn in 2060: UN study - The Times of India

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Come on Bro! Don't burst delusional Indians bubble

All Indians have is a big population and they seem to think that this is what will give them an edge in future, over China. However, everyone who isn't a delusional Indian knows that having a huge population, with a clumsy and inefficient democracy and governance, is just going to lead to more problems. Indians think that just by breeding more and growing in population will mean that they will magically overtake China and become super-advanced in due course.

Let's let them keep believing that

One thing that our Indian friend forgets is that a large population is also a double edged sword. India's population might become larger, but most of the populations remains uneducated till this day.

 

[tranquilium]

This is a flawed model. It assumed Constant Fertility Rates, which is bullshit.

...Dude, that is pretty much what your post assumed. Did you just call yourself bullshit?

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

...Dude, that is pretty much what your post assumed. Did you just call yourself bullshit?

When did my post assume this?

My post had two parts: one is about the US, where the fertility rate is just above replacement, and add to that the tide of immigrants flocking in. The US, fertility rate is there was no immigration is assumed to decline, which is why the chart shows that the population will stabilize were there would be no immigration.

Second part is to do with Chinese growth rates. Where the only assumption is that there is no artificial jacking up of fertility rates, and fertility rates follow natural trajectory.

One thing that our Indian friend forgets is that a large population is also a double edged sword. India's population might become larger, but most of the populations remains uneducated till this day.

All people are fundamentally capable of producing approximately the same amount.

My estimate is that people in a reasonably big normal society are able to produce only about 40k dollars per capita of GDP.

Japan has around that much before it devalued its currency. It still has around 35k. It is low for Japan because first it is not an immigration society, and second it is a grey society, with a median age of 48.

US produces around 55k, largely because it is a (1) immigration intensive society, where the top performers of other societies are invited in to jack up production, (2) resource rich society

Australia has around 65k because it has too many resources for too few people.


The growth will start to plateau at about that level.

Hence, I would expect China to grow at around 5% for the next decade, while I expect India to grow at around 7-8% for the next decade.

 

[Raphael]

When did my post assume this?

My post had two parts: one is about the US, where the fertility rate is just above replacement, and add to that the tide of immigrants flocking in. The US, fertility rate is there was no immigration is assumed to decline, which is why the chart shows that the population will stabilize were there would be no immigration.

Second part is to do with Chinese growth rates. Where the only assumption is that there is no artificial jacking up of fertility rates, and fertility rates follow natural trajectory.

Your very thread title proclaims China's pop. will be 800B and US' pop. will be 450. Where did you get these numbers, if not from UN projections? Your linked article is not the source.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Your very thread title proclaims China's pop. will be 800B and US' pop. will be 450. Where did you get these numbers, if not from UN projections? Your linked article is not the source.

The link proclaims and predicts US population. Chinese population projections are from elsewhere.

 

[TheTruth]

Hence, I would expect China to grow at around 5% for the next decade, while I expect India to grow at around 7-8% for the next decade.

China doesn't need immigrants. Keep in mind 1/3rd to 1/2 Indians are horribly malnourished and are thus no good for most jobs, physical or mental.

Likewise robots can replace millions of workers by 2100. Technology is far less stagnant than you want to admit.

 

[zeronet]

This is a flawed model. It assumed Constant Fertility Rates, which is bullshit.

from ur reaction to the projection of 2.6 billion population in india, seems that u hate to have that amount of people in ur land, not the 'more population, the better' mode that u show us in all of ur posts on china's population. so why r u not proud of ur 2.6 billion country men/women, it is a huge 'demographic dividend', isn't it?

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

China doesn't need immigrants. Keep in mind 1/3rd to 1/2 Indians are horribly malnourished and are thus no good for most jobs, physical or mental.

Likewise robots can replace millions of workers by 2100. Technology is far less stagnant than you want to admit.

Technology doesn't replace people, it increases their potential.

Almost all jobs of modern age weren't possible even 300 years back, where 90% of people used to do Agriculture. Today a fully modernized country can sustain itself with only 1-2% doing Agriculture.

So technology will continue to advance, it may even displace some jobs, but people will keep moving up the value chain. And technological gap is very difficult to sustain, because of the globalized world of today.

from ur reaction to the projection of 2.6 billion population in india, seems that u hate to have that amount of people in ur land, not the 'more population, the better' mode that u show us in all of ur posts on china's population. so why r u not proud of ur 2.6 billion country men/women, it is a huge 'demographic dividend', isn't it?

No, only the figure was wrong.

Also, there is a balance. I think India right now is in good zone, where its population is growing at around 1-1.5%, accompanied with 7% growth rate.

China is not. Firstly, China has a lot more land than India, and should technically be able to sustain much more population. In fact in 1950, Chinese population was 1.5 times that of India, despite the endless deaths in China during the war and turbulence of previous years.

So, I think a fertility rate of 1.5, and a continuously greying as well as decreasing population isn't good.

 

[tranquilium]

When did my post assume this?

My post had two parts: one is about the US, where the fertility rate is just above replacement, and add to that the tide of immigrants flocking in. The US, fertility rate is there was no immigration is assumed to decline, which is why the chart shows that the population will stabilize were there would be no immigration.

Second part is to do with Chinese growth rates. Where the only assumption is that there is no artificial jacking up of fertility rates, and fertility rates follow natural trajectory.

So you assumption is no change in Chinese policy in managing population growth rate or as you eloquantly put it "no artificial jacking up of fertility rates". I rest my case.

 

[TheTruth]

Technology doesn't replace people, it increases their potential.

Almost all jobs of modern age weren't possible even 300 years back, where 90% of people used to do Agriculture. Today a fully modernized country can sustain itself with only 1-2% doing Agriculture.

So technology will continue to advance, it may even displace some jobs, but people will keep moving up the value chain. And technological gap is very difficult to sustain, because of the globalized world of today.

No difference between replacing people and making them more productive in economics. We don't have people digging with shovels much nowadays, either.

 

[zeronet]

Technology doesn't replace people, it increases their potential.

Almost all jobs of modern age weren't possible even 300 years back, where 90% of people used to do Agriculture. Today a fully modernized country can sustain itself with only 1-2% doing Agriculture.

So technology will continue to advance, it may even displace some jobs, but people will keep moving up the value chain. And technological gap is very difficult to sustain, because of the globalized world of today.



No, only the figure was wrong.

Also, there is a balance. I think India right now is in good zone, where its population is growing at around 1-1.5%, accompanied with 7% growth rate.

China is not. Firstly, China has a lot more land than India, and should technically be able to sustain much more population. In fact in 1950, Chinese population was 1.5 times that of India, despite the endless deaths in China during the war and turbulence of previous years.

So, I think a fertility rate of 1.5, and a continuously greying as well as decreasing population isn't good.

it is good to know u have the idea of 'balance' as we have, opposite to what i thought before.but which point is the balance point? we may have quite diff views.

it seems to me that indian have more tolerance on the definition of coziness. from my own observation, many indian students in north america may still feel comfortable to accommodate more than 1 person in a single bedroom, but that is definitely not acceptable to most of the chinese students in north america. so pls use chinese standard rather than indian standard to decide what the appropriate number of population in china is. u may think 2billion indians living in a land with 1/3 the size of china land is best for u guys, chinese just don't have the same feeling. they may think 800million as the article projected is the best number for them, who knows. so pls stop worrying about chinese population for them, they themselves will take care of it.

 

[tranquilium]

it seems to me that indian have more tolerance on the definition of coziness. from my own observation, many indian students in north america may still feel comfortable to accommodate more than 1 person in a single bedroom, but that is definitely not acceptable to most of the chinese students in north america. so pls use chinese standard rather than indian standard to decide what the appropriate number of population in china is. u may think 2billion indians living in a land with 1/3 the size of china land is best for u guys, chinese just don't have the same feeling. they may think 800million as the article projected is the best number for them, who knows. so pls stop worrying about chinese population for them, they themselves will take care of it.

The 800 million number is BS anyway. The OP's link actually lead to an article about textiles instead of population and the graph he linked assume a constant natural fertility rate with no regard to human factor, despite the fact human factor has been the dominant force in China for the past four decades.

I remember reading about a decade ago that Chinese government's goal, at that time, was a population equilibrium at 1.5 billion and I incline to agree with that number.