Report on two-child policy submitted to decision-makers

[tranquilium]

Who gonna educate people？don't think China were lack of teachers，in fact，one teacher can educate 10 people.The same number of teachers can also educate 12 people，Don't even need 1.2 teachers.

My elementary school class has 61 people. It would be considered one of the area with more adequate educational resource in Shenyang back in 1992. Printing one page test papers for everyone requires all students from the class to chip in---something that was actually considered expensive for a lot of low income families. We also have 6 classes in the school year and the teachers are constantly overworked. People aspiring to go to university are also somewhat rare in those days, because it is widely accepted that there is not enough spots for everyone, or even a significant percent of the population.

Like I said, people who are born after 95 has no concept of limited resources because by the time they got to school, China has reached a certain level of development----courtesy of the benefit from one child policy, which is implemented in 1970s. Your parent's generation made the sacrifice and you benefit from them, please don't diss their effort.

Edit: Oh, btw, by the time I was born. Food supply in most of China is already secure. However, if you dial back the time just two more decade. The country's main concern is just getting enough food on table so they don't starve or getting invaded by a hostile neighbor. Not trying to sound like a stereotypical old guy, but newer generation simply doesn't appreciate a lot of things they taken for granted.

 

[EAsian]

My elementary school class has 61 people. It would be considered one of the area with more adequate educational resource in Shenyang back in 1992. Printing one page test papers for everyone requires all students from the class to chip in---something that was actually considered expensive for a lot of low income families. We also have 6 classes in the school year and the teachers are constantly overworked. People aspiring to go to university are also somewhat rare in those days, because it is widely accepted that there is not enough spots for everyone, or even a significant percent of the population.

Like I said, people who are born after 95 has no concept of limited resources because by the time they got to school, China has reached a certain level of development----courtesy of the benefit from one child policy, which is implemented in 1970s. Your parent's generation made the sacrifice and you benefit from them, please don't diss their effort.

Edit: Oh, btw, by the time I was born. Food supply in most of China is already secure. However, if you dial back the time just two more decade. The country's main concern is just getting enough food on table so they don't starve or getting invaded by a hostile neighbor. Not trying to sound like a stereotypical old guy, but newer generation simply doesn't appreciate a lot of things they taken for granted.

It won't make big difference like I
have said.even today there are still half teachers teach more than 50 students while the percentage of children is much less.Not a problem of resources.

 

[tranquilium]

It won't make big difference like I
have said.even today there are still half teachers teach more than 50 students while the percentage of children is much less.Not a problem of resources.

There is your problem. Your entire argument is based on China has no resource problem, especially back in the day where the one child policy becomes a necessity.

Of course, this is coming from the same group of people who believe housing is too expensive and great injustice to them when they have to take a loan for a 50 square meter apartment right after they got out of university. Here is a news flash---two or three generations of people used to be living in way smaller apartments their entire life back in the day. Why am I not surprised.

Oh, btw, just for fun, if you take the stance that one child policy is wrong, then you automatically forfeit the right to complain about housing price, employment opportunities or competition to get into good universities. Because all these comes with a high population not low.

 

[EAsian]

There is your problem. Your entire argument is based on China has no resource problem, especially back in the day where the one child policy becomes a necessity.

Of course, this is coming from the same group of people who believe housing is too expensive and great injustice to them when they have to take a loan for a 50 square meter apartment right after they got out of university. Here is a news flash---two or three generations of people used to be living in way smaller apartments their entire life back in the day. Why am I not surprised.

Oh, btw, just for fun, if you take the stance that one child policy is wrong, then you automatically forfeit the right to complain about housing price, employment opportunities or competition to get into good universities. Because all these comes with a high population not low.

Do canadian or Australian have more employment opportunities than Japan and USA？Is their house cheaper than Japan and USA？The house price in Canada and Australia is even higher than USA while they only have around 1/10 population of USA.You logic is total BS.

 

[tranquilium]

Do canadian or Australian have more employment opportunities than Japan and USA？Is their house cheaper than Japan and USA？The house price in Canada and Australia is even higher than USA while they only have around 1/10 population of USA.You logic is total BS.

Erm, since when did my logic involve the housing price of Australian, Canada, Japan or US? You know, the four countries located in different corner of the world with completely different culture, demographics, economic structure, history and pretty much everything else? I merely compare China today and China two decades ago. You know, the same country. For your information, Canadian house, especially in the suburbs are significantly cheaper Japanese housing, which is one of the most expensive in the world. (Not really relevant to the topic) I said it in the previous post, your argument is based on that China has no resource problem and that is utter bullshit, because resource problems, from all categories, are pretty much the dominant problem in China for the past six decades.

 

[EAsian]

Erm, since when did my logic involve the housing price of Australian, Canada, Japan or US? You know, the four countries located in different corner of the world with completely different culture, demographics, economic structure, history and pretty much everything else? I merely compare China today and China two decades ago. You know, the same country. For your information, Canadian house, especially in the suburbs are significantly cheaper Japanese housing, which is one of the most expensive in the world. (Not really relevant to the topic) I said it in the previous post, your argument is based on that China has no resource problem and that is utter bullshit, because resource problems, from all categories, are pretty much the dominant problem in China for the past six decades.

This teacher resource problems are really sick,at least you have the chance to educate them when there are kids rather than some uneducated olds.More percentage of educated chikdren,so the country will become educated more quickly,defintely is better than those uneducated adults.If you insist resource is the key point,then now china should continue One child policy for ever,or we stop having children at all,so we can put all our resources to feed those one who already exist.

Oh, btw, just for fun, if you take the stance that one child policy is wrong, then you automatically forfeit the right to complain about housing price, employment opportunities or competition to get into good universities. Because all these comes with a high population not low.

The housing price in Canadian is 62% higher than USA even it has 1/10 of the population of USA.Oobviously this comparation is proper and do make sense.Canada and USA are two very similar countries. even tha populaion ratio is1 to 10,and both have similar lanmass, the housing price even go higher.refusing to see this is ridiculous.
And what do you try to say by comparing China today and China two decades ago?WTF?How does that show china would be better if chinese having less children?What kind of ridiculous logic did you refer?One country have only one history,you can't compare china with anothter alternative China in your brain.If Canadian can have 62% higher housing price,that clearly show that housing price does not have much to do with population.
郁闷!房价比美国高62%,加拿大人购物买房都得多付 - 温哥华旅游网

 

[tranquilium]

This teacher resource problems are really sick,at least you can educate them when there are kids.More percentage of educated chikdren,so the country will become educated more quickly,defintely is better than those uneducated adults.If you insist resource is the key point,then now china should continue One child policy for ever,or we stop having children at all,so we can put all our resources to feed those one who already exist.And housing price?WTF?do china lack of land to build houses?really retarded.


The housing price in Canadian is 62% higher than USA even it has 1/10 of the population of USA.Oobviously this comparation means something.Canada and USA is very similar，It is 1 to 10,and the housing price even go higher.refusing to see this is ridiculous
And what do you try to say by comparing China today and China two decades ago?WTF?How does that show china would be better if chinese having less children?What kind of ridiculous logic did you refer?One country have only one history,youcan't compare china with anothter alternative China in your brain.If Canadian can have 62% higher housing price,that clearly show that housing price does not have much to do with population.
郁闷!房价比美国高62%,加拿大人购物买房都得多付 - 温哥华旅游网

You know, I have been talking about population growing with the appropriate infrastructure level and the optimal point since post 1, but somehow I am just not getting through. Have there been anyone besides you saying that one child policy (which, btw, is the wrong name for it because its actual name is 计划生育. You know, the emphasis on the whole planning thing?) is continuing forever? Of course not. It was necessary in the 70s, but not necessary today, hence why it is changing and this is what this post is about.

And you are honestly talking about Canada, where 1/10 of the population in Toronto and 5% of another patch is in Vancouver? I do believe I also mentioned about the whole, oh, I dont know, difference country with completely different demographic thing? But hey, if you want to play dumb, then let's play that game, it will cost you 250 RMB for living in outer Mongolia, one of the regions with the lowest population density on earth.
蒙古最低房价不足250元--卞眼观天下--凤凰网博客
Does that actually mean anything? Of course not, nobody is stupid enough to think Mongolia's low "housing" price is anywhere related to its population. That's specific to Outer Mongolia. However, Chinese housing price, when comparing to itself, it pushed up due to large amount of population migrating to certain regions for job opportunities, which is population related.

 

[EAsian]

You know, I have been talking about population growing with the appropriate infrastructure level and the optimal point since post 1, but somehow I am just not getting through. Have there been anyone besides you saying that one child policy (which, btw, is the wrong name for it because its actual name is 计划生育. You know, the emphasis on the whole planning thing?) is continuing forever? Of course not. It was necessary in the 70s, but not necessary today, hence why it is changing and this is what this post is about.

And you are honestly talking about Canada, where 1/10 of the population in Toronto and 5% of another patch is in Vancouver? I do believe I also mentioned about the whole, oh, I dont know, difference country with completely different demographic thing? But hey, if you want to play dumb, then let's play that game, it will cost you 250 RMB for living in outer Mongolia, one of the regions with the lowest population density on earth.
蒙古最低房价不足250元--卞眼观天下--凤凰网博客
Does that actually mean anything? Of course not, nobody is stupid enough to think Mongolia's low "housing" price is anywhere related to its population. That's specific to Outer Mongolia. However, Chinese housing price, when comparing to itself, it pushed up due to large amount of population migrating to certain regions for job opportunities, which is population related.

That is 蒙古包，WTF.Children are resource，not burden in any means.More children means we have a bigger chance to educate them to prosper our country faster.Far valuable than some uneducated adults ，most of them can't be reeducated.I hope someone will realize this.In all kinds of people，Children is the dearest fortune.Every sane person know this except some brainwashed retards.
By the way：　　现在蒙古260万人，大约还有30万户人家住在牧区蒙古包里，其他的人都挤到了首都乌兰巴托。由于蒙古人这几年开发矿产资源挣了许多钱。所以牧区进城买房定居的人越来越多。只要房地产开发商说个价，购房的牧民一次性付款就把房子买下了。许多在蒙古开发的中国房地产商和钢筋、水泥材料进口商，以及建筑装潢工程队都在蒙古干发了财。我的蒙古公司2005年在乌兰巴托市中心百货大楼旁边买的公寓是600美元/平米，现在一下子涨到了1800美元/平米。而韩国人开发的高档社区在金融危机爆发前最高卖到3000美元/平米。目前，有些想买房的蒙古人，比较讲实际的避开了高房价，举家越境到中国的二连浩特，呼和浩特和北京郊区购买1000美元以下的房子。还有许多牧区搬到乌兰巴托定居的人，索性到城郊结合部的山腰上，购买那些不足250元1的蒙古包栖身。

 

[21stCentury]

The first prior thing is always the power and continunity of CCP，not the country.

Don't be absurd, the 'CCP' and the 'country' are one. If there is no country (China) there will be no CCP (government). When the CCP is in control and strong so too is the country. The first priority of the CCP is the development and transformation of China from a rural developing country to a full fledge industrialized developed nation.

 

[EAsian]

Don't be absurd, the 'CCP' and the 'country' are one. If there is no country (China) there will be no CCP (government). When the CCP is in control and strong so too is the country. The first priority of the CCP is the development and transformation of China from a rural developing country to a full fledge industrialized developed nation.

CCP is the country？So where is those ones don't agree with the policy of CCP？Do they need to be exterminated ，expeled or reeducated？In the end this is not a thread about CCP，I don't want to dicuss this，so please stop it.

Some people see children as some kind of animal，only brings burden ，control their numbers like they are some sort of pest.They say by this way fortune comes.I say they are just some brainwashed lunatics.

 

[DaiViet]

Good for the Chinese. One Child policy resulted in many self-emo Chinese, go on internet and think they are king. It is obvious two children they can play with each other and less chance of the kid become sad emo. Sometimes, I wonder what is in those Chinese CCP brains, they wanted to go against nature by limiting fertility rate of human.

 

[EAsian]

Some Chinese really are lack of common sense，I suggest they should abandon their prejudiced opinion and reeducate themselves from basics.
不怕神一样的对手，就怕猪一样的队友.

 

[tranquilium]

CCP is the country？So where is those ones don't agree with the policy of CCP？Do they need to be exterminated ，expeled or reeducated？In the end this is not a thread about CCP，I don't want to dicuss this，so please stop it.

Some people see children as some kind of animal，only brings burden ，control their numbers like they are some sort of pest.They say by this way fortune comes.I say they are just some brainwashed lunatics.

Erm, no, people actually setting the policy has never ever treated child as burden or pest. Or you know, talking about reducing China's population to nothing or continuing the policy forever. I am, however, hearing one extremist scenario after another from you and the funny thing is that you are also the one coming up with things like child as burden or pest. I will have to wonder what is actually going on in your mind to come up with stuff like this.

And after the insistence of "China has no resource problems", your statement of lacking common sense took the word right out of my mouth.

Good for the Chinese. One Child policy resulted in many self-emo Chinese, go on internet and think they are king. It is obvious two children they can play with each other and less chance of the kid become sad emo. Sometimes, I wonder what is in those Chinese CCP brains, they wanted to go against nature by limiting fertility rate of human.

BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Vietnam's two-child policy

You do realize that Vietnam runs population control/planning policy as well right? Oh, btw, India also have population control policy.

 

[EAsian]

Erm, no, people actually setting the policy has never ever treated child as burden or pest. Or you know, talking about reducing China's population to nothing or continuing the policy forever. I am, however, hearing one extremist scenario after another from you and the funny thing is that you are also the one coming up with things like child as burden or pest. I will have to wonder what is actually going on in your mind to come up with stuff like this.

And after the insistence of "China has no resource problems", your statement of lacking common sense took the word right out of my mouth.



BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Vietnam's two-child policy

You do realize that Vietnam runs population control/planning policy as well right? Oh, btw, India also have population control policy.

You clearly do think children as burden instead of resource.And where is your cheap 蒙古包？Even China only have 1
million people，They are still going to from some population centers like mongol ，canada or any other countries，price of houses will never become cheap.
You are too stuborn and too old to be re-educated，I have to give up.

 

[tranquilium]

You clearly do think children as burden instead of resource.And where is your cheap 蒙古包？Even China only have 1
million people，They are still going to from a population center，price of houses will never become cheap.
You are too stuborn to be re-educated，I have to give up.

So you do finally realized using a country with different demographic and economic condition from China is BS?

Edit: Ah, just making sure, let's affirm that again. You are arguing that China in 1970s does not a limited resources and infrastructure to accommodate the population right?