China demographics thread.

[FairAndUnbiased]

Of course you can have both; that's what China was having up to now. But that strategy is limited because space is limited; you can't just have 1.3B people ->1.8B people -> 2.5B people ->4B people all in the same space even with more highrises. And you shouldn't need to do that either to grow healthily. A good developed country has plenty of space for everyone, high standard of living, and it still beats the pants off of poor countries where people have 6 kids because the need for physical labor is so high. It is this difference in standard of living that allows developed countries to brain-drain poor crowded countries and a reduction will help ameliorate this as well. You need to reach a good equilibrium where it's not too crowded, life is enjoyable, and the country grows based on growth of the education and abilities of the average citizen, not just having more citizens, which is actually a burden when they are low quality. High quality equilibrium will have everyone working on cruise mode but the country still progressing faster than ever. How? Because once the country has developed a world-class foundation and technological tools, it can move much faster on much less effort. America has been on cruise mode since probably WWII but until recently, its tech was still moving faster than even China, which put so much more effort because America had better tools for tech development. 1 accountant working with Microsoft Excel beats a whole team working with pencil and paper. China paid in blood and sweat to finally develop and refine those tools for ourselves and once we use them to sit on top of the world, Chinese people too will find a fast-moving equilibrium larger and faster than America without grinding our workers to death working 100 hour weeks. The is China's end game; it is not to keep having more babies and working them to death (9-9-6 just to keep a small apartment wondering why they don't have more babies) for growth.

Well now the diffusion of tools has produced a more or less even playing field for everyone except Japan and South Korea are still working extremely hard and getting less sleep despite 2-3x higher GDP per capita than China.

US is also not looking good as their physical tools - infrastructure - are getting old and difficult to replace and repair. EU has new infrastructure but just self owned with the sanctions.

 

[Petrolicious88]

When you become richer, you tend to birth fewer kids. That inverse relationship between child birth and disposable income. Outside of the US, women giving birth to 3 or more kids mostly reside in countries with income per capita of $1000 or less.

 

[Abominable]

Of course you can have both; that's what China was having up to now. But that strategy is limited because space is limited; you can't just have 1.3B people ->1.8B people -> 2.5B people ->4B people all in the same space even with more highrises. And you shouldn't need to do that either to grow healthily. A good developed country has plenty of space for everyone, high standard of living, and it still beats the pants off of poor countries where people have 6 kids because the need for physical labor is so high. It is this difference in standard of living that allows developed countries to brain-drain poor crowded countries and a reduction will help ameliorate this as well. You need to reach a good equilibrium where it's not too crowded, life is enjoyable, and the country grows based on growth of the education and abilities of the average citizen, not just having more citizens, which is actually a burden when they are low quality. High quality equilibrium will have everyone working on cruise mode but the country still progressing faster than ever. How? Because once the country has developed a world-class foundation and technological tools, it can move much faster on much less effort. America has been on cruise mode since probably WWII but until recently, its tech was still moving faster than even China, which put so much more effort because America had better tools for tech development. 1 accountant working with Microsoft Excel beats a whole team working with pencil and paper. China paid in blood and sweat to finally develop and refine those tools for ourselves and once we use them to sit on top of the world, Chinese people too will find a fast-moving equilibrium larger and faster than America without grinding our workers to death working 100 hour weeks. The is China's end game; it is not to keep having more babies and working them to death (9-9-6 just to keep a small apartment wondering why they don't have more babies) for growth.

Words like overpopulation and overcrowding are meaningless as we have not reached anywhere near the upper limit of world population. 200 years ago the world population was less than 1 billion and yet the average person today has a higher calorie intake than any other time in recorded human history.

It's also meaningless for a single country, as historically whenever a country grows and finds it doesn't have enough space, it expands.

Human population is never a burden unless perhaps if they aren't economically active. It doesn't matter if you are a brain surgeon or the guy flipping burgers at a fast food joint, both are filling a role in society that would be unfilled without them.

I've heard all these arguments before, and they all come from western thinking. To different degrees western democracies have recognised to that it is impossible to alter fertility rates without altering their "values" and are forced to settle on these unconvincing arguments, some of them are pure fantasy. Whether it is training everyone to be rocket scientists or engineers, population is a burden, transhumanism, artificial wombs, reversing aging, robot workers, and so on. All are a cope on the fact that western society that exists today has failed on the most primordial premise of population self sufficiency.

You brought up America yet look at how much America's population has grown since WW2, it's more than doubled. Instead of using higher birth rates they use mass immigration to continue growing.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Words like overpopulation and overcrowding are meaningless as we have not reached anywhere near the upper limit of world population. 200 years ago the world population was less than 1 billion and yet the average person today has a higher calorie intake than any other time in recorded human history.

It's also meaningless for a single country, as historically whenever a country grows and finds it doesn't have enough space, it expands.

Human population is never a burden unless perhaps if they aren't economically active. It doesn't matter if you are a brain surgeon or the guy flipping burgers at a fast food joint, both are filling a role in society that would be unfilled without them.

I've heard all these arguments before, and they all come from western thinking. To different degrees western democracies have recognised to that it is impossible to alter fertility rates without altering their "values" and are forced to settle on these unconvincing arguments, some of them are pure fantasy. Whether it is training everyone to be rocket scientists or engineers, population is a burden, transhumanism, artificial wombs, reversing aging, robot workers, and so on. All are a cope on the fact that western society that exists today has failed on the most primordial premise of population self sufficiency.

You brought up America yet look at how much America's population has grown since WW2, it's more than doubled. Instead of using higher birth rates they use mass immigration to continue growing.

Well US had the baby boom which vastly boosted their core ruling ethnicity population, as well as draining EU and Canada(when they were also growing) until the 70s. Then they moved on to draining growing non Anglos like China, Russia, South Korea and Mexico. When the immigration from there dried up, they moved on to the current phase: immigration from poorer countries like India, Philippines, Nigeria, El Salvador, etc.

Indians have already surpassed Chinese (with 100 more years of migration history) as the top Asian ethnicity in the US.

Whether their new experiment of taking immigrants from these countries will work is yet to be seen.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Words like overpopulation and overcrowding are meaningless as we have not reached anywhere near the upper limit of world population. 200 years ago the world population was less than 1 billion and yet the average person today has a higher calorie intake than any other time in recorded human history.

It's also meaningless for a single country, as historically whenever a country grows and finds it doesn't have enough space, it expands.

Human population is never a burden unless perhaps if they aren't economically active. It doesn't matter if you are a brain surgeon or the guy flipping burgers at a fast food joint, both are filling a role in society that would be unfilled without them.

I've heard all these arguments before, and they all come from western thinking. To different degrees western democracies have recognised to that it is impossible to alter fertility rates without altering their "values" and are forced to settle on these unconvincing arguments, some of them are pure fantasy. Whether it is training everyone to be rocket scientists or engineers, population is a burden, transhumanism, artificial wombs, reversing aging, robot workers, and so on. All are a cope on the fact that western society that exists today has failed on the most primordial premise of population self sufficiency.

You brought up America yet look at how much America's population has grown since WW2, it's more than doubled. Instead of using higher birth rates they use mass immigration to continue growing.

What I'm showing is a trend, a global one, that successful countries that are leaders in tech don't have explosive populations. It's also fact that 1. Chinese cities are crowded to a point where people are shoved into subways, car purchases are done by lottery, and whether you can drive today depends on the last digit of your license plate. Housing cost in China are prohibitively expensive. These all point to China being overcrowded. Who wants kids when you work 9-9-6 on top of a 90 minute each way commute to barely afford a 1 bedroom apartment? This is why the birth rate is low. It won't be high again until people work 40 hours a week, have a brisk drive to work, and can easily afford a large living situation doing that, which requires a very strong scientific/technological foundation to remain fast in growth and a reduced population density. The more crowded, expensive and stressful it becomes, the less kids people want to have and the more people want to emigrate to an easier situation which will cause brain drain.

What you have written is out of touch with reality; it is simply saying that since everything is still working, let's keep packing in more people and see what happens because more is better. When it explodes and shit starts to break down from overcrowding and life stress competing for less and less space and resource per capita, then we'll know that's about all we can take. In the meantime, let's convince people who can barely juggle their own lives to have more kids.

 

[Abominable]

What I'm showing is a trend, a global one, that successful countries that are leaders in tech don't have explosive populations.

It may be true today but that's because most successful countries are western ones. I'd argue the reason they are successful isn't because of anything they are doing today, but what they did in the past.

It's also fact that 1. Chinese cities are crowded to a point where people are shoved into subways, car purchases are done by lottery, and whether you can drive today depends on the last digit of your license plate. Housing cost in China are probibitively expensive.

A valid point, housing in China is expensive. But it has little to do with overpopulation rather the result of real estate speculation and is a global problem.

As a counter argument, there are lots of countries that have seen a decline in population over the last few decades, like Russia and eastern European countries. Nearly all have the exact same problem with housing affordability. Prices aren't getting cheaper despite the shrinking population.

These all point to China being overcrowded. Who wants kids when you work 9-9-6 on top of a 90 minute commute to barely afford a 2 bedroom apartment? This is why the birth rate is low. It won't be high again until people work 40 hours a week, have a brisk drive to work, and can easily afford a large living situation doing that, which requires a very strong scientific/technological foundation to remain fast in growth and a reduced population density. The more crowded, expensive and stressful it becomes, the less kids people want to have and the more people want to emigrate to an easier situation which will cause brain drain.
What you have written is out of touch with reality; it is simply saying that since everything is still working, let's keep packing in more people and see what happens because more is better. When it explodes and shit starts to break down from overcrowding and life stress competing for less and less space and resource per capita, then we'll know that's about all we can take. In the meantime, let's convince people who can barely juggle their own lives to have more kids.

It may seem counterintuitive, but having more children will mitigate many of these problems. A younger population translates to a more productive workforce which lowers the burden on individuals.

If what you were saying is true, Japan would be doing great. Instead Japanese people are all jumping off buildings because they have to work too hard.

 

[xypher]

This doom & gloom about the Chinese demographics is overhyped:
1. further mechanization of agriculture will shed a lot of workplaces;
2. as China moves up the value chains, the labor-intensive industries will inevitably move to cheaper countries - this is already happenning in apparel, while services don't need as much labor force;
3. advanced high-tech industries are also about quality, not quantity;
4. China is #1 at adoption of industrial robots - while full-scale automation is far away, all those industrial robots reduce the need for human labor.

Another indicator - youth unemployment - shows that China actually produces more skilled workers than it can consume.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This doom & gloom about the Chinese demographics is overhyped:
1. further mechanization of agriculture will shed a lot of workplaces;
2. as China moves up the value chains, the labor-intensive industries will inevitably move to cheaper countries - this is already happenning in apparel, while services don't need as much labor force;
3. advanced high-tech industries are also about quality, not quantity;
4. China is #1 at adoption of industrial robots - while full-scale automation is far away, all those industrial robots reduce the need for human labor.

Another indicator - youth unemployment - shows that China actually produces more skilled workers than it can consume.

Good points but doesn't EU and Russia also have high youth unemployment despite aging population?

 

[manqiangrexue]

It may be true today but that's because most successful countries are western ones. I'd argue the reason they are successful isn't because of anything they are doing today, but what they did in the past.

There are no countries that are high tech, high income, high population density, high birthrate. It doesn't add up.

A valid point, housing in China is expensive. But it has little to do with overpopulation rather the result of real estate speculation and is a global problem.

Little to do with overpopulation??? Housing is a market; it's high because too many people need to buy apartments. And just building more isn't going to work because traffic is unbearable. Try commuting in Beijing and then say they need more people, more places to become like this.

As a counter argument, there are lots of countries that have seen a decline in population over the last few decades, like Russia and eastern European countries. Nearly all have the exact same problem with housing affordability. Prices aren't getting cheaper despite the shrinking population.

Yes, it doesn't mean to emulate poor practice; you can always find people doing worse than you for basically no reason.

It may seem counterintuitive, but having more children will mitigate many of these problems. A younger population translates to a more productive workforce which lowers the burden on individuals.

China's youth unemployment already shows more workers than spots. More people will not make traffic better. More people will not make housing more affordable. More people will not make the city more pleasant to live in and that will cause brain drain.

If what you were saying is true, Japan would be doing great. Instead Japanese people are all jumping off buildings because they have to work too hard.

I was hoping someone would bring up Japan. Japan was doing well but then... as Henry Kissenger said, to be America's enemy is dangerous but to be its friend is fatal. Japan never recovered from what America did to it, and also, Japan is crowded as hell; how is that an example you want to bring up? Life stress is through the roof in Japan because too many people, too little food and housing. Japan would be much more confortable with far less people.

 

[xypher]

Good points but doesn't EU and Russia also have high youth unemployment despite aging population?

Yeah, I checked and Europe seems to have rather high youth unemployment too, especially those declining southern states like Italy, Spain, etc. -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- so that fuss in Western media about "high" youth unemployment in China is even more baffling. However, I think these two cases are different in terms of potential meaning - graduation rates in European countries should be relatively stagnant when we exclude the foreign students, so if job creation is lagging behind, then it means that their economies are also stagnant or on decline. This is not the case for China with rapidly growing education levels.