China demographics thread.
- Thread starter gadgetcool5
- Start date
I wouldn't dismiss it completely. It's probably some zealous party official who took Xi's speech to heart.
That sort of strategy is unlikely to work and on a national scale, and will probably lead to less people getting married.
The simplest option would be a cash payment for having a child.
That sort of strategy is unlikely to work and on a national scale, and will probably lead to less people getting married.
The simplest option would be a cash payment for having a child.
I have read an article from my favorite Zhihu writer, Persistent Low Entropy, that describe a scheme as follows.
Every year, a fund will be established. The fund will grow by indexing it to the growth of GDP. 25-30 years later, the fund will pay a yearly payment to the parents of kids that are born at the year the fund is established, provided that the kid who is now 25 or 30 years old, is still a Chinese citizen working in China.
The good attributes of this scheme are
1. It encourage those that are lay flat tribes to have kids as a means to secure their retirement.
2. Once they have kids, now their fortunes are tied to the growth of China and it encourage them to be more actively involved.
3. It controls indirectly the number of kids born each year, if a lot of people want to have kids, the payout will be less. If no one wanted to have kids, the payout will be huge.
4. It encourages the kids to stay in China. It is now in the interest of the parents to encourage the kids to stay in China.
Every year, a fund will be established. The fund will grow by indexing it to the growth of GDP. 25-30 years later, the fund will pay a yearly payment to the parents of kids that are born at the year the fund is established, provided that the kid who is now 25 or 30 years old, is still a Chinese citizen working in China.
The good attributes of this scheme are
1. It encourage those that are lay flat tribes to have kids as a means to secure their retirement.
2. Once they have kids, now their fortunes are tied to the growth of China and it encourage them to be more actively involved.
3. It controls indirectly the number of kids born each year, if a lot of people want to have kids, the payout will be less. If no one wanted to have kids, the payout will be huge.
4. It encourages the kids to stay in China. It is now in the interest of the parents to encourage the kids to stay in China.
I like the idea. Generally speaking, people do not have kids or get married in the modern day because they are seen as a net expense, and not a net investment, as they were in days of old. To return people to having kids and getting married again requires reshaping society's perceptions.
The issue should be attacked from multiple angles:
The issue should be attacked from multiple angles:
- First, there should be short-term benefits to having a kid. This is to discourage short-term thinking ("I don't want my quality of life to drop!"). The costs of having children should be subsidized (ie monthly stipends for child care until school, subsidized school & college costs, free health care for children) and all penalties eliminated (ie women should not be penalized in employment for pregnancy).
- Second, there should be long-term benefits to having a kid, particularly with respect to retirement. The GDP adjusted compensation mentioned above is a great idea and should be maximized at three kids, so as to avoid families that are too big (ie "welfare" families). But what I'd add is that it should be income adjusted, as well, because you want to encourage highly skilled, middle class couples to have more children, and you can't do that unless you can match their lost income.
- Both of the above can be achieved via house hold life time tax reductions rather than direct grants. This is probably the better path as it would encourage marriage and employment, instead of free loading and welfare. There should be an option to take direct grants if you actually have no income, but it would be at a flat rate that just covers cost of living.
An important project for the support of the elderly and also the poor. Important for decreasing the pressure on the diminishing number of working age people.
I am almost tempted to send this to AdamSomething for analysis, given that he usually does good urban planning takes, except for his blatant russophobia.
AzovSomething is a hard right racist so he'd probably be 'but what about muh oogirs"
That's the problem, he has some good takes when talking about urbanisation, but he really should have stayed out of geopolitics. For his sake.
One a side note, I really wanna know how many ways there are how westerners spell and pronounce Uyghurs.
Last edited:
"Ate her dog" haha. Cause you know, Chinese people eat dogs.
Next up Western media will be saying we gas jews too