China demographics thread.

[tokenanalyst]

So Japan and South Korea thought - both invested heavily in robotics and automation in order to "beat the demographics cliff." Yet, as their demographics collapsed, their economies stagnated. Turns out, demographic collapse affects every aspect of society - not just manual labor; and in fact, it affects the highly educated, STEM demographics much more so since educated women are even less likely to reproduce.

OMG. just crossing and the first thing I found i this post.

Japan produce two times what India produce with eleven times less population and much better paid population.
South Korea produce almost as much as India produce with twenty seven times less population, apart from being a semiconductor juggernaut capturing 30% of the semiconductor global market, the most advance industry in human history, the closer thing to alien technology that we ever see.

How do you think this two nations that despite having demographic "problems", despite having to deal with cheaper labor prices from others countries have managed to maintain their economic positions?

A: Heavy investment in automation.

 

[Serb]

China was able to turn it around because it got led by a ML (marxist-leninst), that not only could rather competently plan (and also adjust plans on the fly), but also execute those plans (not to mention also quite science based).

India currently does NOT have that ability (might lay plans, but really not able to fulfil them lol), and won't have it until it gets BIG structural changes/reforms, which really aren't coming lol (in fact, civil war or break up like USSR is way more likely lol).
No, it's not gonna happen under Modi (while Hindu believer might be a majority, but there's still like 20%+ of other believers, not to mention, Hindu religion is actually a somewhat recent construct under british rule that combined a lot of smaller religions. Just look at current day Christian/Muslim/Jewish religions and their internal fighting and do people really think that Hindu can avoid that lol?).

Not to mention the various areas in India that wants to break away, along with coming challenges of climate change + current/future manifacturing (heavily automated, won't need as much low-skilled/low-educated manual labor) etc.

There are 40% of speakers of Hindi, so they can't even understand each other often and have to use translators for basic administrative, legal, and education, matters, etc. This is not only a matter of national unity, but a huge burden in terms of resources and wasted time.

For them to even have a slim hope of catching up to China, they need to become some kind of efficient autocracy like China and use state-directed capitalism, but let's try to switch from inefficient democracy now, and you have a civil war due to various ethnic groups.

Basically, everyone should've seen China's rise as coming miles away, as throughout the majority of human recorded history, it was just that was the most developed/powerful (years in total, with ups and down of course, but again this proves resilience) empire in all aspects, in the world,

Whereas India was not even a unified empire until the British arrived, it is more like a geographical entity of many different smaller empires (looking historically, for their entire history). China has a track record of 5000 years lol. Not just of continuous unity, but power too.

I see literally 0.0001% of "logic" why would anyone think that India could also rise, just because it is near China on a map (Or why else, lol)?

 

[Eventine]

I'm arriving at conclusions based on available evidence. When you show me how the Indian gap with China started narrowing, as opposed to widening (even though China already picked most of the low-hanging fruit, whereas India isn't), I'm happy to change my opinion. You are just speaking about what could happen, not what is happening.

Also when China consolidated for the first time, it started growing much faster relatively than India was growing during similar periods during their developmental cycle.

In 1960, China and India had a $90 GDP per capita. Fast forward to 2022, China had $12,720, whereas India had $2,411 and the gap is widening.

What you argue this time is, I suppose, that India still didn't "figure their shit out" as China did some time after the civil war ended, but I see no actual evidence for that.

Where is your evidence that India figured, or is about to figure their shit out? Under Modi, the GDP per capita of 10 years behind China fell to 16 years behind China (also despite much sharper population growth, which was your first argument). India is not getting more unified as a nation, on all levels, they are not changing their horrible political system, their manufacturing and export global shares stagnate, etc.

China's GDP per capita took off really as a consequence of the adoption of the export-led development strategy made famous by Germany, Japan, and South Korea. You can even see this in a time line graph as China and India stayed roughly similar in GDP per capita until the 1970s when Deng Xiaoping enacted capital reforms and his successors made China the "factory of the world."

India failed to make those reforms, both because Indian governments at the time were not entirely convinced that it was the way to go, and because of entrenched interests in India being much harder to fight. After all, the CCP had crushed private interests and nationalized all the land. India never did.

But my argument is not that India will suddenly make these reforms and fly off the wall; but that its own development strategy, though much slower than China's, could eventually make it competitive; while China's strategy, which follows the same basic principles as Germany's, Japan's, and South Korea's, will most likely run into the same demographic wall that stopped those countries from simply exponentially increasing their GDP until they've taken over the world.

Projecting from current development rates and believing this gap will keep widening just isn't rational. If we did that with countries like Japan or South Korea, they should've become bigger economies than the US by now.

There is such a thing as diminishing returns in per capita productivity - and like other East Asian economies, China will reach them. India, by contrast, still has a long run way due to its demographics.

 

[azn_cyniq]

But look at the difference 75 years makes? That's barely three generations. If China could turn it around in three generations, who are you to say that no other country can? After all, China remained a basket case far longer than Japan did - Japan in the early 20th century was already an industrial power house and it had <1/10th the population, territory, and resources of Qing China. Countries develop at different speeds and with different strategies; just because India failed to take advantage of the same opportunities China did, does not mean it won't eventually get there - after all, the same exact argument of "we did it, why couldn't they despite having more resources? must be because they're racially inferior" was made by Japan towards China and was what they used to justify their invasion & occupation of Chinese territory.

You're not wrong. It's easy for Chinese people to hate Indians because they are so different from us. China does not get along with Japan or South Korea either but it's much harder for us to hate Japanese and South Korean people because they are similar to us. I personally know many Chinese-Korean and Chinese-Japanese couples but I don't know a single Chinese-Indian couple.

In my opinion, the best solution for Chinese and Indian people is to ignore each other for the time being. In my opinion, there is no hope for Chinese-Indian relations in my lifetime. Instead of arguing, it is better for us to save our energy for better things.

 

[Serb]

China's GDP per capita took off really as a consequence of the adoption of the export-led development strategy made famous by Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

That is not "made famous" by them, but it is the most logical strategy used throughout the entire human history. Ancient China did that lol.

You can even see this in a time line graph as China and India stayed roughly similar in GDP per capita until the 1970s when Deng Xiaoping enacted capital reforms and his successors made China the "factory of the world."

Yeah, I know that. But Mao made all the right fundamental building blocks before that. Without him, none of that would have happened.

India failed to make those reforms, both because Indian governments at the time were not entirely convinced that it was the way to go, and because of entrenched interests in India being much harder to fight. After all, the CCP had crushed private interests and nationalized all the land. India never did.

India did 99% of the market reforms that Deng introduced over time.

What sets them apart is not those reforms, but the political system structure itself and the innate quality of the population.

Regarding natural resources, India had it better than China, so no worries there.

But my argument is not that India will suddenly make these reforms and fly off the wall; but that its own development strategy, though much slower than China's, could eventually make it competitive; while China's strategy, which follows the same basic principles as Germany's, Japan's, and South Korea's, will most likely run into the same demographic wall that stopped those countries from simply exponentially increasing their GDP until they've taken over the world.

Yeah, judging by the current data, if the Indian population increased by around 20 times, they could catch up? Are you trolling? Do you even read what is being presented to you or just repeating the same bullshit over and over again?

There is such a thing as diminishing returns in per capita productivity - and like other East Asian economies, China will reach them. India, by contrast, still has a long run way due to its demographics.

By the time China reaches those limits, India would need perhaps 20 billion people in order to be on par with China. That's how wide the gap in individual citizen productivity would have become objectively.

China currently has 5-6 times more productivity per capita higher than India, and if we follow SK, Japan, and Taiwan, current metrics, that number will eventually go into 10-20 times more category.

As for how I know that I know that because China follows the same or higher rates of GFCF, urbanization, tertiary gross enrollment ratio, focus on STEM, and rise in technological innovation, as those 3 countries did during similar growth development stages, and has the similar PISA scores and IQ scores. I can almost certainly guarantee you that number.

 

[AndrewS]

But my argument is not that India will suddenly make these reforms and fly off the wall; but that its own development strategy, though much slower than China's, could eventually make it competitive; while China's strategy, which follows the same basic principles as Germany's, Japan's, and South Korea's, will most likely run into the same demographic wall that stopped those countries from simply exponentially increasing their GDP until they've taken over the world.

Projecting from current development rates and believing this gap will keep widening just isn't rational. If we did that with countries like Japan or South Korea, they should've become bigger economies than the US by now.

There is such a thing as diminishing returns in per capita productivity - and like other East Asian economies, China will reach them. India, by contrast, still has a long run way due to its demographics.

It simply isn't realistic for Germany, Japan or South Korea to exponentially increase their GDP to "take over the world" as you call it.

Their populations are significantly smaller than the US for example

And it isn't realistic for any country to retain a significantly higher technology/productivity advantage, because technology and best working practices spread pretty easily these days.

---
I would lump India in the same category as Brazil as there are so many similarities.

Brazil once has a period of fast economic growth, so now there are pockets of excellence.
But overall, Brazil is stuck in the middle-income trap.

 

[Eventine]

India's GDP PPP is 1/3rd of China's right now with the same population. The gap is hardly going to be 10-20 times. China's rate of development is not going to accelerate. It's about 10-15 years out from South Korea, if I had to guess, based on demographics, productivity levels, and GDP per capita PPP. Again, if you believe China will converge towards Japan and South Korea, then Japan's long stagnation and South Korea's coming stagnation should tell you all you need to know about China's trajectory. India does not need to accelerate its development to catch up to China, nor does it need to catch up completely to be much stronger in relation to China than it is today.

An India that's just 50% of China's GDP would be much more of a threat than it is today, especially with a higher population. I think a miracle in technology or policy would need to happen to prevent India from reaching that target in ~15-20 years.

 

[Serb]

India's GDP PPP is 1/3rd of China's right now with the same population. The gap is hardly going to be 10-20 times. China's rate of development is not going to accelerate. It's about 10-15 years out from South Korea, if I had to guess, based on demographics, productivity levels, and GDP per capita PPP. Again, if you believe China will converge towards Japan and South Korea, then Japan's long stagnation and South Korea's coming stagnation should tell you all you need to know about China's trajectory. India does not need to accelerate its development to catch up to China, nor does it need to catch up completely to be much more powerful vis-a-vis China than it is today.

GDP PPP doesn't correlate well when comparing India and China (idk why). Nominal GDP actually correlates way better here (5-6 multiplier).

As it matches quite well with also 5-6 times higher manufacturing global share, exports and exports share, and electricity generation, figures that I already posted.

Stop cherry-picking data dude, stop being biased, and look at everything comprehensively to see what makes the most sense.

Use your brain dude, if Japan has 10 times less population than India "is on par with them in total", what about China is 10X that?

Chinese full potential with just this current existing population is way out of Indian reach, even in present-day standards of 5-6 productivity,

Not to mention when in the future they go from blue-collar to tertiary-educated, STEM-dominated workforce powerhouse, that is fully urbanized as Japan and SK.

 

[Eventine]

In nominal terms, Japan's economy was ten times the size of China's in 1990. It was adding half a China every year back then. Its labor productivity, manufacturing output value, electricity generation, etc. were all much higher than China's.

So what happened? Did Japan keep accelerating its economy, did it keep widening the gap?

No, of course not. In 2010, just two decades later, China's economy overtook Japan's.

It doesn't matter how ahead you are now. Countries catch up, at times quickly, at times not so quickly. But they do, because economies hit diminishing returns once they reach the technological frontier. If they didn't, Europeans would've left everyone in the dust by now and be on their way to galactic hegemony.

Demographics is important because technology can only get you so far. As the person above said, Japan and South Korea could never have been expected to over take the US, because they just didn't have the population size.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

India's GDP PPP is 1/3rd of China's right now with the same population. The gap is hardly going to be 10-20 times. China's rate of development is not going to accelerate. It's about 10-15 years out from South Korea, if I had to guess, based on demographics, productivity levels, and GDP per capita PPP. Again, if you believe China will converge towards Japan and South Korea, then Japan's long stagnation and South Korea's coming stagnation should tell you all you need to know about China's trajectory. India does not need to accelerate its development to catch up to China, nor does it need to catch up completely to be much stronger in relation to China than it is today.

An India that's just 50% of China's GDP would be much more of a threat than it is today, especially with a higher population. I think a miracle in technology or policy would need to happen to prevent India from reaching that target in ~15-20 years.

India's economy has zero chance of going anywhere without land reform. And land reform in India is political suicide. The longer India postpones land reform, the shorter their window of opportunity becomes. And unless major political changes occur in India, land reform just isn't going to happen.

So what happened? Did Japan keep accelerating its economy, did it keep widening the gap?

No, of course not. In 2010, just two decades later, China's economy overtook Japan's.

Japan's economy was crippled by Plaza Accords at a time when South Korea was rising to compete with them in many of their core industries.