China demographics thread.


ILikeChina

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know that it was 11.79m, because I've been following Chinese demographics for a few years. More important question is, why Chinese official births were at 14.65m?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

foofy

Junior Member
Registered Member
2019 only 11.79 millions registered to local police

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

而根据公安部发布的《二〇一九年全国姓名报告》,截至2019年12月31日,2019年出生并已经到公安机关进行户籍登记的新生儿共1179万,同口径下,2020年比2019年减少了175.5万人,下降幅度约为14.9%。
i already said, not all babies registered to the local authority。 This MISSING babies will show up in the coming census.
 

foofy

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know that it was 11.79m, because I've been following Chinese demographics for a few years. More important question is, why Chinese official births were at 14.65m?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
14.65m is from National Bureau of Statistics, 11.79m is from local police. Apparently not all babies registered to the local police.
 

foofy

Junior Member
Registered Member
One expert said, only 80% of new born babies registered to the local authority. Please remember 2020 was the year of Covid.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


一名不愿具名的人口问题研究专家告诉南都记者,目前年度户籍登记及时率不断提高,目前达到80%。若根据这一数据初步计算,2020年的出生人口约总共为1254万人,较上一年度(2019年)少生大约200万人。
 

ILikeChina

Junior Member
Registered Member
20% not registered (2019 data and 2019 was not a year of COVID) after the introduction of the two-child policy? Why would they not register? :p

They will show up the same way as fictional demographics stats for these last ten years. Why census TFR was for the last decade at levels between 1.0 to up to 1.3 while the Ministry of Family planning was saying it was some years even 1.7 (lmao)?

When the ministry of Family planning was disbanded a few years ago I have reason to believe some guys were sent to NBS from there because the same erroneous stats were given to the public now as before the Ministry of family planning published.
 

foofy

Junior Member
Registered Member
20% not registered (2019 data and 2019 was not a year of COVID) after the introduction of the two-child policy? Why would they not register? :p

They will show up the same way as fictional demographics stats for these last ten years. Why census TFR was for the last decade at levels between 1.0 to up to 1.3 while the Ministry of Family planning was saying it was some years even 1.7 (lmao)?

When the ministry of Family planning was disbanded a few years ago I have reason to believe some guys were sent to NBS from there because the same erroneous stats were given to the public now as before the Ministry of family planning published.
they took time to name the baby, they forgot, they didn't know, they didn't bother, they avoided penalty (third child etc.), or the combination of the above.
 

ILikeChina

Junior Member
Registered Member
i already said, not all babies registered to the local authority。 This MISSING babies will show up in the coming census.
Wish this is true. I just hope 10m babies are not the number of babies born in 2020 because it would mean TFR went probably below 1.0. With also the gender imbalance (more boys than girls if I remember correctly about 52 to 47 for 2020) it would mean only a tragedy for the future.
 

HybridHypothesis

Junior Member
Registered Member
No surprise that the large cities act like giant IQ shredders that destroy birth and marriage rates. Urbanization will have to be reduced, since it is the very lifestyle of the city itself that discourages family formation.

More discussion here.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In order to discuss this implicit catastrophe, it’s first necessary to talk about cities, which is a conversation that has already begun. To state the problem crudely, but with confidence: Cities are population sinks. Historian William McNeil explains the basics. Urbanization, from its origins, has tended relentlessly to convert children from productive assets into objects of luxury consumption. All of the archaic economic incentives related to fertility are inverted.

Education expenses alone explain much of this. School fees are by far the most effective contraceptive technology ever conceived. To raise a child in an urban environment is like nothing that rural precedent ever prepared for. Even if responsible parenting were the sole motivation in play, the compressive effect on family size would be extreme. Under urban circumstances, it becomes almost an aggression against one’s own children for there to be many of them. But there is much more than this going on.

Given how much emphasis East Asian culture places on education, it is no wonder that birth rates are falling faster there than in the West.
 

lcompocida

Junior Member
Registered Member
I liked this post by u/Cal_Ibre on China's demographics:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Under the two child policy, a smaller percentage still are.
Unregistered people, called heihaizi (black children) in China do not appear in hospital birth registries, household registries, or the census. Your article claims:
The 2000 census showed that only 14.08 million were born in 2000, but the statistics bureau revised it to 17.71 million. However, there were only 14.26 million secondary students in 2014, and 13.57 million people aged 15 in the 2015 micro-census.
17.71 million is 26% higher than 14.08.
There is no conspiracy by the bureau of statistics to fabricate the population. Every year, births are adjusted to account for unregistered persons, and every year this adjustment follows foreign estimates of the number of unregistered births.
China is aging faster than almost any industrialized country
That's not what your articles say. They say China is aging faster than other industrialized countries did when they were developing.
According to the UN, it will take China just 20 years for the proportion of the elderly population to double from 10% to 20% (between 2017-2037). The next closest is Japan where it took 23 years. By comparison, it took 61 years in Germany and 64 years in Sweden. China’s dependency ratio for retirees -- those aged 65 or older divided by total working population -- as at 2015 was 14%. The UN estimates this could rise as high as 44% by 2050 with the number of those over 65 rising from approximately 100 million in 2005 to approximately 330 million in 2050, roughly the population of the United States and twice the current population of Russia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/jsbezw/_/gbzs5u8
 

Top