Fuck 'em! :nelson:
QuoteChina's Self-Inflicted Demographic Disaster Is Here
Thursday, China's Communist Party announced its decision to allow all couples to have two children. The move is a relaxation of the notorious one-child policy, which was rolled out beginning in 1979. The liberalization is subject to approval from China's rubber-stamp legislature, the National People's Congress.
Many hailed this change as a step in the right direction. "Thumbs up," wrote Le Yun of Guangdong University of Technology on his microblog. Yes, but thumbs down for announcing a change both too little and too late. And thumbs down for not changing the most intrusive aspects of the draconian program.
First, a little background. The liberalization of the one-child policy had been expected—and virtually inevitable. China, after all, is heading toward accelerated demographic decline. The country's population is now projected to peak in 2028, well before the 2030–2035 timeframe expected just a half decade ago. In all probability, the top will be reached earlier, maybe in 2020.
For the first time in at least three centuries—and maybe all recorded history—China will not be the world's most populous nation. India overtakes it by 2022 at the latest, according to the U.N.'s most recent population projections, which were released late July.
The workforce—those aged 15 to 59—has already begun to decline. The peak year was 2011, according to Beijing's official National Bureau of Statistics. There is concern that China will not be able to support its growing ranks of retirees—set to double to 20 percent of the population in 2035—because the pool of workers is contracting by three million a year. As Charles Goodhart of the London School of Economics noted about the one-child policy, "They kept it going 15 years too long, disastrously."
So the decline in the workforce concerns economists as well as demographers. It is no coincidence that the adoption of a two-child policy was announced at the end of a four-day economic planning meeting, the Party's Fifth Plenum. But the reform will have little beneficial effect on the economy. People conceived today will not enter the workforce for sixteen years. Until then, newborns will only worsen the country's dependency ratio, the ratio of the old and young not in the workforce to the entire population.
And it is not clear how many Chinese will want more children. About 12 percent of eligible couples took advantage of the last liberalization, announced at the end of 2013, which added to the category of those who could have a second child. As a result, the country did not meet its goal of 20 million births last year. Only 16.9 million were in fact born. For decades, family-planning propaganda has convinced the Chinese to keep their families small, and fertility, now about 1.4 children per adult female, is far below the replacement rate of 2.1. Once low fertility is baked into a society, it can take generations to raise.
China's economy benefited from its population bulge—the "demographic dividend"—during the so-called reform era beginning at the end of 1978, but now growth will be constrained by a shrinking workforce.
And, apart from economic implications, the one-child policy has scarred society for generations, creating some of the most abnormal demographic patterns the world has ever seen in the absence of war, pestilence or famine. The scarcity of siblings, for instance, has led to the almost complete disappearance of aunts, uncles and cousins in younger generations.
The policy has also contributed to the scarcity of women. Parents, knowing that they were permitted only one child, sometimes aborted females or had them killed at birth. As a result, China had 33.8 million more males than females at the end of last year according to government sources. Some think the number of males may have been 20 million higher.
The situation is so bad that this month an economics professor, Xie Zuoshi of Zhejiang University, triggered a firestorm in China with his suggestion that multiple men be allowed to marry the same female.
The scarcity of women—activists rightly call this the result of decades-long gendercide—has led to worsening social maladies, such as increased prostitution and elevated HIV infection rates. Perhaps the most heartbreaking consequence is the persistent trafficking of women. Gangs have been abducting females in Russia, Mongolia, North Korea, Burma and Vietnam and smuggling them into China, where they are sold and resold to men in the "bachelor villages."
Some, such as Adam Minter writing on the Bloomberg site, argue the extreme gender imbalance is not the result of the one-child policy. He makes interesting points but ultimately is unpersuasive, especially because the ratio became unbalanced during the decades-long enforcement of the policy. In the late 1970s, China's sex ratio at birth was about 106 to 100, at the outer boundary of normal ratios.
Last year, China had a ratio at birth of 115.9 boys for every 100 girls according to Beijing, and that ratio, as bad as it was, looked better than those of prior years. "Our country has the most serious gender imbalance that is most prolonged and affecting the most number of people," the National Health and Family Planning Commission stated in January.
Whatever the cause of the excess of males, Beijing should not just tinker with its population rules. As Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, states, it should abolish population controls altogether. "Instituting a two-child policy will not end forced abortion, gendercide, or family planning regulations in China," she stated hours after the Communist Party issued its communiqué announcing the change. Other "remedial measures" (an official term) will continue, including forced sterilizations.
Moreover, Thursday's policy change will not relieve couples of the obligation of having to obtain a government permit for both the first and the second child. And of course, single women will still not be allowed to bear children.
There is a broader issue at stake as well. It doesn't really matter whether Beijing allows one or two children. The "core" of the policy, Littlejohn notes, is the "fact that the government is setting a limit on children, and enforcing this limit coercively." The coercion, therefore, is the evil in this policy.
Chinese leaders either knew or had to have known what was being done by officials over the course of decades to enforce the "policy." So instead of cheering this "liberalization," it is time the international community held the members of the Party's Politburo Standing Committee accountable.
We already have a thread. Too slow, Tim. Too slow.
Quote from: Syt on November 02, 2015, 08:16:49 AM
We already have a thread. Too slow, Tim. Too slow.
Nope, that article and thread was strictly about the change in policy. This one is about how Chinese society and economy are utterly fucked due to their short sighted decisions.
I demand mono does his bit. His child rearing tales shall be epic
Mono is not the type to get carried away sacrificing out of patriotic zeal.
Mono/ Went to purchase some baby food. Was shocked at the mark up a store was charging compared to the street vender two lanes over. Had a similar looking label so I bought from the street vendor. I am not going to pay more for a slightly better looking label. /Mono
Is there any reason we should pay a lot of attention to an op-ed ripped off without attribution from a leading neo-conservative rag? http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-self-inflicted-demographic-disaster-here-14216 (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-self-inflicted-demographic-disaster-here-14216) I think that you can readily blame the one-child policy for the gender imbalance (which was easily predictable but which the CCP leadership somehow failed to account for), but not the aging demographic. That's happened everywhere that has undergone the industrial revolution at about the same rate as China is experiencing. In South Korea, it is far worse, and South Korea had no one-child policy.
Like everyone else, China will have to increase labor productivity to enhance the ability to support more retirees per worker. Like everyone else, they seem poised to do so.
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2015, 11:38:53 AM
I demand mono does his bit. His child rearing tales shall be epic
Well, if languish pays me US$10 million upfront to compensate me for the costs of buying a bigger flat, psychological damage resulting from daily fights with the wife on whether she should continue working, loss of anime watching and computer gaming time, plus all the direct costs incurred, I will be happy to raise a child :contract:
I'll mail you a kid. American or half French is your options.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2015, 09:49:36 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2015, 11:38:53 AM
I demand mono does his bit. His child rearing tales shall be epic
Well, if languish pays me US$10 million upfront to compensate me for the costs of buying a bigger flat, psychological damage resulting from daily fights with the wife on whether she should continue working, loss of anime watching and computer gaming time, plus all the direct costs incurred, I will be happy to raise a child :contract:
Why would Languish spend so much money to save China from collapse? :hmm:
You should be sending your bill to Beijing.
This article is 'American nationalists cheering on the collapse of China part XXIV' anyway. Tim was just getting into the spirit of the piece.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2015, 09:55:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2015, 09:49:36 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 02, 2015, 11:38:53 AM
I demand mono does his bit. His child rearing tales shall be epic
Well, if languish pays me US$10 million upfront to compensate me for the costs of buying a bigger flat, psychological damage resulting from daily fights with the wife on whether she should continue working, loss of anime watching and computer gaming time, plus all the direct costs incurred, I will be happy to raise a child :contract:
Why would Languish spend so much money to save China from collapse? :hmm:
You should be sending your bill to Beijing.
You want your tales, you pay for it :contract:
Hong Kong's birthrate is a lot worse than China's, even without the One Child Policy. Our birthrate is probably one of the lowests in the world, lower than Germany's and Japan's.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2015, 10:04:06 PM
You want your tales, you pay for it :contract:
You want your higher population, *you* pay for it :contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2015, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 02, 2015, 10:04:06 PM
You want your tales, you pay for it :contract:
You want your higher population, *you* pay for it :contract:
That's not how it works. Individual actions have no impact on the group outcome. I want a bigger population, somebody else pay for it :contract:
:huh:
If you paid me $10 million, I would sire a child myself.
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2015, 05:45:25 PM
If you paid me $10 million, I would sire a child myself.
That would be one lucky child
Oh wait just to sire it? How much more would I have to pay for you to raise it?
If I were still single, I'd sire as many kids as you like, as long as you took financial responsibility for them and I got to pick the mothers.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 06:24:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2015, 05:45:25 PM
If you paid me $10 million, I would sire a child myself.
That would be one lucky child
Oh wait just to sire it? How much more would I have to pay for you to raise it?
With 10 mil, I think I could afford to send it off to boarding school. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 06:24:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2015, 05:45:25 PM
If you paid me $10 million, I would sire a child myself.
That would be one lucky child
Oh wait just to sire it? How much more would I have to pay for you to raise it?
With 10 mil, I think I could afford to send it off to boarding school. :cool:
That isn't the deal :angry:
I wanted somebody for Marty to pass his knowledge of analogies to.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 08:22:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2015, 06:24:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2015, 05:45:25 PM
If you paid me $10 million, I would sire a child myself.
That would be one lucky child
Oh wait just to sire it? How much more would I have to pay for you to raise it?
With 10 mil, I think I could afford to send it off to boarding school. :cool:
That isn't the deal :angry:
I wanted somebody for Marty to pass his knowledge of analogies to.
:lmfao:
Let's look at some facts.
Per the CIA Factbook, the PRC birth rate is 12.49 per 1000. Which is exactly tied with the US, and just ahead of France and the UK. In comparison, Taiwan - which has some cultural and geographical similarities, but does not have a coercive population control policy -- is at 8.47. In terms of children/woman, it is 1.6 in the PRC, as compared to 1.12 in Taiwan.
Some speculations/proposed interpretations:
+ Although the PRC population control policy is a horrific policy, it's not clear at least at this point that is a the key influencer, or even a significant one, on the rate of births and population growth.
+ PRC demographics suggest future challenges, but not insurmountable ones.
+ Recent economic data in the PRC - slowing top line growth rates, slowing investment rates, high wage growth, movement of cheap labor production to Vietnam/Burma/etch., - all are suggestive of a transition to higher productivity production and ultimately a higher consumption/investment mix.
+ Such transitions can be very tricky and it is still very early stage at the PRC. So it could fail or go massively wrong.
+ OTOH PRC has handled other tricky economic transitions remarkably effectively since 1979 so I would hesitate to pronounce doom and gloom.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
Let's look at some facts.
Per the CIA Factbook, the PRC birth rate is 12.49 per 1000. Which is exactly tied with the US, and just ahead of France and the UK. In comparison, Taiwan - which has some cultural and geographical similarities, but does not have a coercive population control policy -- is at 8.47. In terms of children/woman, it is 1.6 in the PRC, as compared to 1.12 in Taiwan.
Some speculations/proposed interpretations:
+ Although the PRC population control policy is a horrific policy, it's not clear at least at this point that is a the key influencer, or even a significant one, on the rate of births and population growth.
+ PRC demographics suggest future challenges, but not insurmountable ones.
+ Recent economic data in the PRC - slowing top line growth rates, slowing investment rates, high wage growth, movement of cheap labor production to Vietnam/Burma/etch., - all are suggestive of a transition to higher productivity production and ultimately a higher consumption/investment mix.
+ Such transitions can be very tricky and it is still very early stage at the PRC. So it could fail or go massively wrong.
+ OTOH PRC has handled other tricky economic transitions remarkably effectively since 1979 so I would hesitate to pronounce doom and gloom.
The fact that China's birthrate is about the same as the US birthrate is cause for concern. China is no where near as developed as the US. In other words, China still has a long way to go but now has far fewer human resources at its disposal. Also, the US receives a lot of immigrants, whereas China is not exactly a target for immigrants. Lots of Chinese want to move to the US, but the reverse is not true.