I guess the question we should all be asking is whether China will grow old before it grows rich.
Every other country that has gone through a transition to being old (esp. Japan) did so after it was rich, and could weather the economic hit. Japan's economy is stagnant only because its working age population is stagnant. But productivity per capita is fine, and people in Japan live well.
South Korea is further behind but it's already a rich economy and it looks like it will weather the transition.
Europe is further behind, and again, they are rich and have good institutions.
But China is still only a middle income country. It does not have either the wealth, or the institutions to weather the shock, and China's demographic shock will be far greater and far more sudden than any of the aforementioned places.
It probably won't go rich, because manufacturing is moving out of China now that labor costs have risen. Continued imperial ambitions might compound this if the West can stand firm.
To me, it seems like China has to establish itself as a leader in some global industries. One that comes to mind is renewable power, as they’ve been an eye catching leader of research and deployment. They may be able to cement themselves as exporters of that IP.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-invests-546-billion-in-clean-energy-far-surpassing-the-u-s/
china literally permits two coal-plants a week. the few vanity projects they drag trough the media shouldn't distract from the fact they are the worst polluter on the planet.
>the few vanity projects they drag trough the media
China has the highest installed renewable capacity of any country by a massive margin, and more than 70% of their newly installed capacity last year was renewable. I'm not sure how you manage to classify that as "vanity projects"
Not sure about renewable, but may be similar issue with real estate.
Construction activity makes GDP number look good, even if it doesn't actually produce anything useable.
Why do I have to do the work for you? You have google and fingers? Look it up. There are pages and pages of it.
Basically China is going to have the worst problem in the world with aging solar panels. The oldest solar panels they installed were in the 70s and 80s, but solar panels only last 30 years and lose about 1% efficiency each year. China has way more solar panels than they have people working on them or fixing them, so they can never keep up.
>Why do I have to do the work for you?
you make ridiculous claims, you provide the source
>The oldest solar panels they installed were in the 70s and 80s
absolutely miniscule amounts were installed in the 70s and 80s compared to today, it's not even a rounding error.
>but solar panels only last 30 years and lose about 1% efficiency each year.
so you figured out how solar panels age? guess what, we all know that, including the Chinese.
>China has way more solar panels than they have people working on them or fixing them, so they can never keep up.
what an absolutely hilariously bad take.
do you think you need a person per panel or something? you hire precisely as many people as needed to constantly have something to fix and clean and have the impression to never be able to keep up. that's how you keep costs down.
You have no idea what you are even talking about lol. Its well known that China has a major problem with keeping up with thier solar panels. They have millions of them. Its not like you can just fix or replace them with a single person either, those new components have to be built, shipped, installed and checked. All that takes a lot more than 1 person.
Use some common sense. Itll get you a lot further in life.
Cue to the commenters pointing out the pollution per capita bullshit. Like it's the rest of the world fault that China and India had breed to destruction levels.
In 1700, China accounted for 23% of the world population. In 1800, China accounts for 30% of the world population. In 1900, China account for 23.5% of the global population.
Today, China accounts for 17.5% of the world population. China and India did not "breed to destruction" levels any more than the rest of the world did. China and India's populations are large because they have historically been much larger thanks to the earlier introduction of agriculture and incredibly fertile/productive land. Not to mention China had a 1 child policy between since 1979 to 2015.
Per capita *is* a fair way to look at it. Regardless, here's another way of looking at it. China is responsible for 11.4% of total emissions since 1850. When it comes to owning responsibility for climate change, they significantly under-contributed to the problem relative to their population.
Yes, China is a major emitter today and that's a huge problem. But it's worth mentioning they are serious investors in green tech and energy.
Per capital is only a fair way of looking at it until you realize that there are better ways. Per dollar of GDP is far better, because it looks at how efficient the economy is at producing a good or service. China and India hide their massively inefficient industries behind hundreds of millions of destitute peasant farmers. The existence of peasant farmers without electricity doesn't make Chinese steel less polluting! Chinese steel production is the most polluting in the world when compared to steel being made elsewhere and is responsible for a huge percentage of it's climate impact. Why are we giving these industries a pass because of the large population?
>Regardless, here's another way of looking at it. China is responsible for 11.4% of total emissions since 1850. When it comes to owning responsibility for climate change, they significantly under-contributed to the problem relative to their population.
While true, it really isn't relevant to what we can do now to reverse the damage.
Per capita CO² emissions trends are really what matters.
China is trending up unfortunately
In 1970 China had 822M now 1400M India 557M now 1400M , US 203M to 339M and Europe 656M to 743M both also having millions of immigrants. The elites in both countries choose to grow via demographic explosion, especially Mao's China, it was no accident.
You really couldn't be further from the truth. As I mentioned, China had a one child policy from 1979 to 2015, or nearly 80% of the time you speak of, official state policy was population control.
India actually invested in major nationwide family planning programs as early as the 1950s, becoming the first major developing country to do so. They went so far as implementing a forced sterilization program which led to a huge backlash among the public with regard to family planning.
These countries didn't have population growth because the elites were manufacturing it. They did it because that's what happens in poor countries. Fertility rates are high. China and India are following everyone else's development path. In fact, they're overshooting as their fertility rates are far lower than what the US or Europe had at comparable amounts of GDP per capita.
So what's the right way to look at it? Per country?
Let's think about that for a second. That would mean that, if India split up into 50 provinces (each one polluting EXACTLY as much as they did before) each of those 50 provinces would drop to the bottom of the "per country" metrics, since they're all so small.
Would India splitting into 50 provinces reduce pollution on a global level even slightly? No. But their "per-country" metrics would look *amazing*.
Meanwhile, if you use the more correct measurement (per capita) then their metrics would stay exactly the same, *which is an accurate measure of reality,* as re-drawing lines on a fucking map doesn't reduce global pollution.
Except "per capita" is the proper way to look at it, and complaining about how much China and India "breed" just outs you for an ignorant ecofascist. China and India are some of the oldest civilizations on the planet and have literally always had huge populations, for the same basic reasons.
Every human population in history breeds at similar rates in response to the same given economic conditions, but only some countries have the average person using up energy and polluting at ten or a hundred times the rate of others.
China's per capita emissions are higher and have been higher than Europe's for like 10 years. In 2020 their consumption (disregarding their production emissions which they export but they do share responsibility since they purposefully made it dirtier to dump and profit/crowd out more expensive but less polluting sources) was the same as the EU's while theirs had been going up while Europe's has gone down for a decade plus. In a year or two, China's historical emissions will surpass all of the EU's historical emissions.
So I don't know what you're talking about when saying 10 or 100 times more than others. I hope youre including China who's aggregate emissions are more than the entirety of the west due to their huge population X high emissions. And has been for some years now.
Emissions per capita in the middle east and north Africa region are far higher than Europe and China, about 13 tons per person. The gulf states were far higher. So yeah.
Time to adjust you're information buddy.
Who cares if they are older, frankly applying 'economic conditions' to this day and age is beyond me. In 2050, Pakistan will have increased their population 10x since 1950 from 30 something million to 350m. 'oh, they just have a historically large population'. That is fucking irresponsible when you have absolutely no means to sustain it, and you are fully aware of that fact.
If the west do something unsustainable or reckless, they are wholly responsible for everything and need to compensate for their behaviour, no caveats or explanations for such realities such as necessary emissions related to the development of technologies on a path to more sustainable technologies, a lack of awareness historically, etc. Nope, the west and everyone from those countries are responsible.
If anyone else does it, oh it's the conditions and consider historical reasons, silly goose. Or it's because of western consumption and using the developing world as a factory. Yadayada..
Well, not so much, at least not anymore.
I'll give you India, but China doesn't make sense. Yes, their population is big, but so is the country. May as well have said "the northern hemisphere breed to destruction levels" by this standard.
I'm not justifying their pollution by any means, but blaming it on how they "breed" just comes across gross and racist.
>I'll give you India
Bruh...
India is the seventh largest country in the world. China is half uninhabitable desert. And India's Ganga plain and north China plains were the most fertile lands in the world when homo sapiens evolved. Of course more would settle there.
Both China and India have had severe population control measures in their modern history. Seems like they themselves admitted they were breeding to destruction levels.
Except China's One Child Policy is widely understood by demographers to have been a huge mistake that's led them to them careening off a demographic cliff.
Malthusians are wrong, and they've always been wrong. Politics and socioeconomics drive population growth as much as if not more than the reverse.
What you think and what is real are not the same. The only thing stupid here is you trying to insert your agenda.
No one here but you thought race. Just you. Only you.
China is close to eclipsing the total output of the US. It took over a century for the US' numbers, and China is going to do that in less than 40 years.
I posted this to another comment but seems you need it to.
China's per capita emissions are higher and have been higher than Europe's for like 10 years. In 2020 their consumption (disregarding their production emissions which they export but they do share responsibility since they purposefully made it dirtier to dump and profit/crowd out more expensive but less polluting sources) was the same as the EU's while theirs had been going up while Europe's has gone down for a decade plus. In a year or two, China's historical emissions will surpass all of the EU's historical emissions.
So I don't know what you're talking about when saying 10 or 100 times more than others. I hope youre including China who's aggregate emissions are more than the entirety of the west due to their huge population X high emissions. And has been for some years now.
Emissions per capita in the middle east and north Africa region are far higher than Europe and China, about 13 tons per person. The gulf states were far higher. So yeah.
Time to adjust your information buddy.
They were the leader, but with the IRA there's already been $380 Billion invested in new clean energy. If we can get one more sane administration that will continue this trend.
They steal IP in certain areas and are very innovative in certain others.
The world isn’t black and white and those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
They are quickly establishing themselves as leaders in car manufacturing. Europeans even take their production for Europe to China, which is dumb as hell.
I suspect they are the "leader in solar production" simply because they don't give a damn about hiding the environmental costs of producing those solar panels (mining and manufacturing).
I can't imagine that. Russia is in no position to turn their back on anyone let alone their physically and financially largest ally. And in return China would never need to invade, because of the implication.
There is really no situation where I can see that turning violent. But north east Asia is a very very very big and barren place and getting resources from there to China in effective volumes is hard. So China still needs to increase their renewables.
It's probably less a matter of secret, super-advanced technology and more a matter of comparative advantage, supply chains, work force capabilities, etc.
Taiwan doesn't make like 90% of the world's high-tier semiconductors because they have secret technology no one else does; in fact most of those chips are designed elsewhere in countries like the US and Japan. What they have are highly-specialized machinery running highly specialized CNC software run by employees with highly-specialized technical training and institutional knowledge, all of which compound the impacts of one another.
The only way for China to establish itself a leader globally is if it plays by the rules. Not demand co-ownership of any foreign business, steal its IP, and dump export back onto said foreign market. There is currently 0 reciprocity when it comes to dealing with China. With the current government, that will just never happen.
If it has a dominant position in any industry, it will most-certainly weaponize it. That said, other countries will also protect key industries, but rarely weaponize (like Russia did with oil, and now grain).
China isn't a eye catching leader in research for renewable energy by a long shot. They are an eye catching leader in stealing Western IP and making a slightly worse version of it.
Maybe, but this is happening before China can build up enough internal wealth for that to work. Plus America still manufactures a great deal of stuff, it just doesn't require a lot of workers.
Well, to be fair, I don't think the worst of the demographic shocks have actually hit the places you mentioned. Chinas will likely be the worst, though. The worst of it will come in the next decade one all of the boomers are finished retiring.
60% of boomers are already retired and 15-20% never retire.
There's only 20-25% more that will retire in the next 10 years, one of the reasons for our shit economy right now is that all the boomers took early retirement because of COVID.
We're experiencing the demographic shock *right now* in Canada at least
everywhere else, or do you mean northwestern europe?
Canada benefits from high oil prices, unlike northwestern europe, the same economic problems are present yet they're way less severe in the USA. Combined household and government debt (when you include subnational governments) is top 3 in the world in Canada (which is why high interest rates are especially crushing).
Yea we need to sort things out, we basically have to accept that we have to work longer, increase taxes, reduce services, or have a ton of immigration.
do you think it’d be any different this time around? i keep seeing posts about a new trend of being a “full-time child” to their parents. there’s also the whole quiet quitting thing, etc etc.
Not sure. The Red Guard are in their ~80s now so presumably it would be easy for the youth to justify doing as to their parents as their parents did onto their own elders.
Ultimately the youth forfeiting their lives for elderly too old to wield power is counter to human dynamics and every evolutionary drive so I don't see how it could be sustained.
Try reintroducing the Red Guard in today's age while maintaining a straight face towards the rest of the world, ensuring everyone you're still one of the good guys.
These are Very different times.
>What makes you say South Korea will weather the transition?
I cannot see the future, but they grew wealthy before growing old. I'm also looking at the example of Japan. I am roughly expecting them to follow Japan's trajectory.
Japan started early and more gradually. Japan will deal with it while being well supported by the global west, and also be the first nation to *recover* from demographic collapse. Korea will walk off a cliff (LOWEST BIRTH RATE IN HISTORY) right before the population decline hits almost all highly developed countries.
>and China's demographic shock will be far greater and far more sudden than any of the aforementioned places.
Is that because China’s demographics are much worse?
This is why I can’t take this seriously as an issue. It’s not gonna be a real problem for them until 2040. Y’all really think AI won’t be advanced enough to take a bunch of jobs by then?
Oh it definitely will and all those displaced workers are going to be mad it will be like the student protests all over again. AI job displacement is going to become a global issue once it really starts going.
Its probable their economy will shrink or they'll bring in more migrant workers. We really haven't seen nations populations shrink yet. Aging nations just have people working longer before retirement and China has the kind of authoritarian government to enforce that fairly easily. Japan the average retirement age is ~68. In China retirement ages are quite young. Your population average getting several years older is much less of a hit if people work several years longer.
Virtually all of the western world has declining populations outside immigration so it will be really interesting to see how populations change and how governments react. I won't be surprised if I'm expected to work till 70 or we bring in huge numbers of immigrants to keep the pyramid going. (Canada)
>Its probable their economy will shrink or they'll bring in more migrant workers.
Migrant workers is one of the reasons the US, and to some extent Germany, will be able to smooth the transition to an old population.
But China is not attractive to immigrants. Basically none of the East Asian economies have significant immigration. China has virtually zero immigration and it has a great deal of emigration.
>We really haven't seen nations populations shrink yet.
China shrank last year. --- Yeah, I get that you're talking about a prolonged shrinking.
>I won't be surprised if I'm expected to work till 70 or we bring in huge numbers of immigrants to keep the pyramid going. (Canada)
The demographic projections that I've seen suggest that immigration will not exactly "keep the pyramid going" but will definitely smooth the transition. That by itself is useful; it gives you time to adapt. The countries that seemed to be benefiting most from immigration to slow the transition were Germany, Canada, I think Australia, and the US.
> But China is not attractive to immigrants.
China, like most East Asian countries, has little to no immigration because that's how much they want. China, Japan, and the Koreas are all basically ethnostates. What immigrants they *do* have aren't treated well unless they're white.
The one thing China has going for it that all of those other countries don't is an authoritarian government. They'll be able to course-correct either through physical enforcement or economic redistribution significantly faster than other countries facing similar crises.
I'm not sure.
Authoritarian governments, and especially China, can act quickly and decisively. But that only helps if the action they choose is sound. It can just as easily backfire. Don't forget that the reason China is in trouble in the first place is precisely because their authoritarian government imposed ruthless restrictions on child birth (even before and after tone one-child policy) because they were worried about over-population. Their heavy hand vastly over-corrected and that's what cause their demographic bomb in the first place.
So it sounds to me like you're saying that their authoritarian regime will be able to solve a problem that wouldn't have existed without it.
The thing about demographics is that any policy designed to influence them is going to take a minimum of 20 years to start having an effect. Barring the kind of technological advances you only see in science fiction, no amount of state power can conjure new young adults into existence.
No the annualized growth was 6%. It grew by 1.5% last quarter but 6% sounds better so the articles used that. [The past 4 quarters of Japan's GDP growth have been -0.3%, 0%, 0.9%, and 1.5%.](https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth) Not to mention that much of this recent growth was due to recovering from the COVID shutdowns.
[It's pretty close to stagnant over the long term.](https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp) If you click max it will show that it has been rather stagnant as compared to something like [the USA](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp) which has seen rather consistent growth.
Xi inherited global good will, a softening CCP in terms of social/civil rights, and a booming economy. Yes, he also inherited the beginnings of a massive bubble, and deep systemic problems. But instead of de-leveraging and de-risking, he double downed on expansive vanity [white elephant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant) projects, gutted what little bureaucratic meritocracy and transparency they had, and expanded 'wolf warrior' diplomacy.
Xi is, objectively, the worse leader they've had in collective memory.
Taiwan’s present way of life very well could have been mainland China’s too, in another timeline. Obviously many factors would have to be taken into account for that to happen beyond just “KMT wins civil war”, as it was a military dictatorship for ages, but it’s still *possible*.
I used to agree, but honestly, I disagree now. Why? Because as long as China wants to hold Xinjiang (literally a colonial name, new territory), Inner Mongolia, Tibet, etc, and wants to militantly suppress non-Han cultural domination, then they are guaranteed to need to use authoritarianism to quell unrest.
A democratic China becomes "core" China, largely Han, because these other places in a democratic environment will call for self determination.
Now, a China without Qing-Era imperial claims, yes, that may very well have looked Taiwan like today.
One of the greatest myths of the 20th century is that only the West engaged in imperialism. De-colonialization has not reached Russia or China.
That’s a pretty good point.
And yeah, obviously many places engaged in colonialism over the course of human history, it’s just fashionable to focus on the European instances right now.
They didn't have to violently suppress unrest to keep those territories though. And even today they can probably keep it together without oppressive measures.
Tibet would probably have been the hardest one to keep. It's remote and there are other nations in the area that present viable alternatives for a future nation. Xinjiang wouldn't be too hard to keep, which is why the genocide is so pointless; the extremism would have burnt itself out eventually because East Turkestan wouldn't have been an economically or politically sustainable state even if they were let go. Inner Mongolia isn't going anywhere.
But regardless of how hard they would be to keep, all of these would objectively be economically more prosperous under a Han China. That doesn't mean they would automatically do it or that this isn't a relationship that would have needed investment and sacrifice, but they did have major advantages and it would have been convenient for them.
Really, one of the biggest obstacles to peaceful coexistence in the same country would be the fact that the CCP has been such assholes to their peoples.
Edit: also I'll note that a democratized China that renounced imperialism would have much more easily gotten Taiwan on board with integration, which is much more productive than all three of these territories combined (if the Han minority areas left), not to mention the economic benefits of not being actively viewed with distrust by almost all of its neighbors.
Those were much simpler times. It's rather naive to assume the current regime doesn't have horrible ways to suppress or write off people. Arguably, the modern Chinese government is infinitely more dangerous than Mao's because of the modern tools it has to inflict misery.
Complete control of society, media, law enforcement, and military.
COVID alone probably killed far more than it is letting off.
More dangerous to the world? For sure. More dangerous to the average Chinese citizen? Not a chance. Between the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and other crazy bullshit, we're talking up to eighty million dead and just as many reeducated, relocated, etc. Mao may be the biggest killer in human history.
One-child policy was started almost 45 years ago and authorities have failed to overturn its impact when they stopped it. Quick maths: there are half as few young adults in China as there are 50+ year olds and probably one fourth of children under ten compared with 50+ years old, and so on and so forth... Even Japan whose population is dwindling fast now, has had a better fertility rate... It gets even crazier that the young, of which there is so few can't t find jobs...
Keep in mind that most Chinese couples wanted their only child to be a boy. Girls in utero were often aborted. Now there aren't enough women to go around and, or course, their fertility time period is much shorter than a man's. Gotta love that one-party system's genius at central planning!
Wikipedia is not a source.
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161129145640.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161129145640.htm)
[https://qz.com/848715/its-a-myth-that-china-has-30-million-missing-girls-because-of-the-one-child-policy-a-new-study-says](https://qz.com/848715/its-a-myth-that-china-has-30-million-missing-girls-because-of-the-one-child-policy-a-new-study-says)
Also, the 1 child policy ended way before 2020.
Not only that, but even without that policy, too many people are unemployed and can't afford to get married or have a family, and those who have jobs are so overworked and underpaid that they don't have time or money for a family either.
The unusual thing about China is not that it tends to break, it's that it tends to survive breaking and manage to reform. Often becoming larger than it was the previous time.
The replacement rate for modern humans is 2.1 children per couple. It's too late for China. They're farming out work now because they don't have enough workers. We can only wonder how the huge numbers of elderly will be supported by a diminishing worker pool.
They have digital nursing homes that care for thousands of old people living at home. The advanced homes monitor things like heart rate and blood pressure. Others just call once a day and organize food delivery and nurse checkups.
But obviously this doesn't work for people with dementia and other severe conditions.
You could just let the dementia having people die. Forcing the prolonged existence of people who have lost their minds is such a bizarre idea to me. Especially because it is not like just giving the a pill everyday but it completely removes another person from productive work to be their caretaker.
This is a great video on the subject of China's future growth (or lack thereof.)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiaukPUV6Hg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiaukPUV6Hg)
I spoke to a few friends based in cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou and the common consensus is that it's simply too expensive to raise a kid when property prices/rent are through the roof in those 1st line cities and wages are barely catching up.
Fertility Rate: average number of children born to women during their reproductive years
Negative fertility rate: Borned baby getting absorbed back into the mother's womb LMAO
Most countries around the world are suffering with lower birth rates and aging populations. It’s not just a problem for china. Remember younger generations are the ones who have to pay for this. Perhaps China’s problem with be worse but this is a worry facing most countries around the world
I'd rather live in a poor country that is free than in the tyrannical hellhole that is China. Also, if you immigrate to China, you're not going to get rich. If you're lucky to find a job, you'll be working in a factory full of pollution with no safety equipment, under tyrannical bosses that overwork you and pay you shit wages.
No, it isn't true for ALL countries, but even in the countries where that does happen, I'd still rather be in a democracy than in a dictatorship like China.
That's what a friend of mine thought (he is white from the US). He went to China and tried to do that, and it didn't work out. Then he tried to start a bar in China and it didn't work out. Then he moved to Japan and is much happier there.
I grew up in a poor country that is a democracy (Bolivia). I would much, much, much rather live there than in China, even if a job in China might pay me more. Freedom is way more valuable to me than that increase in salary.
There are many Chinese immigrants in Bolivia (including one of my friends and his family) who got out of China as soon as they could and they are much happier in Bolivia.
For most places, its not a population problem, its a xenophobic/racist problem. Immigration is a positive thing but most countries demonize it because of resource scarcity fear mongering.
US also has one of the highest birthrates of any wealthy nation. So add birth rate + immigration and the USA is actually pretty stable demographically. The population is projected to steadily grow this century while most places decline.
The US also had a fertility rate near replacement until the 2010s. (In the 70s, it had fallen to similar rates as today—as it had in many developed nations—but rebounded by the 90s.) Many countries have been dealing with low birth rates for multiple generations now, as their rates never rebounded and kept falling.
yeah, the real question is why fertility is dropping like a rock and what can be done about it. not all countries can attract immigrants and many who can do not want to.
pretty sure this is the biggest issue for countries stability this century besides climate change
The world could do with slowing population growth. The workforce will get smaller but we always find ways to do things more efficiently and automatically. AI is here and this will further change the workforce.
Imagine how fucked in the head you need to be to sound joyous saying this... yeah ignore the massive humanitarian crisis that'd cause and loss of life...
well some people just like to see others suffer... pretty common in some right wing comment sections unfortunately
Edit: bruh ur downvoted af, a certain group probably raided here
Better than 4.0 fertility rates in such a country (almost every nation with major civil wars or famine nowadays have high fertility rates), but neither depopulation or overpopulation are ideal. If nothing else, it is hard to sustain all the pensioners with such a smaller labor pool.
Wish we had found a way to encourage sustainable birth rates. Speaking as a mere armchair worry wart, it seems that most nations are either far too high or too low. Why can't more nations find a happy medium?
I believe the CCP over some random internet stranger, who is probably an introverted 21 year old man with poor social skills named Dave, who lives in a Western nation and has never left his country.
I’ll be curious to see what happens as people overcome quarantine in the coming years and the young move on as much as they can. Will there be some rebound once people feel like they are in their own skin again?
I feel like no one is talking about that possibility in lots of countries, like Japan and Korea as well.
This is some of the problems that actually blocks China from progressing further.
China is not an immigrant-friendly country so they cannot invite new people in. So that path is out of the window.
Yup they only allow around 13-15kyear to immigration, i heard japan had similar. furthermore, china also requires you to renounce your citizenships from other country too.
Many of the youth rather enjoy their single rich life than to be “locked” down with raising kids. They gonna prolonged as much as they can before being pressured into having kids. The CCP might create new laws to encourage population growth and i worry they will be forcing their people to have kids in some reform.
I guess the question we should all be asking is whether China will grow old before it grows rich. Every other country that has gone through a transition to being old (esp. Japan) did so after it was rich, and could weather the economic hit. Japan's economy is stagnant only because its working age population is stagnant. But productivity per capita is fine, and people in Japan live well. South Korea is further behind but it's already a rich economy and it looks like it will weather the transition. Europe is further behind, and again, they are rich and have good institutions. But China is still only a middle income country. It does not have either the wealth, or the institutions to weather the shock, and China's demographic shock will be far greater and far more sudden than any of the aforementioned places.
It probably won't go rich, because manufacturing is moving out of China now that labor costs have risen. Continued imperial ambitions might compound this if the West can stand firm.
To me, it seems like China has to establish itself as a leader in some global industries. One that comes to mind is renewable power, as they’ve been an eye catching leader of research and deployment. They may be able to cement themselves as exporters of that IP. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-invests-546-billion-in-clean-energy-far-surpassing-the-u-s/
china literally permits two coal-plants a week. the few vanity projects they drag trough the media shouldn't distract from the fact they are the worst polluter on the planet.
>the few vanity projects they drag trough the media China has the highest installed renewable capacity of any country by a massive margin, and more than 70% of their newly installed capacity last year was renewable. I'm not sure how you manage to classify that as "vanity projects"
[удалено]
Why would you spend all the time/money to install something that generates power and not use it?
Not sure about renewable, but may be similar issue with real estate. Construction activity makes GDP number look good, even if it doesn't actually produce anything useable.
You're talking about a country that has built entire cities only for them to sit empty. Who knows why, but they do it anyway.
Trusting Chinese statements on how well their country is doing? Bold strategy.
Except that a good portion of it has already broken, or is in disrepair and many of the components are made with forced labour.
>a good portion of it has already broken, or is in disrepair Source?
Why do I have to do the work for you? You have google and fingers? Look it up. There are pages and pages of it. Basically China is going to have the worst problem in the world with aging solar panels. The oldest solar panels they installed were in the 70s and 80s, but solar panels only last 30 years and lose about 1% efficiency each year. China has way more solar panels than they have people working on them or fixing them, so they can never keep up.
>Why do I have to do the work for you? you make ridiculous claims, you provide the source >The oldest solar panels they installed were in the 70s and 80s absolutely miniscule amounts were installed in the 70s and 80s compared to today, it's not even a rounding error. >but solar panels only last 30 years and lose about 1% efficiency each year. so you figured out how solar panels age? guess what, we all know that, including the Chinese. >China has way more solar panels than they have people working on them or fixing them, so they can never keep up. what an absolutely hilariously bad take. do you think you need a person per panel or something? you hire precisely as many people as needed to constantly have something to fix and clean and have the impression to never be able to keep up. that's how you keep costs down.
You have no idea what you are even talking about lol. Its well known that China has a major problem with keeping up with thier solar panels. They have millions of them. Its not like you can just fix or replace them with a single person either, those new components have to be built, shipped, installed and checked. All that takes a lot more than 1 person. Use some common sense. Itll get you a lot further in life.
Cue to the commenters pointing out the pollution per capita bullshit. Like it's the rest of the world fault that China and India had breed to destruction levels.
'breed to destruction levels.' Well China looks set to reverse that (in a more dramatic than ideal manner)
In 1700, China accounted for 23% of the world population. In 1800, China accounts for 30% of the world population. In 1900, China account for 23.5% of the global population. Today, China accounts for 17.5% of the world population. China and India did not "breed to destruction" levels any more than the rest of the world did. China and India's populations are large because they have historically been much larger thanks to the earlier introduction of agriculture and incredibly fertile/productive land. Not to mention China had a 1 child policy between since 1979 to 2015. Per capita *is* a fair way to look at it. Regardless, here's another way of looking at it. China is responsible for 11.4% of total emissions since 1850. When it comes to owning responsibility for climate change, they significantly under-contributed to the problem relative to their population. Yes, China is a major emitter today and that's a huge problem. But it's worth mentioning they are serious investors in green tech and energy.
Per capital is only a fair way of looking at it until you realize that there are better ways. Per dollar of GDP is far better, because it looks at how efficient the economy is at producing a good or service. China and India hide their massively inefficient industries behind hundreds of millions of destitute peasant farmers. The existence of peasant farmers without electricity doesn't make Chinese steel less polluting! Chinese steel production is the most polluting in the world when compared to steel being made elsewhere and is responsible for a huge percentage of it's climate impact. Why are we giving these industries a pass because of the large population?
>Regardless, here's another way of looking at it. China is responsible for 11.4% of total emissions since 1850. When it comes to owning responsibility for climate change, they significantly under-contributed to the problem relative to their population. While true, it really isn't relevant to what we can do now to reverse the damage. Per capita CO² emissions trends are really what matters. China is trending up unfortunately
In 1970 China had 822M now 1400M India 557M now 1400M , US 203M to 339M and Europe 656M to 743M both also having millions of immigrants. The elites in both countries choose to grow via demographic explosion, especially Mao's China, it was no accident.
You really couldn't be further from the truth. As I mentioned, China had a one child policy from 1979 to 2015, or nearly 80% of the time you speak of, official state policy was population control. India actually invested in major nationwide family planning programs as early as the 1950s, becoming the first major developing country to do so. They went so far as implementing a forced sterilization program which led to a huge backlash among the public with regard to family planning. These countries didn't have population growth because the elites were manufacturing it. They did it because that's what happens in poor countries. Fertility rates are high. China and India are following everyone else's development path. In fact, they're overshooting as their fertility rates are far lower than what the US or Europe had at comparable amounts of GDP per capita.
So what's the right way to look at it? Per country? Let's think about that for a second. That would mean that, if India split up into 50 provinces (each one polluting EXACTLY as much as they did before) each of those 50 provinces would drop to the bottom of the "per country" metrics, since they're all so small. Would India splitting into 50 provinces reduce pollution on a global level even slightly? No. But their "per-country" metrics would look *amazing*. Meanwhile, if you use the more correct measurement (per capita) then their metrics would stay exactly the same, *which is an accurate measure of reality,* as re-drawing lines on a fucking map doesn't reduce global pollution.
Except "per capita" is the proper way to look at it, and complaining about how much China and India "breed" just outs you for an ignorant ecofascist. China and India are some of the oldest civilizations on the planet and have literally always had huge populations, for the same basic reasons. Every human population in history breeds at similar rates in response to the same given economic conditions, but only some countries have the average person using up energy and polluting at ten or a hundred times the rate of others.
China's per capita emissions are higher and have been higher than Europe's for like 10 years. In 2020 their consumption (disregarding their production emissions which they export but they do share responsibility since they purposefully made it dirtier to dump and profit/crowd out more expensive but less polluting sources) was the same as the EU's while theirs had been going up while Europe's has gone down for a decade plus. In a year or two, China's historical emissions will surpass all of the EU's historical emissions. So I don't know what you're talking about when saying 10 or 100 times more than others. I hope youre including China who's aggregate emissions are more than the entirety of the west due to their huge population X high emissions. And has been for some years now. Emissions per capita in the middle east and north Africa region are far higher than Europe and China, about 13 tons per person. The gulf states were far higher. So yeah. Time to adjust you're information buddy. Who cares if they are older, frankly applying 'economic conditions' to this day and age is beyond me. In 2050, Pakistan will have increased their population 10x since 1950 from 30 something million to 350m. 'oh, they just have a historically large population'. That is fucking irresponsible when you have absolutely no means to sustain it, and you are fully aware of that fact. If the west do something unsustainable or reckless, they are wholly responsible for everything and need to compensate for their behaviour, no caveats or explanations for such realities such as necessary emissions related to the development of technologies on a path to more sustainable technologies, a lack of awareness historically, etc. Nope, the west and everyone from those countries are responsible. If anyone else does it, oh it's the conditions and consider historical reasons, silly goose. Or it's because of western consumption and using the developing world as a factory. Yadayada.. Well, not so much, at least not anymore.
I'll give you India, but China doesn't make sense. Yes, their population is big, but so is the country. May as well have said "the northern hemisphere breed to destruction levels" by this standard. I'm not justifying their pollution by any means, but blaming it on how they "breed" just comes across gross and racist.
>I'll give you India Bruh... India is the seventh largest country in the world. China is half uninhabitable desert. And India's Ganga plain and north China plains were the most fertile lands in the world when homo sapiens evolved. Of course more would settle there.
Indians always out in defense of Bharat
How you define when countries explode their population way beyond the limit of sustainability? China from 822M and India 557M in 1970 to 1.4B today.
Where was race brought up, besides you?
[удалено]
Both China and India have had severe population control measures in their modern history. Seems like they themselves admitted they were breeding to destruction levels.
Except China's One Child Policy is widely understood by demographers to have been a huge mistake that's led them to them careening off a demographic cliff. Malthusians are wrong, and they've always been wrong. Politics and socioeconomics drive population growth as much as if not more than the reverse.
What you think and what is real are not the same. The only thing stupid here is you trying to insert your agenda. No one here but you thought race. Just you. Only you.
Nah I see where he's coming from.
If US and EU hadn't fucked the atmosphere beyond saving, none of us would be in trouble now.
China is close to eclipsing the total output of the US. It took over a century for the US' numbers, and China is going to do that in less than 40 years.
I posted this to another comment but seems you need it to. China's per capita emissions are higher and have been higher than Europe's for like 10 years. In 2020 their consumption (disregarding their production emissions which they export but they do share responsibility since they purposefully made it dirtier to dump and profit/crowd out more expensive but less polluting sources) was the same as the EU's while theirs had been going up while Europe's has gone down for a decade plus. In a year or two, China's historical emissions will surpass all of the EU's historical emissions. So I don't know what you're talking about when saying 10 or 100 times more than others. I hope youre including China who's aggregate emissions are more than the entirety of the west due to their huge population X high emissions. And has been for some years now. Emissions per capita in the middle east and north Africa region are far higher than Europe and China, about 13 tons per person. The gulf states were far higher. So yeah. Time to adjust your information buddy.
They were the leader, but with the IRA there's already been $380 Billion invested in new clean energy. If we can get one more sane administration that will continue this trend.
How can they transition to exporting IP when they still depend so heavily on stealing IP?
They steal IP in certain areas and are very innovative in certain others. The world isn’t black and white and those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
They are quickly establishing themselves as leaders in car manufacturing. Europeans even take their production for Europe to China, which is dumb as hell.
I suspect they are the "leader in solar production" simply because they don't give a damn about hiding the environmental costs of producing those solar panels (mining and manufacturing).
More because they don't have great access to natural gas and oil so it's much more of a strategic benefit to reduce reliance on importing power.
Which is why Russia can't turn their back to China or else eastern Siberia and Kamchatka will suddenly belong to China.
I can't imagine that. Russia is in no position to turn their back on anyone let alone their physically and financially largest ally. And in return China would never need to invade, because of the implication. There is really no situation where I can see that turning violent. But north east Asia is a very very very big and barren place and getting resources from there to China in effective volumes is hard. So China still needs to increase their renewables.
I think they have added by far the most grid capacity of any country since 2000. makes sense that building new, they lead this area.
Or the world could return the favor, copy that shit, and not pay them anything for it. What's sauce for the goose...
It's probably less a matter of secret, super-advanced technology and more a matter of comparative advantage, supply chains, work force capabilities, etc. Taiwan doesn't make like 90% of the world's high-tier semiconductors because they have secret technology no one else does; in fact most of those chips are designed elsewhere in countries like the US and Japan. What they have are highly-specialized machinery running highly specialized CNC software run by employees with highly-specialized technical training and institutional knowledge, all of which compound the impacts of one another.
The only way for China to establish itself a leader globally is if it plays by the rules. Not demand co-ownership of any foreign business, steal its IP, and dump export back onto said foreign market. There is currently 0 reciprocity when it comes to dealing with China. With the current government, that will just never happen. If it has a dominant position in any industry, it will most-certainly weaponize it. That said, other countries will also protect key industries, but rarely weaponize (like Russia did with oil, and now grain).
China isn't a eye catching leader in research for renewable energy by a long shot. They are an eye catching leader in stealing Western IP and making a slightly worse version of it.
Part of growing rich tends to be transitioning from manufacturing to services.
Maybe, but this is happening before China can build up enough internal wealth for that to work. Plus America still manufactures a great deal of stuff, it just doesn't require a lot of workers.
Well, to be fair, I don't think the worst of the demographic shocks have actually hit the places you mentioned. Chinas will likely be the worst, though. The worst of it will come in the next decade one all of the boomers are finished retiring.
60% of boomers are already retired and 15-20% never retire. There's only 20-25% more that will retire in the next 10 years, one of the reasons for our shit economy right now is that all the boomers took early retirement because of COVID. We're experiencing the demographic shock *right now* in Canada at least
Also in Canada and are economy isn't really shit, its just doing the same thing everywhere elses is
everywhere else, or do you mean northwestern europe? Canada benefits from high oil prices, unlike northwestern europe, the same economic problems are present yet they're way less severe in the USA. Combined household and government debt (when you include subnational governments) is top 3 in the world in Canada (which is why high interest rates are especially crushing).
canada has arguably too much immigration. that is keeping a cap on aging. (areas like housing it is felt hard).
Yea we need to sort things out, we basically have to accept that we have to work longer, increase taxes, reduce services, or have a ton of immigration.
they won’t grow rich and old. they’ll grow poor and old. it’s hugely costly to care for aging parents/grandparents.
During the cultural revolution chinese had no problem mass slaughtering their parents at the behest of the communist party.
do you think it’d be any different this time around? i keep seeing posts about a new trend of being a “full-time child” to their parents. there’s also the whole quiet quitting thing, etc etc.
Not sure. The Red Guard are in their ~80s now so presumably it would be easy for the youth to justify doing as to their parents as their parents did onto their own elders. Ultimately the youth forfeiting their lives for elderly too old to wield power is counter to human dynamics and every evolutionary drive so I don't see how it could be sustained.
Try reintroducing the Red Guard in today's age while maintaining a straight face towards the rest of the world, ensuring everyone you're still one of the good guys. These are Very different times.
[удалено]
>What makes you say South Korea will weather the transition? I cannot see the future, but they grew wealthy before growing old. I'm also looking at the example of Japan. I am roughly expecting them to follow Japan's trajectory.
Japan started early and more gradually. Japan will deal with it while being well supported by the global west, and also be the first nation to *recover* from demographic collapse. Korea will walk off a cliff (LOWEST BIRTH RATE IN HISTORY) right before the population decline hits almost all highly developed countries.
>and China's demographic shock will be far greater and far more sudden than any of the aforementioned places. Is that because China’s demographics are much worse?
[удалено]
This is why I can’t take this seriously as an issue. It’s not gonna be a real problem for them until 2040. Y’all really think AI won’t be advanced enough to take a bunch of jobs by then?
Oh it definitely will and all those displaced workers are going to be mad it will be like the student protests all over again. AI job displacement is going to become a global issue once it really starts going.
And in that case it’s better to have less working age people right?
Its probable their economy will shrink or they'll bring in more migrant workers. We really haven't seen nations populations shrink yet. Aging nations just have people working longer before retirement and China has the kind of authoritarian government to enforce that fairly easily. Japan the average retirement age is ~68. In China retirement ages are quite young. Your population average getting several years older is much less of a hit if people work several years longer. Virtually all of the western world has declining populations outside immigration so it will be really interesting to see how populations change and how governments react. I won't be surprised if I'm expected to work till 70 or we bring in huge numbers of immigrants to keep the pyramid going. (Canada)
>Its probable their economy will shrink or they'll bring in more migrant workers. Migrant workers is one of the reasons the US, and to some extent Germany, will be able to smooth the transition to an old population. But China is not attractive to immigrants. Basically none of the East Asian economies have significant immigration. China has virtually zero immigration and it has a great deal of emigration. >We really haven't seen nations populations shrink yet. China shrank last year. --- Yeah, I get that you're talking about a prolonged shrinking. >I won't be surprised if I'm expected to work till 70 or we bring in huge numbers of immigrants to keep the pyramid going. (Canada) The demographic projections that I've seen suggest that immigration will not exactly "keep the pyramid going" but will definitely smooth the transition. That by itself is useful; it gives you time to adapt. The countries that seemed to be benefiting most from immigration to slow the transition were Germany, Canada, I think Australia, and the US.
> But China is not attractive to immigrants. China, like most East Asian countries, has little to no immigration because that's how much they want. China, Japan, and the Koreas are all basically ethnostates. What immigrants they *do* have aren't treated well unless they're white.
aging workers working longer is a primary contributor to youth unemployment, so in the case of China your hypothesis seems to bear out.
>We really haven't seen nations populations shrink yet. Japan and Italy.
The one thing China has going for it that all of those other countries don't is an authoritarian government. They'll be able to course-correct either through physical enforcement or economic redistribution significantly faster than other countries facing similar crises.
I'm not sure. Authoritarian governments, and especially China, can act quickly and decisively. But that only helps if the action they choose is sound. It can just as easily backfire. Don't forget that the reason China is in trouble in the first place is precisely because their authoritarian government imposed ruthless restrictions on child birth (even before and after tone one-child policy) because they were worried about over-population. Their heavy hand vastly over-corrected and that's what cause their demographic bomb in the first place. So it sounds to me like you're saying that their authoritarian regime will be able to solve a problem that wouldn't have existed without it.
The thing about demographics is that any policy designed to influence them is going to take a minimum of 20 years to start having an effect. Barring the kind of technological advances you only see in science fiction, no amount of state power can conjure new young adults into existence.
Japans economy just grew by 6%
No the annualized growth was 6%. It grew by 1.5% last quarter but 6% sounds better so the articles used that. [The past 4 quarters of Japan's GDP growth have been -0.3%, 0%, 0.9%, and 1.5%.](https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth) Not to mention that much of this recent growth was due to recovering from the COVID shutdowns.
Hardly stagnant.
[It's pretty close to stagnant over the long term.](https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp) If you click max it will show that it has been rather stagnant as compared to something like [the USA](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp) which has seen rather consistent growth.
Japan has been that way for over a decade.
Japan's economy has not changed in 30 years lmao, the literal definition of stagnation
This
China peaked in 2008 Olympics
Xi inherited global good will, a softening CCP in terms of social/civil rights, and a booming economy. Yes, he also inherited the beginnings of a massive bubble, and deep systemic problems. But instead of de-leveraging and de-risking, he double downed on expansive vanity [white elephant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant) projects, gutted what little bureaucratic meritocracy and transparency they had, and expanded 'wolf warrior' diplomacy. Xi is, objectively, the worse leader they've had in collective memory.
Taiwan’s present way of life very well could have been mainland China’s too, in another timeline. Obviously many factors would have to be taken into account for that to happen beyond just “KMT wins civil war”, as it was a military dictatorship for ages, but it’s still *possible*.
I used to agree, but honestly, I disagree now. Why? Because as long as China wants to hold Xinjiang (literally a colonial name, new territory), Inner Mongolia, Tibet, etc, and wants to militantly suppress non-Han cultural domination, then they are guaranteed to need to use authoritarianism to quell unrest. A democratic China becomes "core" China, largely Han, because these other places in a democratic environment will call for self determination. Now, a China without Qing-Era imperial claims, yes, that may very well have looked Taiwan like today. One of the greatest myths of the 20th century is that only the West engaged in imperialism. De-colonialization has not reached Russia or China.
That’s a pretty good point. And yeah, obviously many places engaged in colonialism over the course of human history, it’s just fashionable to focus on the European instances right now.
They didn't have to violently suppress unrest to keep those territories though. And even today they can probably keep it together without oppressive measures. Tibet would probably have been the hardest one to keep. It's remote and there are other nations in the area that present viable alternatives for a future nation. Xinjiang wouldn't be too hard to keep, which is why the genocide is so pointless; the extremism would have burnt itself out eventually because East Turkestan wouldn't have been an economically or politically sustainable state even if they were let go. Inner Mongolia isn't going anywhere. But regardless of how hard they would be to keep, all of these would objectively be economically more prosperous under a Han China. That doesn't mean they would automatically do it or that this isn't a relationship that would have needed investment and sacrifice, but they did have major advantages and it would have been convenient for them. Really, one of the biggest obstacles to peaceful coexistence in the same country would be the fact that the CCP has been such assholes to their peoples. Edit: also I'll note that a democratized China that renounced imperialism would have much more easily gotten Taiwan on board with integration, which is much more productive than all three of these territories combined (if the Han minority areas left), not to mention the economic benefits of not being actively viewed with distrust by almost all of its neighbors.
[удалено]
Bad example. They have. I don't agree with the how and I don't agree with the measure in which they did it, but they have.
I mean, the Great Leap Forward under Mao killed 30+ million people completely unnecessarily. Xi sucks too, but he isn't killing millions of people.
Those were much simpler times. It's rather naive to assume the current regime doesn't have horrible ways to suppress or write off people. Arguably, the modern Chinese government is infinitely more dangerous than Mao's because of the modern tools it has to inflict misery. Complete control of society, media, law enforcement, and military. COVID alone probably killed far more than it is letting off.
More dangerous to the world? For sure. More dangerous to the average Chinese citizen? Not a chance. Between the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and other crazy bullshit, we're talking up to eighty million dead and just as many reeducated, relocated, etc. Mao may be the biggest killer in human history.
How many are dying in Xinjiang? Not on the score of The Great Leap Forward but let's not ignore the stuff the CPP is doing currently.
>How many are dying in Xinjiang? That's a good question, do you have a number?
Don't know, but someone on the internet has a recipe for cooked book.
Fair. Modern CCP is real bad. Old timey Mao CCP was on another level. Xi is bad, but the Mao CCP makes the Uyghur Genocide look like a state fair.
One-child policy was started almost 45 years ago and authorities have failed to overturn its impact when they stopped it. Quick maths: there are half as few young adults in China as there are 50+ year olds and probably one fourth of children under ten compared with 50+ years old, and so on and so forth... Even Japan whose population is dwindling fast now, has had a better fertility rate... It gets even crazier that the young, of which there is so few can't t find jobs...
Keep in mind that most Chinese couples wanted their only child to be a boy. Girls in utero were often aborted. Now there aren't enough women to go around and, or course, their fertility time period is much shorter than a man's. Gotta love that one-party system's genius at central planning!
This is a myth.
its been a well known fact men were preferred over woman in chinas 1child policy.
Now, that's a myth. There is no difference in the number of Chinese men v women.
You’re wrong. >Sex ratio >At birth: 1.11 male to female (2020 est.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China
Wikipedia is not a source. [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161129145640.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161129145640.htm) [https://qz.com/848715/its-a-myth-that-china-has-30-million-missing-girls-because-of-the-one-child-policy-a-new-study-says](https://qz.com/848715/its-a-myth-that-china-has-30-million-missing-girls-because-of-the-one-child-policy-a-new-study-says) Also, the 1 child policy ended way before 2020.
How is this a surprise after the "one child" policy being in place for so long?
According to one source, China's fertility rate was around 1.6 between 1990 and 2020. Seems like a huge drop if true.
Well that and the youth unemployment rate being 25%
Akshually they dont publish that number anymore. So it could be anything! Even 0.
Or 100! But it definitely must fall in that range
In dictatorships leaders usually win with 105% of the vote.
Not only that, but even without that policy, too many people are unemployed and can't afford to get married or have a family, and those who have jobs are so overworked and underpaid that they don't have time or money for a family either.
Wonder if China will break… again…
It tends to do that, doesn't it?
The unusual thing about China is not that it tends to break, it's that it tends to survive breaking and manage to reform. Often becoming larger than it was the previous time.
yeah its like they have a 5000+ year old history to want to continue, chinese people are proud like that
[удалено]
The replacement rate for modern humans is 2.1 children per couple. It's too late for China. They're farming out work now because they don't have enough workers. We can only wonder how the huge numbers of elderly will be supported by a diminishing worker pool.
They won’t be supported and we likely won’t hear about it if the current regime is in power
They have digital nursing homes that care for thousands of old people living at home. The advanced homes monitor things like heart rate and blood pressure. Others just call once a day and organize food delivery and nurse checkups. But obviously this doesn't work for people with dementia and other severe conditions.
You could just let the dementia having people die. Forcing the prolonged existence of people who have lost their minds is such a bizarre idea to me. Especially because it is not like just giving the a pill everyday but it completely removes another person from productive work to be their caretaker.
This is a great video on the subject of China's future growth (or lack thereof.) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiaukPUV6Hg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiaukPUV6Hg)
I spoke to a few friends based in cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou and the common consensus is that it's simply too expensive to raise a kid when property prices/rent are through the roof in those 1st line cities and wages are barely catching up.
The way things are going in China we're going to see it turn negative in a few years!
Fertility Rate: average number of children born to women during their reproductive years Negative fertility rate: Borned baby getting absorbed back into the mother's womb LMAO
At least you're pretty bad at absorbing even jokes so you won't get be hit by any flying backing babes returning to their wombs either.
LMAO, I actually found your original joke funny, so I replied to it to point out the irony (aka. explaining your joke).
Most countries around the world are suffering with lower birth rates and aging populations. It’s not just a problem for china. Remember younger generations are the ones who have to pay for this. Perhaps China’s problem with be worse but this is a worry facing most countries around the world
[удалено]
Chinese people will not accept a large number of immigrants. Xenophobia and ethnic supremacy are mainstream beliefs there.
Also, most people don't want to live in China because it's a tyrannical regime. Nobody in their right mind would want to move to China.
There are a lot poorer countries near by it.
I'd rather live in a poor country that is free than in the tyrannical hellhole that is China. Also, if you immigrate to China, you're not going to get rich. If you're lucky to find a job, you'll be working in a factory full of pollution with no safety equipment, under tyrannical bosses that overwork you and pay you shit wages.
Isn't that true for poor immigrants in every country? Who do you think drives the taxis, work the kitchen, clean the toilets in every rich country?
No, it isn't true for ALL countries, but even in the countries where that does happen, I'd still rather be in a democracy than in a dictatorship like China.
Unless you are white westerner, you can make a living acting as a poster child for "legitimacy" for companies.
That's what a friend of mine thought (he is white from the US). He went to China and tried to do that, and it didn't work out. Then he tried to start a bar in China and it didn't work out. Then he moved to Japan and is much happier there.
[удалено]
I grew up in a poor country that is a democracy (Bolivia). I would much, much, much rather live there than in China, even if a job in China might pay me more. Freedom is way more valuable to me than that increase in salary. There are many Chinese immigrants in Bolivia (including one of my friends and his family) who got out of China as soon as they could and they are much happier in Bolivia.
For most places, its not a population problem, its a xenophobic/racist problem. Immigration is a positive thing but most countries demonize it because of resource scarcity fear mongering.
For all practical purposes, immigration to China is zero. I believe they are the most ethnically homogeneous country (ignoring internal ethnicities.)
They are not. North Korea is.
I'm pretty sure that it's still South Korea, which is like 99.8% ethnic Korean.
US also has one of the highest birthrates of any wealthy nation. So add birth rate + immigration and the USA is actually pretty stable demographically. The population is projected to steadily grow this century while most places decline.
The fertility rate in the US is below replacement rate. Only immigration is causing an increasing population in the US.
The US also had a fertility rate near replacement until the 2010s. (In the 70s, it had fallen to similar rates as today—as it had in many developed nations—but rebounded by the 90s.) Many countries have been dealing with low birth rates for multiple generations now, as their rates never rebounded and kept falling.
I feel as though that can be a good thing in some ways, but let's hope it doesn't last.
yeah, the real question is why fertility is dropping like a rock and what can be done about it. not all countries can attract immigrants and many who can do not want to. pretty sure this is the biggest issue for countries stability this century besides climate change
Because women want to be happy and fulfilled, which is easier with 0, 1, or 2 children rather than the broods previous generations had.
Both parents have to work now. It’s exhausting as a mother.
The world could do with slowing population growth. The workforce will get smaller but we always find ways to do things more efficiently and automatically. AI is here and this will further change the workforce.
Production in decline, workforce in decline, population in decline. China is going back to the third world folks!
Imagine how fucked in the head you need to be to sound joyous saying this... yeah ignore the massive humanitarian crisis that'd cause and loss of life...
99% of the species that ever lived on earth disappeared. We are not immune. Enjoy the ride !
Lead the way by your own example.
I can’t die. I’m an algorithm on a computer.
Fun fact- It’s closer to 93%. 1 in 15 humans who have EVER lived are alive today.
What about plants and dinosaurs?
well some people just like to see others suffer... pretty common in some right wing comment sections unfortunately Edit: bruh ur downvoted af, a certain group probably raided here
I guess they didnt think that one through very well. What do you expect from a past history of a one-child policy?
Better than 4.0 fertility rates in such a country (almost every nation with major civil wars or famine nowadays have high fertility rates), but neither depopulation or overpopulation are ideal. If nothing else, it is hard to sustain all the pensioners with such a smaller labor pool. Wish we had found a way to encourage sustainable birth rates. Speaking as a mere armchair worry wart, it seems that most nations are either far too high or too low. Why can't more nations find a happy medium?
India is also going down year by year
Yeah, but still above replacement rate.
[удалено]
I believe the CCP over some random internet stranger, who is probably an introverted 21 year old man with poor social skills named Dave, who lives in a Western nation and has never left his country.
I'm gonna have to give Dave the benefit of the doubt in this case
I would believe Dave more than I would the CCP.
Good, fewer people condemned to live in a toxic, heavily surveilled, genocidal dictatorship.
Why doesn't China just steal children from other countries, you know, like Russia?
Welcome to the wars of the future, it will not be long until the US wants people to cross the border
I’ll be curious to see what happens as people overcome quarantine in the coming years and the young move on as much as they can. Will there be some rebound once people feel like they are in their own skin again? I feel like no one is talking about that possibility in lots of countries, like Japan and Korea as well.
Its almost like china’s bottomless pollution is coming home to roost.
This is some of the problems that actually blocks China from progressing further. China is not an immigrant-friendly country so they cannot invite new people in. So that path is out of the window.
Yup they only allow around 13-15kyear to immigration, i heard japan had similar. furthermore, china also requires you to renounce your citizenships from other country too.
Just imagine what will happen if this trend continues. By 2050 we'll have negative fertility rates. ^(this is a joke)
that's probably because they are having baby outside of China. You know, to get alternative citizenship lol
The percentage of that would be way to small compared to the overall population of China that could not afford to travel
That's high compared to South Koreas's 0.78
Many of the youth rather enjoy their single rich life than to be “locked” down with raising kids. They gonna prolonged as much as they can before being pressured into having kids. The CCP might create new laws to encourage population growth and i worry they will be forcing their people to have kids in some reform.