China’s baby bust is happening faster than many expected, raising fears of a demographic collapse. And coping with the fallout may now be complicated by miscalculations made more than 40 years ago.
The rapid shift under way today wasn’t projected by the architects of China’s one-child policy—one of the biggest social experiments in history, instituted in 1980. At the time, governments around the world feared overpopulation would hold back economic growth. A Moscow-trained missile scientist led the push for China’s policy, based on tables of calculations that applied mathematical models used to calculate rocket trajectories to population growth.
Four decades later, China is aging much earlier in its development than other major economies did. The shift to fewer births and more elderly citizens threatens to hold back economic growth. In a generation that grew up without siblings, young women are increasingly reluctant to have children—and there are fewer of them every year. Beijing is at a loss to change the mindset brought about by the policy.
Births in China fell by more than 500,000 last year, according to recent government data, accelerating a population drop that started in 2022. Officials cited a quickly shrinking number of women of childbearing age—more than three million fewer than a year earlier—and acknowledged “changes in people’s thinking about births, postponement of marriage and childbirth.”
Some researchers argue the government underestimates the problem, and the population began to shrink even earlier.
Fewer births is good news - a solution rather than a problem. There needs to be fewer humans if we’re to avoid cooking ourselves and sending other species into extinction. We should all be so lucky as China to have this ‘problem’.
Sure, but that’s an environmental solution to what they see as an economical problem.
We need to rethink how economies work in a population shrink.
Good news everyone! We all DO have this problem… It’s just most obvious in China because they industrialized and urbanized more rapidly than anyone else AND had this stupid legal policy.
Industrialization, urbanization and improving healthcare also significantly drops births, to below the replacement rate of 2.1. The whole world is on this path, with China, Japan, South Korea, Germany and Russia leading the way.
And before anyone thinks different, the US is on this path too. Our population is still growing because of immigration, but birth rate is well below replacement value and dropping
Hence one of the miriad of reasons why immigration is such a good policy for a country. Attract younger skilled workers who directly contribute to the economy.
I’m generally optimistic about the future but this is a place where I’m not. Specifically for the US, immigration has always been a strength. From cultural distinctiveness to the bulk of labor at times to innovation and competitiveness, from arts to science e to technology, people have been attracted to the US from all over the world and have made this place much better in so many ways. Why are so many people trying to ruin it? Why is there such fear? Why are you taking something that’s clearly a strength and trying to ruin it for outselves?
There is an interesting bit in this channel 5 video. People all over the world have this false image of the US as a paradise and prosperity and freedom, but the lived experience of immigrants is quite harsh in recent years.
The problem is the aging population.
The problem is lack of bodies for the meat grinder that is the world economy.
The problem is the lack of bodies to make rich people richer
The problem is lack of bodies for the meat grinder that is the world economy.
The problem is the lack of bodies to make rich people richer
“They’re the same picture”
It can be a problem for any structure of society. Lots of old people and not enough young people to support them. Or look at Detroit. Infrastructure designed for a city twice the size, and still has to be maintained with a shrunken tax base.
Instead of dying at an appropriate age, they just keep aging. We need to stop spending so much on living longer. Maybe put more into making dying more comfortable so it’s not as frightening. For instance COVID has killed off a lot of old people but it’s a horrible way to go. Alzheimer’s also, we can’t cure it, so do we really want to prolong the agony?
https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyrant
Your “why bother” sentiment reminds me of this
Sorry but as an old person myself I got tangled up in all the clutter on that link, so I missed your point whatever it was. [Edit: I read (skimmed ) the very-overwtitten story in the second link and therein lies the problem; we are still trying to extend life and have only falsehoods that pretend to extend youth. There’s been no real advancement in extending youthful vigor, nor in holding onto the wisdom of experience without the physical deterioration of the mind and body.]
Me being dead doesn’t bother me, it’s the various unpleasant ways of getting there, and the responsibilities I have towards others. If I knew my quadriplegic family member would be cared for as well or better than I’m doing it, I’d rather go for the Big Sleep than retirement. My ancient mom has Alzheimer’s and I don’t want to become that kind of trial to others. I’d rather leave my money to my kids than spend it on myself, especially for healthcare.
Who’s going to take care of 4 aging grandparents and 2 aging parents when they all share only one young person between them?
deleted by creator
If everyone is old, who takes care of the old people? And don’t say immigrants, because eventually every country will become old since birth rates are dropping everywhere, including Africa
Great until there’s not enough carers to go around because of the shrinking population in the 20-35 demographic.
Government robots maybe?
deleted by creator
It should also be noted that with fewer carers available, they’ll become much more expensive, so either the wealthy elderly will pay them and the poor elderly simply languish until death, or the government pays them, which ultimately means taxes that will be incurred by the fewer amount of working people, which means they’ll have to be relatively high.
The government is made up of people. Working age people. The same people that fewer and fewer are existing.
At population level scales, “the rich” do not have the unlimited money pot that people think they do. The US spends 4.5 trillion dollars just on health care each year. If you completely liquidated all the wealth of the top 1% (ignoring that the fact that this is functionally impossible without massively decreasing its value; a stock is much less valuable if you know you can’t hold onto it to collect future returns because the government is going to seize it), then the top 1% could fund American health expenses for ten years at the absolute most. Admittedly, the US is extraordinarily inefficient with health care spending, but if you adjust per capita spending to the levels of France, you still completely run out of money in 15-20 years.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, since you’re obviously talking about a more limited problem then all medical expenses, but because the vast majority of medical expenses are incurred by the elderly, it’s not as inapplicable as it might seem. Ultimately, funding sources need to be sustainable and not self-depleting, and for population-level spending, you pretty much always need to expand your funding beyond the ultra-rich. There’s a reason why the excellent social services in Europe also come with a much higher tax burden for all people, not just the wealthy.
deleted by creator
Yes, I’m aware, which is why I specifically highlighted that and mentioned how if you do the analysis with a European level of spending, the outcome isn’t fundamentally different.
Admittedly, the US is extraordinarily inefficient with health care spending, but if you adjust per capita spending to the levels of France, you still completely run out of money in 15-20 years.
In my own family:
- my grandfather was one of 13
- my Mom was one of 6
- I was one of 4
- the four of us have a total of 3 kids
Clearly you and your siblings need to up your game /s
Far too late for that problem. We’re already in the middle of the next Great Extinction.
Let’s hope no one pulls a Thanos
China has a surplus of men. Russia has surplus of women. Seems like there’s an easy solution there.
Pretty sure they’re both too racist for that.
You underestimate puberty
It’s not a matter of puberty; it’s a matter of immigration. Which of those countries is going to be willing to accept a mass influx of minorities from the other?
I thought you said it was racism
What, you doubt Russian or Chinese immigration policy could be racist? You think Russia would have absolutely no problem with the idea accepting a whole bunch of Han Chinese men, or that China would have absolutely no problem with the idea of accepting a whole bunch of white Russian women?
Russia is literally offering citizenship in exchange for military service.
China is just beginning to ramp up policy to attempt to address their own population issues.
I absolutely think that all countries are racist. I think it always informs immigration policy.
SPECIFICALLY w/ Russia and China, I think that the mutually beneficial agreement regarding the sustainability of their economies supercedes issues with racism. At least w/ Russia, this is literally evidenced by their immigration policies. I actually don’t know what China’s immigration policies are w.r.t Russians, but I expect they’re roughly aligned with other nations, and they’re not singled out unfavourably.
Let them fight!
This but unironically. The entire east end of Russia is a steamy mix of Slavic and Han Chinese ethnicity.
based on tables of calculations that applied mathematical models used to calculate rocket trajectories to population growth.
TO THE MOOOOOON!!! 🚀🌝💎✊💎✊
I wonder where China would be right now population wise if it wasn’t for the one child policy.
Look at the population growth rate of India for an example.
Yes and no.
As a nation industrializes and gains access better medicine, the survival rate infants and mothers go up. This leads to a birthrate increase.
That better medicine also includes effective birth control. As birth control becomes accepted, the birth rate naturally falls off.
The next thing that causes a birthrate fall off is the mood of the potential parents. If they think their children will have as good a life or better then they had, then those people will have children. If they think their children will have a worse life, they will not.
India is still in the process of industrialization. Birth control is not widely accepted, and parental optimism is high.
In China birth control is more accepted, and currently parental optimism is low.
China enacted the one child policy (which this article talks about) in an era where they were undergoing rapid industrialization (as you mentioned, India is going through it now). Today’s parental optimism (or lack thereof) is separate from that.
It seems it’s also very correlated with education (of women)
Still your points stand, just wanted to add that as well
The solution is clear. Invade other countries and take their women.
Conan, what is good in life?
Trade Russia 100k Uighur men for a tract of land containing women after you already sent all their husband’s and young men to Ukraine. You get women and more territory. Russia gets men and more men to fight.
I genuinely wonder how differently this would have played out if China had managed to keep an equal m/f ratio.
Huh. I didn’t have soylent green on my 2024 bingo card.
