China relaxes it's two child policy to three.

If China hadn't relaxed the two child policy, they would be overtaken by India soon.
Yes, well, they already relaxed it some years ago – all families allowed two. They got an immediate slight uptick – and then that quickly leveled off and went back to the new, very low, Chinese baseline fertility rate.

So now they are back with a further relaxation. So maybe a small number of two-child families who want to and have the economy for three kids will now take up he offer. The expectation should be that any effect will be marginal and temporary.

Who knew literally allowing a bunch of rocket engineers to implement a full-scale social engineering project on the largest population on earth might actually have profound effects on how said population works? Except now it turns out while they could twiddle with things to get the Chinese to stop having large families, they now have no reset button, and never had.

The probability is that India has already overtaken China, and China just cooks the books to save face over this.
 
If you are poor enough the US has a zero child policy. The Supreme Court is ok with forced sterilization of mental patients.

You live in a society that does the EXACT SAME THING the only difference is China levied punishments on everyone and the US just punishes people who don't have money.

Is this not textbook "Whataboutism"? Or does it only get called that when it's applied to certain specific topics?
 
Is this not textbook "Whataboutism"? Or does it only get called that when it's applied to certain specific topics?
Nope, because the comment wasn't predicated on dismissing criticism of China. It was a direct response to the OP's unnecessary jab, which I'll quote for reference again here:
It must be wonderful living in a country that regulates your child bearing.
The argument being made - that the US does regulate the ability to have (and raise) children - is therefore completely fair.
 
Being a critic of child bearing regulation, do you understand what will happen to the country of 1.4bn people, to prices of various foods, water, energy around planet Earth if China stops regulating and it’s population, say, doubles rapidly?
It won't. Can't now. Even if they hadn't implemented the one-child-policy, China today wouldn't have had double the population – the estimated population reduction from the policy in retrospect is about 400 million – so 1,4 billion instead of 1,8 billion. What they wouldn't be looking at is a relative population collapse due to way-below-replacement-rate birth rates in the next coming 30 years otoh.

China kind of went off on a tangent based on a kind of neo-Malthusian scare scenario that was popular in the 1960's and 70's, according to which Asia would descend into abject poverty and chaos due to an unregulated population explosion (India had sterilization campaigns (also enforced non-volunatry) and stuff in the 1970 for the same reason). So China was going to steal a march on everyone and prove the superiority of its own political system and ideology by averting this impending doom.

Unfortunately while sciency-looking enough at the time, the prognostics were faulty. So China is now stuck with a slow-burn but massive problem with no quick fixes, of its own making, because it enacted and enforced policies based on premises that turned out to bu not actually all that relevant.

While there being no quick fixes, the long term ones involve building a better Chinese society.
 
China's "massive problem" is overpopulation, which is being steadily resolved. Two child policy was relaxed mostly because it's not required anymore, as far as I understand.
The demographic situation in India is a catastrophe.
 
China Baby Bust to Be Felt Globally

The effects of demographic crisis could have big impact on inflation

WSJ said:
China will allow couples to have three children and will invest more in education and child care, after decades of restricting most families to one or two children. The change is welcome, but the limited success of many other countries trying to boost births with financial incentives— and the lackluster response to a similar policy change in 2015— mean it is probably too late to head off the worst of China’s demographic crisis. The effects of the great Chinese baby bust will percolate to nearly every corner of the global economy.

One of the biggest effects could be on something that is very much already on companies’ minds these days: inflation.

Of course, a significantly smaller Chinese labor force wouldn’t necessarily mean higher prices for labor-intensive consumer goods. That would also depend on demand, levels of automation, transportation technologies and many other things. But all things being equal, it does seem likely that costs for labor-intensive manufacturing in aggregate could be set to rise significantly over the next decade or so, particularly if India continues to struggle with poor infrastructure and protectionism.

One reason China’s integration into the world economy had such an enormous impact on the price of labor-intensive goods was that it timed its opening to the world nearly exactly right demographically. From 1990 to 2010, the percentage of the nation’s population ages 15 to 64, already reasonably high, skyrocketed nearly 10 percentage points to 75%. Not only was an enormous and cheap labor force suddenly available to multinational producers, but that labor force in aggregate had relatively few dependents to care for. Workers were more open to taking risks and chasing work opportunities far away in the big coastal cities.

Increasingly, however, that is no longer the case. About half of migrant workers in China are older than 40, according to Commerzbank, compared with around 30% in 2008. Many of them will find themselves responsible for supporting two elderly parents back home. The growth rate of both the migrant and overall urban labor force has slowed sharply since 2017, right around the time the 15- to 64-year-old population began to fall in earnest. That is a more worrisome trend than lower population growth itself. It implies that one main source of Chinese productivity growth—moving workers from low-value- added agriculture or local services into high-value-added manufacturing— may be starting to bump up against some natural limits.

An older, slower-growing population could also feed into commodity prices in important ways. For now, Beijing’s need to show rapid progress on carbon emissions has translated into forced steel-supply cuts, higher prices and headaches for industrial commodity buyers. But over the next two decades, an older population with scarcer savings might be less inclined to plow its hard-earned money into new apartments and more interested in fixed income with reliable cash flows, especially if Beijing bites the bullet on overhauling financial and capital-account rules.

That would hit not only steel, but also copper demand. Many investors seem to view copper as a sure thing given the tailwinds behind investment in clean energy and vehicles. But as of 2018, construction was still the biggest source of copper demand


ajax-request.php
zoom_in.png


in China, according to mining giant BHP, accounting for 26% of total demand and edging out the power sector and consumer durables at 22% and 23%, respectively. If future Chinese households stop seeing real estate as their best financial bet, the hit to demand for nearly every major industrial commodity would be substantial.

Inflation is, as central bankers are again discovering this year, a tricky beast, and in the Western world at least, services tend to be as or more important for consumers.

But unless China’s efforts to automate and expand the labor pool prove more effective than expected, labor-intensive manufacturers everywhere might find themselves feeling the squeeze in the years ahead. And many commodity producers could find themselves with fewer customers than expected, too.

—Nathaniel Taplin

Grandparents take care of their grandson in a Beijing park. Many grandparents step in as the parents work.
 
China's "massive problem" is overpopulation, which is being steadily resolved. Two child policy was relaxed mostly because it's not required anymore, as far as I understand.
The demographic situation in India is a catastrophe.
Economics is funny in the way that is disruptive to have basic parameters getting jerked around in any kind of more radical fashion. Since we're talking about peoples' livelihoods and lives, while human being are amazingly resourceful and adaptive – this all comes at a cost. (One might think Russians particularly aware of this considering the collective experience of both economics and demography derailing in the 1990's.)

You do not want quick contractions and expansions in demographics any more than in economics – both tend to be thought of as "crisis" as lived human experience. Birdjaguar's latest post picks up on the disruptive effects of this kind of start-stop situations.

This i China:
800px-China_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png


This is India:
800px-India_single_age_population_pyramid_2020.png
 
China kind of went off on a tangent based on a kind of neo-Malthusian scare scenario that was popular in the 1960's and 70's, according to which Asia would descend into abject poverty and chaos due to an unregulated population explosion (India had sterilization campaigns (also enforced non-volunatry) and stuff in the 1970 for the same reason). So China was going to steal a march on everyone and prove the superiority of its own political system and ideology by averting this impending doom.

Unfortunately while sciency-looking enough at the time, the prognostics were faulty. So China is now stuck with a slow-burn but massive problem with no quick fixes, of its own making, because it enacted and enforced policies based on premises that turned out to bu not actually all that relevant.

You really want to call having a stable or tending to slightly smaller population a "massive problem". Why, can you explain?

Do you subscribe to the "population makes might" theory of empires - bigger economy, more soldiers, all that - and support imperial logic?

Do you think the planet's resources are unlimited or some magical "green" technology will produce magical energy that ween used won't heat up the planet, enabling population to happily continue to "grow" forever without falling into any malthusian scenario?

Are you perhaps one of Musk's faithful expecting to be shot to Mars as a colonist?

Do you foresee a rosy future to the portion of the planet where the population is still growing faster, Africa? Has it been having a rosy present?

Or just perhaps you must believe that "china is bad, because iliberal or whatever" and therefore anything that China does or did was bad, regardless of logic :crazyeye:
China is overpopulated. This planet is overpopulated. Most of the countries in this planet are overpopulated,.
And what matters for a good standard of living are resources per capita and productivity, not the power and might of being big. But you are a fan of the European Empire, so no surprise that you are under the illusion that big is good.
 
The probability is that India has already overtaken China, and China just cooks the books to save face over this.
You mean, China wants to have bigger population than India and in the same time, keeps restriction for the number of children per family?
 
You mean, China wants to have bigger population than India and in the same time, keeps restriction for the number of children per family?

...regardless of logic as I was saying :lol: the upper crust of western europeans are very well trained at cognitive dissonance! Surely we live in the best possible of worlds!
 
@Verbose Where did you get those charts?
 
I sent that population chart to a friend in China and this was part of their response:

I think the chart has reflected the reality. The one child politely first administered in 1980 where the male have surpassed the female. The third child policy has just released this week which most people have just laughed at/about it. The one child policy was a mistake and now they are trying undo it? It is not our problem. Right now, instead of giving a birth to the second or third child, the majority just want to lie down and be a couch potato.
 
ESn2lip.png


The power of government to control population growth is massively overstated (even China's).

As to what does determine births, check out this fascinating page: https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate (hint: it has a lot to do with how women are treated in society)
Yes. Fertility drops as soon as women move to cities, get educated or get jobs. All of those have been happening in China over the past 50 years or so. I think China's one-child policy in 1980 just cemented the idea in people's minds that there was no need to even think about having more than one child.
 
They are following the same road as Europe and Russia did. And this is ultimately a good thing.
Alternatively, they could hit 2 bn. population by now, with extreme poverty, overpopulation and refugee crisis. In worst case scenario, a civil war or war against one of their neighbors.
 
They can be found on wiki. 'Demographics_of_(country)'

I haven't checked all countries, obviously, but several of them I checked did.
thanks
 
Yes. Fertility drops as soon as women move to cities, get educated or get jobs. All of those have been happening in China over the past 50 years or so. I think China's one-child policy in 1980 just cemented the idea in people's minds that there was no need to even think about having more than one child.

It takes an awful lot of faith in the world to put kids into it.
 
Back
Top Bottom