China's work force is set to decline 30% by 2050

[Azadkashmir]

U can have our 200 million Chinese if u will.
China doesn't need 1.3-1.5 billion, 0.8-1 billion is enough.
We also have enough overseas Chinese.

yep subtle invasion of japan lolz.

 

[EAsian]

imagine one have to care about 4 olds and one child.This is unhealthy.Most of olds will be throw there and die like this.老教授满身粪便在阳台躺20多天 老伴不闻不问-搜狐新闻
A country that filled with olds have no hope.
Hoping robots will save a old country is like hoping a wheel chair will save a old man.It is ridiculous.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

imagine one have to care about 4 olds and one child.This is unhealthy.Most of olds will be throw there and die like this.老教授满身粪便在阳台躺20多天 老伴不闻不问-搜狐新闻
A country that filled with olds have no hope.
Hoping robots will save a old country is like hoping a wheel chair will save a old man.It is ridiculous.

Absolutely. The best median age for a society is between 30 and 35.

Also read the account of this girl.

China’s one-child policy led to my adoption — and a more privileged life - The Washington Post

It is very touching.

@AndrewJin

 

[AndrewJin]

Absolutely. The best median age for a society is between 30 and 35.

Also read the account of this girl.

China’s one-child policy led to my adoption — and a more privileged life - The Washington Post

It is very touching.

@AndrewJin

No society can maintain 30-35 forever. If forever, which means you have very low life expectancy, below world average, except those manmade immigrant countries.

 

[XiaoYaoZi backups]

No society can maintain 30-35 forever. If forever, which means you have very low life expectancy, below world average, except those manmade immigrant countries.

@AndrewJin Where is the thread about Fukushima reactor's melt down.

 

[AndrewJin]

@AndrewJin Where is the thread about Fukushima reactor's melt down.

Dunno

 

[XiaoYaoZi backups]

Dunno

It must be the work of Japanese. How did you get three negative ratings?

 

[rcrmj]

Raise the retirement age for men and women to 65, one child policy is being fully altered to a two child policy, in my opinion scrap it fully in the next 5 years. Encourage couples to have up to 2-3 children provide cash and other incentives as Russia has done to achieve it's recent population boom. CPC can force people to have more kids it will be difficult but it can be achieved. Robots will replace most lower factory jobs.

I'm in favor of having a population boom just enough to replace the older population.

Curious on whats the opinion of allowing immigration only from East Asian developed countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore and possibly other developed countries. I know immigration is unpopular.

@Jlaw @AndrewJin @rcrmj @TheTruth @TaiShang @cirr @Sommer @Fattyacids @rott ? Thoughts.

the birth control will remain for certain amount of time, and it will lose-up from time to time````and in terms of immigration, its a double edged sword, a well controlled immigration will do us a wonder, but uncontrolled one will make China looks like Hackney or South London

Absolutely. The best median age for a society is between 30 and 35.

Also read the account of this girl.

China’s one-child policy led to my adoption — and a more privileged life - The Washington Post

It is very touching.

@AndrewJin

make little things as sensational propaganda piece `` usual tactics
India doenst hv birth control policy, and yet thousands were adopted yearly, so what should be blamed, caste? feudal society? child labour? or simply a failed state?

 

[Aepsilons]

the birth control will remain for certain amount of time, and it will lose-up from time to time````and in terms of immigration, its a double edged sword, a well controlled immigration will do us a wonder, but uncontrolled one will make China looks like Hackney or South London

Immigration doesnt necessarily have to be viewed as a negative, but in context to China, it is primarily and majority-wise a fairly homogenous nation. I suppose some of the opponents of immigration in China would be the fear of the rapid change in the social demographic and the loss of the Chinese 'character', equivalent to the de-Han-ification of the nation. But to be honest, I believe that the likelihood of that is close to nil due to the shear number of Han Chinese in the country. The country's 1.3 + billion; close to 95% of that are Han Chinese. So roughly there are about 1.235 Billion Han Chinese in China's 1.3 Billion population.

Even if China were to welcome 50 million foreigners, that number is a miniscule 3.86% of the entire Chinese population. You see the relativism here? Fear of immigration-catalyzed demographic change is only pertinent and applicable to nations that have populations lower than 50 million. Countries in Europe and Africa even in South America may be victim to this paradigm, however, for large nations with populations above 100 million or more, it really does not come to play.

Realistically speaking, and operationally speaking, the likelihood of China applying an immigration-focused domestic policy is nill. The country has yet to tap into its rural population, which constitutes close to 60% of China's total population. I suppose the issue of population demographic change specifically decreasing birth rates --- is a reality that is common in states that have attained fairly high national development and rapidly growing HDI. Take for example South Korea, Germany, Sweden, The United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan; all examples of ultra-developed nation states with fairly slowing population growth.

In fact we should consider the Malthusian Theoretics since we're here. It is pertinent to note that human population growth, during industrialization and modernization processes, tend to grow assymetrically. Resources are limited and have a set point. If we were to liken it to the growth curve in a bacterial model; it is similar to the exponential growth phase after lag phase. Do remember that after exponential growth phase there is the linear stasis phase, and eventual exponential population decline, and eventual stabilization. The theme here, friend, is sustainability. There will come a time when an industrialized nation that provides excellent social welfare programs for all its citizenry will be unable to cope and provide for a large population due to the shear high capitation index per citizen.




Regards.

the birth control will remain for certain amount of time, and it will lose-up from time to time````and in terms of immigration, its a double edged sword, a well controlled immigration will do us a wonder, but uncontrolled one will make China looks like Hackney or South London


make little things as sensational propaganda piece `` usual tactics
India doenst hv birth control policy, and yet thousands were adopted yearly, so what should be blamed, caste? feudal society? child labour? or simply a failed state?

India's growth situation is rather similar to China's growth assymetrices in the 1950s , 1960s wherein prior to the 1 child policy, the average Chinese family were producing up to 6-7 offspring each. The necessitization of 1CP was practical since without it China's population would now have been at least in 3 billion. The Indians, despite the lack of 1CP, still have a relatively lower growth rate in terms of population than China ever was in the 60s and early 70s. In fact it wasn't until the late 70s and 80s that China's population growth rate was actualized due to stern policy initiatives such as taxation regimes for those who did not abide by the 1CP. That is FACT.

India, will follow the same trend that is happening in China, and that is reduced population growth as the standard of living, specifically the inreased per capitization indices indicate. It is a trend that has even been seen in Saudi Arabia, in Malaysia, and in United Arab Emirates.

You can't escape human biology population trends that are established in academic schema, my dear friend.

This has been a topic studied, argued, researched ad nauseum by members of the Academe, those of us who live within the Pillars of Academia.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Immigration doesnt necessarily have to be viewed as a negative, but in context to China, it is primarily and majority-wise a fairly homogenous nation. I suppose some of the opponents of immigration in China would be the fear of the rapid change in the social demographic and the loss of the Chinese 'character', equivalent to the de-Han-ification of the nation. But to be honest, I believe that the likelihood of that is close to nil due to the shear number of Han Chinese in the country. The country's 1.3 + billion; close to 95% of that are Han Chinese. So roughly there are about 1.235 Billion Han Chinese in China's 1.3 Billion population.

Even if China were to welcome 50 million foreigners, that number is a miniscule 3.86% of the entire Chinese population. You see the relativism here? Fear of immigration-catalyzed demographic change is only pertinent and applicable to nations that have populations lower than 50 million. Countries in Europe and Africa even in South America may be victim to this paradigm, however, for large nations with populations above 100 million or more, it really does not come to play.

Realistically speaking, and operationally speaking, the likelihood of China applying an immigration-focused domestic policy is nill. The country has yet to tap into its rural population, which constitutes close to 60% of China's total population. I suppose the issue of population demographic change specifically decreasing birth rates --- is a reality that is common in states that have attained fairly high national development and rapidly growing HDI. Take for example South Korea, Germany, Sweden, The United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan; all examples of ultra-developed nation states with fairly slowing population growth.

In fact we should consider the Malthusian Theoretics since we're here. It is pertinent to note that human population growth, during industrialization and modernization processes, tend to grow assymetrically. Resources are limited and have a set point. If we were to liken it to the growth curve in a bacterial model; it is similar to the exponential growth phase after lag phase. Do remember that after exponential growth phase there is the linear stasis phase, and eventual exponential population decline, and eventual stabilization. The theme here, friend, is sustainability. There will come a time when an industrialized nation that provides excellent social welfare programs for all its citizenry will be unable to cope and provide for a large population due to the shear high capitation index per citizen.




Regards.

China is far more diverse, and tolerant of diversity than Japan. Also, of the 1.35 some billion Chinese, only Tibetans and Uygurs have not assimilated, while the rest have completely done so.

Hence, there is no difference between a "Han" and a "Manchu" or a "Zhuang" or a "Hui" or dozens of other groups.

Not only this, Chinese culture has far more assimilating characteristics. I have no doubt that unlike Japan, China would have zero problem with any Mongoloid immigrants. Not to mention that they are 40-50 million of Chinese outside the country, who can consider coming back if the standards of living reach a decent level.

 

[Aepsilons]

China is far more diverse, and tolerant of diversity than Japan. Also, of the 1.35 some billion Chinese, only Tibetans and Uygurs have not assimilated, while the rest have completely done so.

Hence, there is no difference between a "Han" and a "Manchu" or a "Zhuang" or a "Hui" or dozens of other groups.

Not only this, Chinese culture has far more assimilating characteristics. I have no doubt that unlike Japan, China would have zero problem with any Mongoloid immigrants. Not to mention that they are 40-50 million of Chinese outside the country, who can consider coming back if the standards of living reach a decent level.

Of course there is no comparison between Japan's demographics as to China's since the latter is a continental-sized nation with the population over 10 times that of Japan's already massive 130 million. Japan is already considered a fairly large nation, population wise, and even in terms of area.

Why even if we juxtapose Japan to the continent of Europe, we see that Japan is larger than most:

In fact even if we compared and juxtaposed Japan to the continental sized United States Mainland, you will see that Japan's size is basically equivalent to most of the US Mainland's Eastern Seaboard, or basically New England Region + the Middle Atlantic States Region:

Japan and China, to an extent, are similar in that there is relatively high homogeneity in the three countries. I would even extend Korea, as well. The populations in the three countries are relatively homogenous and there tends to be a sense of xenophobia in all three countries when it comes to foreigners, i suppose , this has always been a trait since ancient times. And this may have been influenced by the pro-collectivity paradigm in the three countries throughout the past 2 millenia.

Lastly, if we consider the minority population in China to the Han majority population, we will find that their numbers , the former that is, is relatively infinitesimally small compared to the Han population. There are 5 million ethnic Tibetans in China, there are some 5 million ethnic Mongols in China. Combined there are 10 million. What is 10 million compared to 1.25 Billion Han? Mongols + Tibetans are merely 0.76% of the total Chinese population.

So in a hypothetical situation wherein if China absorbs several million immigrants (note that this is hypothetical), the immigrants would, as policy history has shown, most likely be subsumed into the greater Han population. As you may know (or not), Tibetans are now actually mixing with Han Chinese who have now settled Tibet; as well as in Outer Mongolia, and in former Manchuria (now re-organized into provincial areas).

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Of course there is no comparison between Japan's demographics as to China's since the latter is a continental-sized nation with the population over 10 times that of Japan's already massive 130 million. Japan is already considered a fairly large nation, population wise, and even in terms of area.

Why even if we juxtapose Japan to the continent of Europe, we see that Japan is larger than most:

In fact even if we compared and juxtaposed Japan to the continental sized United States Mainland, you will see that Japan's size is basically equivalent to most of the US Mainland's Eastern Seaboard, or basically New England Region + the Middle Atlantic States Region:

Japan and China, to an extent, are similar in that there is relatively high homogeneity in the three countries. I would even extend Korea, as well. The populations in the three countries are relatively homogenous and there tends to be a sense of xenophobia in all three countries when it comes to foreigners, i suppose , this has always been a trait since ancient times. And this may have been influenced by the pro-collectivity paradigm in the three countries throughout the past 2 millenia.

Lastly, if we consider the minority population in China to the Han majority population, we will find that their numbers , the former that is, is relatively infinitesimally small compared to the Han population. There are 5 million ethnic Tibetans in China, there are some 5 million ethnic Mongols in China. Combined there are 10 million. What is 10 million compared to 1.25 Billion Han? Mongols + Tibetans are merely 0.76% of the total Chinese population.

So in a hypothetical situation wherein if China absorbs several million immigrants (note that this is hypothetical), the immigrants would, as policy history has shown, most likely be subsumed into the greater Han population. As you may know (or not), Tibetans are now actually mixing with Han Chinese who have now settled Tibet; as well as in Outer Mongolia, and in former Manchuria (now re-organized into provincial areas).

Please stop your propaganda about Manchuria. Manchuria was an imperial term used by Japan, to create ethnic tensions and facilitate the creation of Manchukuo.

From Wikipedia: Manchuria - Wikiwand

"Manchuria" is a translation of the Japanese word Manshū, which dates from the 19th century. The nameManju (Manzhou) was invented and given to the Jurchen people by Hong Taiji in 1635 as a new name for their ethnic group; however, the name "Manchuria" was never used by the Manchus or the Qing dynasty itself to refer to their homeland. According to the Japanese scholar Junko Miyawaki-Okada, the Japanese geographer Takahashi Kageyasu was the first to use the term 满洲 (Manshū) as a place name in 1809 in theNippon Henkai Ryakuzu, and it was from that work that Westerners adopted the name.[6][7] According to Mark C. Elliott, Katsuragawa Hoshū's 1794 work, the "Hokusa bunryaku", was where 满洲 (Manshū) first appeared as a place name was in two maps included in the work, "Ashia zenzu" and "Chikyū hankyū sōzu" which were also created by Katsuragawa.[8] 满洲 (Manshū) then began to appear as a place names in more maps created by Japanese like Kondi Jūzō, Takahashi Kageyasu, Baba Sadayoshi and Yamada Ren, and these maps were brought to Europe by the Dutch Philipp von Siebold.[9] According to Nakami Tatsuo, Philip Franz von Siebold was the one who brought the usage of the term Manchuria to Europeans after borrowing it from the Japanese, who were the first to use it in a geographic manner in the eighteenth century although neither the Manchu nor Chinese languages had a term in their own language equivalent to "Manchuria" as a geographic place name.[10] According to Bill Sewell, it was Europeans who first started using the name Manchuria to refer to the location and it is "not a genuine geographic term".[11] The historian Gavan McCormack agreed with Robert H. G. Lee's statement that "The term Manchuria or Man-chou is a modern creation used mainly by westerners and Japanese", with McCormack writing that the term Manchuria is imperialistic in nature and has no "precise meaning" since the Japanese deliberately promoted the use of "Manchuria" as a geographic name to promote its separation from China at the time they were setting up their puppet state of Manchukuo.[12] The Japanese had their own motive for deliberately spreading the usage of the term Manchuria.[13] The historian Norman Smith wrote that "The term 'Manchuria' is controversial".[14] Professor Mariko Asano Tamanoi said that she "should use the term in quotation marks" when referring to Manchuria.[15] In his 2012 dissertation on the Jurchen people to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree in History from the University of Washington, Professor Chad D. Garcia noted that usage of the term "Manchuria" is out of favor in "current scholarly practice" and that he had ceased using the term, instead using "the northeast" or referring to specific geographical features.[16]

In the 18th-century Europe, the region later known as "Manchuria" was most commonly referred to as "[Chinese] Tartary". However, the term Manchuria (Mantchourie, in French) started appearing by the end of the century; French missionaries used it as early as 1800.[17] The French-based geographers Conrad Malte-Brun and Edme Mentelle promoted the use of the term Manchuria (Mantchourie, in French), along with "Mongolia", "Kalmykia", etc., as more precise terms than Tartary, in their world geography work published in 1804.[18]

During the Qing dynasty, the area of Manchuria was known as the "three eastern provinces" (san dong sheng) 三東省 since 1683 when Jilin and Heilongjiang were separated even though it was not until 1907 that they were turned into actual provinces.[19] The area of Manchuria was then converted into three provinces by the late Qing government in 1907. Since then, the phrase "Three Northeast Provinces" (traditional Chinese:東北三省; simplified Chinese: 东北三省; pinyin: Dōngběi Sānshěng) was officially used by the Qing government in China to refer to this region, and the post of Viceroy of Three Northeast Provinces was established to take charge of these provinces. After the 1911 revolution, which resulted in the collapse of the Manchu-established Qing Dynasty, the name of the region where the Manchus originated was known as "the Northeast" in official documents in the newly founded Republic of China, in addition to the "Three Northeast Provinces".​

Of course there is no comparison between Japan's demographics as to China's since the latter is a continental-sized nation with the population over 10 times that of Japan's already massive 130 million. Japan is already considered a fairly large nation, population wise, and even in terms of area.

Why even if we juxtapose Japan to the continent of Europe, we see that Japan is larger than most:

In fact even if we compared and juxtaposed Japan to the continental sized United States Mainland, you will see that Japan's size is basically equivalent to most of the US Mainland's Eastern Seaboard, or basically New England Region + the Middle Atlantic States Region:

Japan and China, to an extent, are similar in that there is relatively high homogeneity in the three countries. I would even extend Korea, as well. The populations in the three countries are relatively homogenous and there tends to be a sense of xenophobia in all three countries when it comes to foreigners, i suppose , this has always been a trait since ancient times. And this may have been influenced by the pro-collectivity paradigm in the three countries throughout the past 2 millenia.

Lastly, if we consider the minority population in China to the Han majority population, we will find that their numbers , the former that is, is relatively infinitesimally small compared to the Han population. There are 5 million ethnic Tibetans in China, there are some 5 million ethnic Mongols in China. Combined there are 10 million. What is 10 million compared to 1.25 Billion Han? Mongols + Tibetans are merely 0.76% of the total Chinese population.

So in a hypothetical situation wherein if China absorbs several million immigrants (note that this is hypothetical), the immigrants would, as policy history has shown, most likely be subsumed into the greater Han population. As you may know (or not), Tibetans are now actually mixing with Han Chinese who have now settled Tibet; as well as in Outer Mongolia, and in former Manchuria (now re-organized into provincial areas).

Also, as I said, there are very few Mongols who don't feel Chinese, so much that I would write them off.


There are only two ethnic groups that are not assimilated: Tibetans and Uygurs. Their combined strength reaches 15 million approx.

 

[Aepsilons]

Please stop your propaganda about Manchuria. Manchuria was an imperial term used by Japan, to create ethnic tensions and facilitate the creation of Manchukuo.

To correct you, Mr. Ramjet.

The term Manchuria was a term created not by the Japanese, but by the Qing. It is the homeland of the ethnic Manchu people.

Lastly there is no such thing as 'Manchukuo'. There is no such thing in Japanese language; the correct term is Manchukoku --- 万チュ コク

Also, as I said, there are very few Mongols who don't feel Chinese, so much that I would write them off.


There are only two ethnic groups that are not assimilated: Tibetans and Uygurs. Their combined strength reaches 15 million approx.

My friend, Mr. Ramjet, you understand that 15 million is infintesimal compared to the gargantuan 1.25 billion Han, right?
To compare it ; there are more Han Chinese than the entire population of India. And remember while India is rather multi-ethnic, with no clear ethnic majority, in China there is an overwhelming ethnic majority: Han.

In Japan we have a saying, "The Chinese are like a forest, they move slowly, but before you know it, the forest will have grown into you." It is a symbolism of the shear number, and size of the Chinese. Their large numbers have, i suppose, have always been their strength.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

To correct you, Mr. Ramjet.

The term Manchuria was a term created not by the Japanese, but by the Qing. It is the homeland of the ethnic Manchu people.

Lastly there is no such thing as 'Manchukuo'. There is no such thing in Japanese language; the correct term is Manchukoku --- 万チュ コク




My friend, Mr. Ramjet, you understand that 15 million is infintesimal compared to the gargantuan 1.25 billion Han, right?
To compare it ; there are more Han Chinese than the entire population of India. And remember while India is rather multi-ethnic, with no clear ethnic majority, in China there is an overwhelming ethnic majority: Han.

In Japan we have a saying, "The Chinese are like a forest, they move slowly, but before you know it, the forest will have grown into you." It is a symbolism of the shear number, and size of the Chinese. Their large numbers have, i suppose, have always been their strength.

Did you try reading the red paragraphs?

To correct you, Mr. Ramjet.

The term Manchuria was a term created not by the Japanese, but by the Qing. It is the homeland of the ethnic Manchu people.

Lastly there is no such thing as 'Manchukuo'. There is no such thing in Japanese language; the correct term is Manchukoku --- 万チュ コク




My friend, Mr. Ramjet, you understand that 15 million is infintesimal compared to the gargantuan 1.25 billion Han, right?
To compare it ; there are more Han Chinese than the entire population of India. And remember while India is rather multi-ethnic, with no clear ethnic majority, in China there is an overwhelming ethnic majority: Han.

In Japan we have a saying, "The Chinese are like a forest, they move slowly, but before you know it, the forest will have grown into you." It is a symbolism of the shear number, and size of the Chinese. Their large numbers have, i suppose, have always been their strength.

The Manchu language doesn't even have a term near to Manchuria. It was just a Japanese creation to create ethnic discord.

Even the name Manzhou, the older version of Manchu, was given to the Jurchen group of People by Japanese.

 

[Aepsilons]

Did you try reading the red paragraphs?

Even the name Manzhou, the older version of Manchu, was given to the Jurchen group of People by Japanese.

Incorrect.

I would recommend you learn Chinese language first , Mr. Ramjet. I can see that any weakness in lect dialectics may result in misunderstandings. First of all, the Chinese word for Manchuria is 滿洲, and that is pronounced as Man zhou, Japan's pronounciation of Manshu is a literal paraphrase of the Chinese or Mandarin syntax.

LOL.

Did you try reading the red paragraphs?




The Manchu language doesn't even have a term near to Manchuria. It was just a Japanese creation to create ethnic discord.

Even the name Manzhou, the older version of Manchu, was given to the Jurchen group of People by Japanese.

I think there is no point in discussing with you any further, Mr. Ramjet, thank you for engaging with me in earlier discourse.