Singapore’s demographic lesson for China

[Beast]

Somebody wants to end up like Bangladesh.

In fact, with China going up the second tier level that is service sector and design/ innovation. China do not need a large labour forces.

Do you know last year 7million new university graduate and many until now still can't find a job? Many end up as nanny, odd job labourer or others.

And we got people advocating more population?

China is no singapore. It has a 1.3billion population. I would more like to see China population go down at 1.1billion. It's more quality and manageable.

 

[Jlaw]

Somebody wants to end up like Bangladesh.

In fact, with China going up the second tier level that is service sector and design/ innovation. China do not need a large labour forces.

Do you know last year 7million new university graduate and many until now still can't find a job? Many end up as nanny, odd job labourer or others.

And we got people advocating more population?

China is no singapore. It has a 1.3billion population. I woulmore like to see China population go down at 1.1billion. It's more quality and manageable.

Not true. Too many brainwashing from west that say low birthrate is good. Look at Japan and south korea. It is not good. Chinese must maintain at least 1.3b -1.5b people.

 

[Beast]

Not true. Too many brainwashing from west that say low birthrate is good. Look at Japan and south korea. It is not good. Chinese must maintain at least 1.3b -1.5b people.

Not very sustainable. Many grad can't get job. This is quite bad for a growth of a country. This year maybe 7.5million new grad.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

Somebody wants to end up like Bangladesh.

In fact, with China going up the second tier level that is service sector and design/ innovation. China do not need a large labour forces.

Do you know last year 7million new university graduate and many until now still can't find a job? Many end up as nanny, odd job labourer or others.

And we got people advocating more population?

China is no singapore. It has a 1.3billion population. I would more like to see China population go down at 1.1billion. It's more quality and manageable.

The depopulation fear is cook up by elites and capitalist. Depopulation hit asset price and elites hate it. Also depopulation make workers scare, and push up wages. Elites hate it.

A lot of advancement is possible after depopulation. Democracy is a result of depopulation.

The Black Death changed the demography of Europe substantially. Aside from the Plague deaths, there was also a decline in the birth rate. The net result was that by 1400, Europe's population was half what it had been in 1345. This is known with some accuracy from the many Medieval church, census, and tax records that have survived. Europe's population took about six generations to recover.

Cities were hit hard by the plague. Financial business was disrupted as debtors died and their creditors found themselves without recourse. There was simply no one to collect from. Construction projects stopped for a time or were abandoned altogether. Guilds lost their craftsmen and could not replace them.

The labor shortage was very severe, especially in the short term, and consequently, wages rose. Because of the mortality, there was an oversupply of goods, and so prices dropped. Between the two trends, the standard of living rose for those still living.

The Black Death speeded up the changes in medieval society that were already under way. The most immediate effect of the Black Death was a shortage of labor. Much land could no longer be cultivated. In response, the nobles refused to continue the long common practice of gradually eliminating serfdom by allowing the serfs to buy their freedom. Over the centuries it had been realized by some that free tenants were more productive than serfs, and this had led to a gradual breakdown in the use of serfs. With the post-Plague labor shortage, many nobles tried to reverse the process in order to keep their land under cultivation and their income up. Free tenants were taking advantage of the labor shortage to demand better terms from their landlords and that the nobles were reluctant to see their incomes reduced. Governments tried to fix wages, but the labor shortage was irresistible. If their feudal lords would not relent, serfs simply fled to areas where wages were higher or land rental terms lower.

The shock of the Plague caused many peasants to demand a restructuring of society, often with a religious fervor. An approximation of democracy was demanded and with it a curbing of aristocratic rights and privileges. When these hopes for a better life were curtly dismissed, or savagely repressed by the nobility, many commoners rose in rebellion.

Not true. Too many brainwashing from west that say low birthrate is good. Look at Japan and south korea. It is not good. Chinese must maintain at least 1.3b -1.5b people.

Not very sustainable. Many grad can't get job. This is quite bad for a growth of a country. This year maybe 7.5million new grad.

I would say population reduction is a natural punishment in response to a corrupt system. If landlord suck you guys too dry, then birthrate went down. Asset price crash.

Fortunately PRC landlord cannot do a population ponzi by immigration, on such a big country,

 

[Jlaw]

Not very sustainable. Many grad can't get job. This is quite bad for a growth of a country. This year maybe 7.5million new grad.

Than why do we have a shortage in manufacturing? Why do these companies need to hire low skilled Vietnamese? These grads need to toughen up a bit. Work in these factories temporarily and keep looking. North American grads face the same thing. They too work in other jobs not related to their field.
I digress. My reason for a large population is you need it for wars and economics. Imagine the potential Chinese market with 1.5b people....and remember once indian population is greater than China, they will look to expand northward.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

Than why do we have a shortage in manufacturing? Why do these companies need to hire low skilled Vietnamese? These grads need to toughen up a bit. Work in these factories temporarily and keep looking. North American grads face the same thing. They too work in other jobs not related to their field.
I digress. My reason for a large population is you need it for wars and economics. Imagine the potential Chinese market with 1.5b people....and remember once indian population is greater than China, they will look to expand northward.

Low end manufacturing will move elsewhere to the to the lowest wage country. The time when PRC tries to improve the purchasing power and increase wages for her citizen, the elites will move their plant out -- in a capitalist economic system.

I am a socialist. We should not have free trade but "manage trade". Appropriate trade barriers like tarrif, and regulations should be enacted to solve the problem.

 

[Beast]

The depopulation fear is cook up by elites and capitalist. Depopulation hit asset price and elites hate it. Also depopulation make workers scare, and push up wages. Elites hate it.

A lot of advancement is possible after depopulation. Democracy is a result of depopulation.

The Black Death changed the demography of Europe substantially. Aside from the Plague deaths, there was also a decline in the birth rate. The net result was that by 1400, Europe's population was half what it had been in 1345. This is known with some accuracy from the many Medieval church, census, and tax records that have survived. Europe's population took about six generations to recover.

Cities were hit hard by the plague. Financial business was disrupted as debtors died and their creditors found themselves without recourse. There was simply no one to collect from. Construction projects stopped for a time or were abandoned altogether. Guilds lost their craftsmen and could not replace them.

The labor shortage was very severe, especially in the short term, and consequently, wages rose. Because of the mortality, there was an oversupply of goods, and so prices dropped. Between the two trends, the standard of living rose for those still living.

The Black Death speeded up the changes in medieval society that were already under way. The most immediate effect of the Black Death was a shortage of labor. Much land could no longer be cultivated. In response, the nobles refused to continue the long common practice of gradually eliminating serfdom by allowing the serfs to buy their freedom. Over the centuries it had been realized by some that free tenants were more productive than serfs, and this had led to a gradual breakdown in the use of serfs. With the post-Plague labor shortage, many nobles tried to reverse the process in order to keep their land under cultivation and their income up. Free tenants were taking advantage of the labor shortage to demand better terms from their landlords and that the nobles were reluctant to see their incomes reduced. Governments tried to fix wages, but the labor shortage was irresistible. If their feudal lords would not relent, serfs simply fled to areas where wages were higher or land rental terms lower.

The shock of the Plague caused many peasants to demand a restructuring of society, often with a religious fervor. An approximation of democracy was demanded and with it a curbing of aristocratic rights and privileges. When these hopes for a better life were curtly dismissed, or savagely repressed by the nobility, many commoners rose in rebellion.




I would say population reduction is a natural punishment in response to a corrupt system. If landlord such you guys too dry, then birthrate went down. Asset price crash.

Fortunately PRC landlord cannot do a population ponzi by immigration, on such a big country,

For once you are talking some sense. China used to be a labour intensive industrious. It's easy to open a new factories and employ thousands of low educated people. But now with more educated Chinese and less labour intensive industrious. Industrious that emphasize on quality than quantity.

It will be naive to think we still need to replenish labour workforce loses? This thread is started by indian with agenda trying to portray China dim future of depending on labour work force which is absolutely wrong.

With so many new graduate from China can't find jobs. The drop of birth rate and families going on quality in fact is a good sign and will ensure more decades of success for China future.

Than why do we have a shortage in manufacturing? Why do these companies need to hire low skilled Vietnamese? These grads need to toughen up a bit. Work in these factories temporarily and keep looking. North American grads face the same thing. They too work in other jobs not related to their field.
I digress. My reason for a large population is you need it for wars and economics. Imagine the potential Chinese market with 1.5b people....and remember once indian population is greater than China, they will look to expand northward.

The British are low in number and yet they still beat us in opium war and naval warfare in the past.

The Chinese factories need to adapt to improve productivity. Those factories need to employ vietnamese as very low wage work , is most likely exploiting them and lacks any productivity which will be phase out soon.

Now is a technology era, 1.3 billion is too much. I would like to see depopulation in the future. Low birth rate and emphasize on quality is the way to go.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

For once you are talking some sense. China used to be a labour intensive industrious. It's easy to open a new factories and employ thousands of low educated people. But now with more educated Chinese and less labour intensive industrious. Industrious that emphasize on quality than quantity.

It will be naive to think we still need to replenish labour workforce loses? This thread is started by indian with agenda trying to portray China dim future of depending on labour work force which is absolutely wrong.

With so many new graduate from China can't find jobs. The drop of birth rate and families going on quality in fact is a good sign and will ensure more decades of success for China future.


The British are low in number and yet they still beat us in opium war and naval warfare in the past.

The Chinese factories need to adapt to improve productivity. Those factories need to employ vietnamese as very low wage work , is most likely exploiting them and lacks any productivity which will be phase out soon.

Now is a technology era, 1.3 billion is too much. I would like to see depopulation in the future. Low birth rate and emphasize on quality is the way to go.

Maintaining a status quo population is good. Depopulation is painful. The world depopulation in condition below
1) War
2) asset bubble
3) famine
4) disease
5) family planning
6) too good education for women

Everyone of them, other than item 6 are painful. And effects of item 6 can be reverse if government pay a lot of baby bonus.

 

[AndrewJin]

Maintaining a status quo population is good. Depopulation is painful. The world depopulation in condition below
1) War
2) asset bubble
3) famine
4) disease
5) family planning
6) too good education for women

Everyone of them, other than item 6 are painful. And effects of item 6 can be reverse if government pay a lot of baby bonus.

I think now educated Chinese prefer less children. Baby bonus is a good idea, free university, monthly compensation(at least 2000yuan per month), and if the second child graduates from college, give him/her a free department.

 

[Yizhi]

China has one of worst fertility rates amongst emerging economies. At 1.4 babies per every women of child-bearing age, China will have the world’s largest pensioner population and lesser and lesser productive workers to support them.

1.4? the number is not correct?

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - China

source: World Bank.
the lowest was in 2000 with 1.51 child per woman, it has never dropped to 1.4.

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - China

it's been climbing up since 2000 and the latest data (2012) was 1.66 child per woman and very likely reach 1.69 this year (UN prediction data).

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

1.4? the number is not correct?

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - China
View attachment 214688
source: World Bank.
the lowest was in 2000 with 1.51 child per woman, it has never dropped to 1.4.

Fertility rate, total (births per woman) - China
View attachment 214689
it's been climbing up since 2000 and the latest data (2012) was 1.66 child per woman and very likely reach 1.69 this year (UN prediction data).

I used the data given in the article.

Even, if it is 1.6 instead of 1.4, it is far below the replacement ratio of 2.2. (required to keep your population constant)

Also, the fertility rates have increased because of relaxation in policy implementation. If China completely relinquishes control over birth rates, the fertility ratio would further increase to perhaps 2. But, it will be on decreasing trend from then on. Already, East Asians have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

 

[Yizhi]

I used the data given in the article.

Even, if it is 1.6 instead of 1.4, it is far below the replacement ratio of 2.2. (required to keep your population constant)

Also, the fertility rates have increased because of relaxation in policy implementation. If China completely relinquishes control over birth rates, the fertility ratio would further increase to perhaps 2. But, it will be on decreasing trend from then on. Already, East Asians have one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

1.4 and 1.66 are entirely different scenarios especially in this kind of long term predictions, there should be no excuse. Japan is now at 1.4, it's possible the author quote the wrong one?
also 2.1 is the replacement ratio, not 2.2.

two child policy for rural areas started mostly in late 80s and early 90s, long before it's dropped to 1.5 in 2000. the two child policy for 'one parent is an only child' family just came out last year. now two child policy for all is on the table.

Beijing still has lots of tools to play with.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

1.4 and 1.66 are entirely different scenarios especially in this kind of long term predictions, there should be no excuse. Japan is now at 1.4, it's possible the author quote the wrong one?
also 2.1 is the replacement ratio, not 2.2.

two child policy for rural areas started mostly in late 80s and early 90s, long before it's dropped to 1.5 in 2000. the two child policy for 'one parent is an only child' family just came out last year. now two child policy for all is on the table.

Beijing still has lots of tools to play with.

I understand that it is a difference as in, it will make a lot of effect in determining the timing of the demographic cataclysm. But both do predict a big demographic problem.

2.1 is the replacement ratio for highly developed countries. Normally, the replacement ratio is 2.1-2.3 depending on the country's situation.

I never denied there aren't tools to play with. What I am concerned is the thinking. There seem to be vested interests in the Family Planning department etc. that are stalling things. Just some time back there was news, that Beijing authorities denied speculation that "two child policy" will be introduced. Also, I fear they don't understand the importance of having more people.

Human Resource is the biggest and by far the most valuable resource of any nation. Technology, Education, and Training are important to extract more out of every human, but humans are still the fundamental unit both of consumption and production. The one single reason China grew was due to its human resources. Why would someone want less of it?

Also, a young population and work force induces creativity and life in an economy. Just see Japan, they are not as that innovative any more, are very conservative. It is a well known fact that most of the research and fundamental breakthroughs done by mathematicians is done by the age of 35.

 

[cnleio]

Singapore is Li family's Singapore

 

[MarkovChain]

For once you are talking some sense. China used to be a labour intensive industrious. It's easy to open a new factories and employ thousands of low educated people. But now with more educated Chinese and less labour intensive industrious. Industrious that emphasize on quality than quantity.

It will be naive to think we still need to replenish labour workforce loses? This thread is started by indian with agenda trying to portray China dim future of depending on labour work force which is absolutely wrong.

With so many new graduate from China can't find jobs. The drop of birth rate and families going on quality in fact is a good sign and will ensure more decades of success for China future.

You are right but there is another angle to population as well - social security and healthcare. Governments work on a "pay as you go" basis, which means today's contribution from the young is used to meet the payout for the old. As population ages, there will be more burden on the young to sustain the costs of the old - more so because medical advances are making lifespans longer.