Two-child policy creates baby boom in China

[Grevion]

Never understood why China opted for one child policy. China did have a huge population but allowing only one baby was not the solution.
There are many other ways to curb the growing population but one child policy should be last in the list.

 

[TaiShang]

There are many other ways to curb the growing population but one child policy should be last in the list.

Well, outside sending people to gas chambers, allowing them dying from preventable diseases or malnutrition, or dramatically reducing life expectancy, there is practically one way to reduce explosive population growth: Not to have babies.

Allegedly, people are rational and they can calculate their ability to raise kids. But, in the developing societies (especially in the context of the 70s and 80) with inadequate education and awareness of social conditions, it is hardly possible that people would make rational choice. Let alone cultural norms that are archaic.

East Asian societies are culturally pragmatist, but, poverty is the most serious social ill and China was a poor country. The decision was too important to be left in people's hand.

Take India for example. It is illiteracy and archaic cultural norms that drive population boom, not rational choice or freedoms. Poor people cannot enjoy freedoms.

I am glad China has curbed the policy that had become archaic and outdated. The remaining part will likely be curbed very soon. It is social engineering done for public good.

 

[Grevion]

Well, outside sending people to gas chambers, allowing them dying from preventable diseases or malnutrition, or dramatically reducing life expectancy, there is practically one way to reduce explosive population growth: Not to have babies.

Allegedly, people are rational and they can calculate their ability to raise kids. But, in the developing societies (especially in the context of the 70s and 80) with inadequate education and awareness of social conditions, it is hardly possible that people would make rational choice. Let alone cultural norms that are archaic.

East Asian societies are culturally pragmatist, but, poverty is the most serious social ill and China was a poor country. The decision was too important to be left in people's hand.

Take India for example. It is illiteracy and archaic cultural norms that drive population boom, not rational choice or freedoms. Poor people cannot enjoy freedoms.

I am glad China has curbed the policy that had become archaic and outdated. The remaining part will likely be curbed very soon. It is social engineering done for public good.

Which country sends it people to gas chambers to curb population growth.
Not having an ideal growth in population is mainly a problem in developing countries where having more kids is a indicator of social security.
Normal norms should be to have kids in limited no. to which you can ensure good quality of life. Hence the development of a good society which helps in the development of a nation. But that takes time and is not easy.
What you are saying is only popular in a communist country or in a dictatorship. I'm not saying its bad but the consensus of the people of the land is not a necessity.

 

[gambit]

Never understood why China opted for one child policy. China did have a huge population but allowing only one baby was not the solution.
There are many other ways to curb the growing population but one child policy should be last in the list.

China's birth rate was already in decline before the one-child policy was enacted.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/chinas-one-child-policy-at-30/

The claim by Chinese officials that the one child policy has helped avert 400 million births simply cannot be substantiated by facts. Most of China’s fertility decline occurred prior to the one child policy. In countries without a forceful and costly policy as China’s, birth rate has declined with similar trajectories and magnitude. South Korea, for instance, had a fertility similar to China’s in 1979, at 2.9 children per woman. In 2008, it dropped to 1.2. Thailand’s fertility dropped from 3.6 in 1979 to 1.8 now. Brazil’s fertility was 4.2 in 1979. In 2008, it was 1.9.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...as-one-child-policy-shift-its-boy-girl-ratio/

But that decline seems to be a continuation of a trend that was already well underway prior to the policy’s official implementation.

The one-child policy seemed to be a violent reaction to a misunderstanding of statistics -- at that time.

The cheering for this baby boom seems to come from a similar misunderstanding of statistics. There is no certainty that this baby boom will continue, either continuation with an increase or continuation with a plateau. If there is a decline, then it is no longer a 'boom'.

While a 'baby boom' is an uncertainty, what is not certain in terms of numbers and certainty is the continuation of a rise in the elderly. If you cannot force couples to have more than one child, neither can you stop aging. The Chinese government can allow more than one child, but it cannot force people to have sex. If Chinese couples decides to have a voluntary one-child limit, even the 'ghost children, the undocumented 2nd child that everyone knows exists, will not be enough to offset the decades of the one-child policy.

 

[AndrewJin]

From my own observation, the child boom is more likely to happen among China's wealthy middle class which is on the rapid increase. One reason is that the current mainstream culture in China is to offer the best education and provide the best surroundings to our next generation. Unlike the cases in the majority of developing countries, such culture will be working as a self-regulated filter during the two-child regime ----- the more social recourses you have, the more likely you will have more kids, the high quality your next-generation will have. We are not that kind of people who raise children like rats. The poorer, the more, such doctrine popular in most developing countries is a shame in China where low-educated people are frowned upon, especially low-educated people with a big family.

In the history of one-child-policy, of course the population growth in the countryside was controlled, however, not really strictly implemented, with different kinds of legal or illegal pathways to have more children (It's too common to see 2-3 children families in the countryside after 1980s, from 4-6 children families before 1980s). It was in the wealthier cities that such policy was considerably strictly implemented. City dwellers had more money to raise children, but for fear of losing their jobs they had much less desire to try those pathways (such job-related one-children policy was 100% strictly implemented) unless they worked in private sector (public sector jobs before 2000s were the mainstream). If my parents had a second child, their were definitely fired by their schools where they work, and would be permanently barred from seeking jobs in the public sector.

Now, the limitation on China's wealthy middle class is gone. That's why I am witnessing, nearly all my colleagues who are in their 20-30s are ready for a second child. Actually, they have to do it in turn, cause there are too many of them, we have to make a plan otherwise we will be short of trained people! This is actually good news for China. We need high-quality and high-skill people, not rats who are raised in ghettos and have no access to higher education or high-skill vocational education.

During the era of the ongoing technological revolution, there is a huge decrease of low-skill jobs in the world (already happening). From my observation, there is no such term as demographic dividend during this revolution, only demographic disaster in which excessive low-skill labour makes for social unrests. Such tendency has already begun, we have already started to see it around the world, not just in poor developing countries, but also in manufacturing powerhouse like East Asia-ASEAN and Western Europe.

What we need is, high-skill labour with education level either of college or of high-quality vocational schools, especially the latter one which is the core of China's climbing up in the supply chain. The future of China's manufacturing and innovation is not on the low-skill assembling lines which will be eventually replaced by automation by large.


Skills to rule: East Asia's dominance in 43rd WorldSkills Competition in Brazil
@Shotgunner51 @Sinopakfriend @TaiShang @Mista @Chinese-Dragon @cnleio @Jlaw @ahojunk et al

We should increase the speed of automation and take even more active role in the technological revolution which nearly all developing countries have no ideas about. This is our opportunity. The next 1-2 decades will witness enormous social unrest in the world where low-skill jobs are gone just like how human beings have suffered during the last several rounds of technological revolutions. We have missed the first several ones, that's why China suffered from the century of humiliation, because we were left behind by technology, be cause we were self-content about what we had achieved in history, because we refused to accept the new norm. But we will never miss this one! We are investing huge on high-tech and all kinds of new technology. We have exported TBMs, high-end machinery and best commercial drones like DJI, and we are climbing up in the manufacturing chain and reshaping our regional economy. We have not achieved our goals yet, but we are on the correct road.

Skills to rule, high-quality labor to rule.
Massive pool of low-quality labor is a recipe of failure (On this point, we have already seen in some populous countries, the speed of job creation is less than one quarter of the speed of young people entering their work age)

Look at US, their population growth rate seems healthy, but how about quality? I don't want to be racist, but their newborns are mostly very low-quality people which have a much lower average intelligence. They won't make much contribution in the future, rather a burden to the society and a threat to the well-behaved righteous citizens with good education.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...abies-are-no-longer-mostly-non-hispanic-white

No need to mention Europe....A total disaster in the making...
(sorry bro @Götterdämmerung )

 

[gambit]

From my own observation, the child boom is more likely to happen among China's wealthy middle class which is on the rapid increase. One reason is that the current mainstream culture in China is to offer the best education and provide the best surroundings to our next generation.

Evidences from other developed societies suggest the opposite: That the more materially affluent and intellectually sophisticated a people, the less likely they are to have the traditionally large family.

http://www.economist.com/node/14164483

... the rich world has fewer children than the poor world.

That number is so small that even with the reduced child mortality which usually accompanies development it cannot possibly sustain the population.

 

[Mista]

i think two child policy is always more favorable than one child policy.

Yeah, although I support some sort of population control for China I also think 2 child policy is much more favorable. From a generation which have 5 children to the next generation of 1 children is going to create a very massive demographic gap in the population pyramid. A 2 child policy will be soothe the transition better.

Not to mention the social problems associated with it; such as gender imbalance, dumping of babies, spoiled and selfish child with no siblings, and very unfortunate cases of parents losing their only child. I know of an example of someone who lost her only daughter at old age and it's very sad to see.

In the history of one-child-policy, of course the population growth in the countryside was controlled, however, not really strictly implemented, with different kinds of legal or illegal pathways to have more children (It's too common to see 2-3 children families in the countryside after 1980s, from 4-6 children families before 1980s). It was in the wealthier cities that such policy was strictly implemented. City dwellers had more money to raise children, but for fear of losing their jobs they had much less desire to try those pathways (such job-related one-children policy was 100% strictly implemented) unless they worked in private sector (public sector jobs before 2000s were the mainstream). If my parents had a second child, their were definitely fired by their schools where they work, and would be permanently barred from seeking jobs in the public sector.

To be honest and politically incorrect, the government should actually implement it more strictly in rural areas and more loosely in the wealthier areas. All countries in the world, whatever their official stance is, want the wealthier part of their population to have more children and those poorer have lesser children. That's because children of the wealthy are more likely to be higher educated, polite and productive members of the society, while the children of the poor may even struggle for food and shelter. Statistics around the world have proven it in the case for education.

But then again, it's not necessarily true. I know of many Chinese who started poor but are more humble, hardworking, and polite than their richer counterparts. They are the one who started a tough life and is able to make the best out of it, and I have great respect for them.

 

[AndrewJin]

Evidences from other developed societies suggest the opposite: That the more materially affluent and intellectually sophisticated a people, the less likely they are to have the traditionally large family.

http://www.economist.com/node/14164483

We surely are seeing such "evidence" in US where the less affluent and less intelligent people are gradually reaching an absolute majority by rat/rabit-style breeding which perhaps is the nightmare of the once hard-woking and intelligent mainstream people. (sorry being political incorrect here, but bloody reality)

We don't have such massive racial divergence in China. People from the poor background and the rich background are equally intelligent in nature (my father is from an extremely poor village which is now a wealthy township, now he is a professor with very high social status). We will see a healthier tendency in China's demography in the coming decade, dominated by high-quality high-skill generations, which can not be proved by statistics yet, but I can witness by myself in real life (I am working in the health-related industry). No matter rich or poor in China, they are highly intelligent people on whom more investment in education and high-level vocational trainings could make a huge difference. But I cannot speak for a lot of minorities in US which will soon become the majority. Believe in genetics or hide behind political correctness, that's your choice.

5 years ago...

 

[Shotgunner51]

From my own observation, the child boom is more likely to happen among China's wealthy middle class which is on the rapid increase. One reason is that the current mainstream culture in China is to offer the best education and provide the best surroundings to our next generation. Unlike the majority of delving countries, such culture will be working as a self-regulated filter during the two-child regime ----- the more social recourses you have, the more likely you will have more kids, the high quality your next-generation will have. We are not that kind of people who raise children like rats. The poorer, the more, such doctrine popular in most developing countries is a shame in China where low-educated people are frowned upon, especially low-educated people with a big family.

In the history of one-child-policy, of course the population growth in the countryside was controlled, however, not really strictly implemented, with different kinds of legal or illegal pathways to have more children (It's too common to see 2-3 children families in the countryside after 1980s, from 4-6 children families before 1980s). It was in the wealthier cities that such policy was considerably strictly implemented. City dwellers had more money to raise children, but for fear of losing their jobs they had much less desire to try those pathways (such job-related one-children policy was 100% strictly implemented) unless they worked in private sector (public sector jobs before 2000s were the mainstream). If my parents had a second child, their were definitely fired by their schools where they work, and would be permanently barred from seeking jobs in the public sector.

Now, the limitation on China's wealthy middle class is gone. That's why I am witnessing, nearly all my colleagues who are in their 20-30s are ready for a second child. Actually, they have to do it in turn, cause there are too many of them, we have to make a plan otherwise we will be short of trained people! This is actually good news for China. We need high-quality and high-skill people, not rats who are raised in ghettos and have no access to higher education or high-skill vocational education.


View attachment 323265 View attachment 323266


During the era of the ongoing technological revolution, there is a huge decrease of low-skill jobs in the world (already happening). From my observation, there is no such term as demographic dividend during this revolution, only demographic disaster in which excessive low-skill labour makes for social unrests. Such tendency has already begun, we have already started to see it around the world, not just in poor developing countries, but also in manufacturing powerhouse like East Asia-ASEAN and Western Europe.

What we need is, high-skill labour with education level either of college or of high-quality vocational schools, especially the latter one which is the core of China's climbing up in the supply chain. The future of China's manufacturing and innovation is not on the low-skill assembling lines which will be eventually replaced by automation by large.


Skills to rule: East Asia's dominance in 43rd WorldSkills Competition in Brazil
@Shotgunner51 @Sinopakfriend @TaiShang @Mista @Chinese-Dragon @cnleio @Jlaw @ahojunk et al

View attachment 323270 View attachment 323269 View attachment 323268


We should increase the speed of automation and take even more active role in the technological revolution which nearly all developing countries have no ideas about. This is our opportunity. The next 1-2 decades will witness enormous social unrest in the world where low-skill jobs are gone just like how human beings have suffered during the last several rounds of technological revolutions. We have missed the first several ones, that's why China suffered from the century of humiliation, because we were left behind by technology, be cause we were self-content about what we had achieved in history, because we refused to accept the new norm. But we will never miss this one! We are investing huge on high-tech and all kinds of new technology. We have exported TBMs, high-end machinery and best commercial drones like DJI, and we are climbing up in the manufacturing chain and reshaping our regional economy. We have not achieved our goals yet, but we are on the correct road.


View attachment 323271 View attachment 323272

Skills to rule, high-quality labor to rule.
Massive pool of low-quality labor is a recipe of failure (On this point, we have already seen in some populous countries, the speed of job creation is less than one quarter of the speed of young people entering their work age)

Look at US, their population growth rate seems healthy, but how about quality? I don't want to be racist, but their newborns are mostly very low-quality people which have a much lower average intelligence. They won't make much contribution in the future, rather a burden to the society and a threat to the well-behaved righteous citizens with good education.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...abies-are-no-longer-mostly-non-hispanic-white

No need to mention Europe....A total disaster in the making...
(sorry bro @Götterdämmerung )

Kids are huge financial liability! Having a kid means adding US$500,000-US$1,000,000 of LIABILITY to your balance sheet, excluding the huge amount of TIME you lost, and that's a CONSERVATIVE estimate!

Gymboree Play & Music center in my neighborhood for Age 0-3 babies, RMB10,000 per month, and this is just ONE out of MANY more bills for parents to pay like bigger house, caretaker, medical, food & drinks, toys, clothing ... sigh.

 

[Jlaw]

Kids are huge financial liability! Having a kid means adding US$500,000-US$1,000,000 of LIABILITY to your balance sheet, excluding the huge amount of TIME you lost, and that's a CONSERVATIVE estimate!

View attachment 323298

but kids are so cute until they poo.

 

[terranMarine]

Kids are huge financial liability! Having a kid means adding US$500,000-US$1,000,000 of LIABILITY to your balance sheet, excluding the huge amount of TIME you lost, and that's a CONSERVATIVE estimate!

View attachment 323298

Add oil Bro

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

@AndrewJin

Kids are indeed a huge investment both in capital and time/emotion for the family. And a hughe invesment for the state to have highly educated and productive citizens of the future.

I would even go so far as saying that aspiring parents must get training/education to realise what it means to be a parent. Why learn on the job?

With Chinese food security under the belt and infrastructure (education, public services, transport, rule of law ect) reaching developed world standards in many areas, those born now or coming period will have a much much better start in live...

Since we know how NE/Chinese parents are... these kids will be under some pressure for high performance. Which is not a bad thing. Doing our utter best is a Virtue.

But overall this is the right course of action with the new policy...after all you would need people to enjoy the fruits of the labours of the robots!

Otherwise, some might worry that the Chinese robotic economy will collapse...

Good healthy discussion going on here.

 

[AndrewJin]

Kids are huge financial liability! Having a kid means adding US$500,000-US$1,000,000 of LIABILITY to your balance sheet, excluding the huge amount of TIME you lost, and that's a CONSERVATIVE estimate!

View attachment 323298

It's true when we don't raise children like rats any more.
Given they are some sort of liabilities, plus the education-oriented culture which is prevailing in all corners of the Chinese society, the second-child policy is serving as a sort of filtration as giving those capable people a legit pathway rather than encouraging the rat/rabit-style breeding among some minorities in US (future majority). We shall also provide opportunities to those less capable people who are capable in the nature of being Chinese, as to enable them to become more capable and more willing to raise a second child of high-equality and high-skill.

 

[Shotgunner51]

It's true when we don't raise children like rats any more.
Given they are some sort of liabilities, plus the education-oriented culture which is prevailing in all corners of the Chinese society, the second-child policy is serving as a sort of filtration as giving those capable people a legit pathway rather than encouraging the rat/rabit-style breeding among some minorities in US (future majority). We shall also provide opportunities to those less capable people who are capable in the nature of Chinese people, as to enable them to become more capable and more willing to raise a second child of high-equality and high-skill.

Yes we have to make sure our kids become more successful than we do, so proper upbringing, health, education, these are what we should do.

Nice chart you got here bro, very informative. Do you find this pattern similar to IQ pattern? East Asian here and those in US are equally focused on kids. Parents must prep them ready for better future.

 

[waz]

All the best to the dear Chinese people and I hope we do not see the demographic age related problems. Here's just a little observation I made. When Chinese tourists started to visit London in substantial numbers, they had the one child in tow. Now I'm beginning to see older children, with a younger sibling being held by mum.