Posted on 05/02/2007 6:10:24 AM PDT by dangus
The population of college-aged Chinese is about to collapse.
In the late 1960s, China's first great baby boom peaked, the product of soaring fertility rates, which soon fell dramatically under Mao's harsh repression. The number of births fell dramatically, at first, until the decreasing fertilty rates stabilized. Once the baby boomers reached child-bearing years, however, a second boom was created, not because the fertility rate rebounded, but simply because of the dramatic increase of the population of fertile women.
There will be not much of a third wave. The second boom is entering their child-bearing years, but the first wave is starting to exit.
Currently, the population of 17-to-22 year-olds in China is about 124 million. (There were 124,612,795 15-to-20 year-olds in 2005.) This is the peak. Next year, that number will decline by about a quarter million. But the following year, the number will decline by six million. It will fall to as low as 81 million over the next fifteen years. At that time, the population of Chinese in their fifties will have nearly doubled.
Presently, the Chinese economic "miracle" is one that enriches only about one in five Chinese. The massive rural and Western population has little opportunity to receive a post-secondary education. As the age of senior experts doubles, while the age of students drops by well over a third, will China triple the portion of its student-aged population which has access to education?
A further note of Chinese demographics: In 1994, estimates of the Chinese population of 2050 ranged as high as 1.8 billion, even accounting for the continuation of Maoist population programs. Today, the US Dept. of Census expects the population to peak at about 1.46 billion by 2030, and decline to 1.42 billion by 2050. That's a loss of 40 million people from 2030, and a gain of about 100 million from today. (China's population had been increasing by 100 million every few years a while back.)
Even the Census department's figures anticipate rebounding fertility rates, which would require a change in policy from the Chinese government. More conservative estimates range as low as 1.2 billion in 2050, and recent population changes have closely tracked the lowest estimates.
To put this in perspective, by 2050, China's population may be 600 million fewer than estimated as recently as 1994. That's equivalent to the entire population of Europe.
A good start, but not enough. We all have to understand that the ONLY way to eliminate poverty is to eliminate poor people......
I can see down the road for China - less cheap labor to exploit - and the need to “import” workers. Like we do with illegal Mexicans and Europe does with muslims.
Abortion has changed the demographics for the entire world.
I put the “global warming” keyword, because China is about to surpass the United States to become the world’s largest creator of the gases accused of creating global warming. Naturally, if UN estimates of China’s mid-21st century population are off by 50%, that could vastly impact global warming. Not as much as you might think, I suppose, though: China is simply producing the CO2 largely for European and American markets; the Chinese “middle class” is still very small, and shows little signs of robust growth.
Your idea sounds good on the surface but poverty is defined by comparison to some type of average. It will be tough to get everyone above average unless legislation is passed to fix some of the problems caused by the current mathematics.
>> I can see down the road for China - less cheap labor to exploit - and the need to “import” workers. Like we do with illegal Mexicans and Europe does with muslims. <<
Not necessarily; 80% of China’s population is still industrially nonproductive. But it does mean that they will have to start developing their own market.
um, I was being sarcastic....
I know. Me too. ;-)
>> A good start, but not enough. We all have to understand that the ONLY way to eliminate poverty is to eliminate poor people...... <<
China has tried that in the past: they killed one third of their own population. What China is discovering is that industrialization does what centralized policy cannot: lower birth rates. If you want to see fantastically quick drops in birth rates, don’t kill babies; industrialize. It removes the incentives for large families.
If you really want to reduce the birth rate, run an industrialized hellhole, like Iran, which is desperate to prop up birth rates. They went from 6.2 children per woman as recently as 1986 to 1.7 today. Algeria went from 7.8 in the 1970s to 1.8. North Korea went from 6.9 to in 1970 to 1.6 in 1998. Viet Nam was at 4 as recently as 1988, and is down to 1.8.
(The worst underpopulation is in places like Russia and South Korea, with fertility rates around 1.2 children per woman.)
Indonesia did an excellent job of achieving population balance, going from 5.6 in about 1970, to 2.4 today. India’s is still a little too high, but much improved, going from about 6 in 1970 to about 2.8 today.
Population growth lags fertility badly, however... India will still be a booming population well through next century.
Even in wealthier eastern provinces, the agricultural sector has vast needs for automation and productivity increases. Same goes for the construction industry, and many other industries. Productivity is so low for so much of the population, it is not just conceivable, but highly probable that increased productivity through automation will move China through this massive demographic shift relatively easily. China’s heavy machinery market will skyrocket in the coming decades.
There will arise a ‘Chinese John Deere’ that will become a world player in farm machinery.
Please see post #10. Forced abortions is a very unsuccessful policy, however much the United Nations is enamored with it.
I was just reporting demographics, not policy. Frankly, if China continues its current policy, it’s toast. (After reading post #2, I may regret that.) All population estimates are based on the presumption China suspends its policy as unnecessary in the near future; having an elderly population larger than a workforce is, naturally, quite devastating.
John Deere’s mission, of course, is to get in there NOW.
Very soon if not already, due to the slaughter of “female babies” China will have a huge surplus of males of military age with no women to gentle them down.. They will have to do something with them to keep them from being a threat to the government. Hence...Military expansionism..perhaps into Taiwan, SE Asia your guess is as good as mine. But, history shows that it will happen.
“Productivity is so low for so much of the population, it is not just conceivable, but highly probable that increased productivity through automation will move China through this massive demographic shift relatively easily”
The issue of China’s potential demographic time bomb revolves around more than productivity. It’s a hollowing out of younger human capital and a ballooning of aged population in a system that doesn’t even have the framework of a plan in place to deal with either issue - specifically the issue of a very quickly aging population.
Automation may help maintain productivity, but I cannot see that it can produce the sort of productivity gains necessary to deal with the massive scale of the demographic issues China faces in a relatively short period of time.
er.....China’s population drop is directly caused by centralized policy. For years they have allowed only one child per family, by law. Millions of baby girls have been aborted or abandoned or deposited in orphanages.
Industrialization in contrast has had absolutely nothing to do with drops in birth rates. One might argue that increased living standards have made fewer children necessary since large families were once thought of as old age insurance. The idea was, if you managed to raise enough children to adulthood, at least one of them would take care of you in old age. Most people either have the means to support themselves or stupidly believe the government will take care of them now.
The most important reason for declining birth rates the world over is birth control and abortions however. Unlike you, I don’t see declining birth rates as a good thing. The most valuable resource in the world are human minds. The ideas they create make everyone smarter, richer and healthier, the planet cleaner, and life on earth more pleasant.
I think you have been listening to too much socialist propaganda.
Everything you are arguing is by mere assertion, and happens to be false.
>> er.....China’s population drop is directly caused by centralized policy. For years they have allowed only one child per family, by law. Millions of baby girls have been aborted or abandoned or deposited in orphanages. <<
The policy is enforced in the countryside, because they do not need to enforce it in the cities. You should compare China’s demographics to other nations without any forced 1 child per family rule, such as Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.
In agrarian societies, parents rely on their children to take over the land and provide for them as they get older. In industrial societies, they are simply more mouths to feed. Therefore, with industrialization comes smaller families. In reality, several regimes have had reductions in family sizes far more rapidly than China without any government plans. In Iran, the Ayatollah is beseeching parents in vain to have more children, but the birth rate, once far higher than China’s, is now far lower.
>> I think you have been listening to too much socialist propaganda. <<
You are the one who believes that socialists have been successful in their aims.
>> Unlike you, I don’t see declining birth rates as a good thing. The most valuable resource in the world are human minds. <<
I don’t either; I pointed out Indonesia’s fertility rate (2.4 children per woman) is much better than China’s (1.7). Seven children is not good, (and it is not, actually, natural: Breast-feeding spaces childbirths out more.) Starvation kills minds. But natural family planning policies are sufficient to tame overpopulation.
As the saying goes “China will get old before it gets rich”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.