China’s population is forecast to peak at 1.45 billion as early as 2027, then slump for several decades. By 2050, about one-third of the population will be over the age of 65, and the number of working-age people is forecast to fall precipitously. Who will power the economy? Who will look after the elderly? Who will pay the taxes to fund their pensions?...It's hard to get women to have the number of children that's best for the group. It's too much of a personal decision — emotional and economic. There are reasons for having a lot of children and reasons for having very few children. The group can do things to shift women from the first group to the second, but it's hard to move them into the middle position — especially after you've established one child as the ideal. It's funny (but not funny) for the government to apply pressure about "passively giving in to society’s pressures," especially when it created the very pressure that it now wants to pressure people not to give in to.
“To put it frankly, giving birth is not only a family matter but also a national issue,” read a commentary last year in the People’s Daily, the newspaper of the ruling Communist Party. “Not wanting to have kids is just a lifestyle of passively giving in to society’s pressures.”...
Some parents spend $15,000 a year bringing their toddlers to English, piano, dance, art and gymnastics classes, the manager said, noting that Wuhan isn’t Beijing or Shanghai.... Many Chinese parents would prefer to channel all of their resources into just one child....
Zeng Yulin, 32 who has a master’s degree in international economics, takes her 3-year-old daughter Yuewei to art classes and skating classes twice a week. Then there are the singing classes and the public-speaking lessons. In addition, Zeng will teach her English at home....
In a 2017 survey of working mothers by Zhaopin.com, one of China’s biggest job websites, only 22.5 percent said they wanted a second child. Nearly three times that number said they did not want more than one....
५ मे, २०१९
"A great nation with thousands of years of history and a brilliant civilization is rapidly degenerating into a small group of the old and the weak thanks to these wrongheaded population-control policies."
Said Yi Fuxian, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, quoted in "Beijing’s one-child policy is gone. But many Chinese are still reluctant to have more" (WaPo).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Good for us. Bad for them.
Around the world, the easier and safer it becomes to give birth and raise children, the less it occurs.
Navajos average about 6 kids per woman (down from nine in the 1960s) - if the fertility rate of the various populations remain the same, how long until most people are Navajos?
Remind me of the last time central planning worked.
"Who will power the economy? Who will look after the elderly? Who will pay the taxes to fund their pensions?"
I know. I know.
The Muslims. They'll save the day. Look how well Merkel's Germany is doing assimilating all its Muslims, from the Turkish Gastarbeiter from the 1950s to the huge influx beginning in 2015.
Ann, you don't need to move women from one group to another in order to achieve the middle result. You need to let women decide for themselves, and the naturally occurring average will be better than any policy rule.
If the policy had never been in place, the average would not have been a number between zero and 1, which is now deemed to be low.
The Muslims. They'll save the day.
Interesting observation.
Which may be exactly why the Chinese are doing such a bang-up job of suppressing them.
One-child, selective-child... leisure, pleasure, convenience, stability, and progress.
"You need to let women decide for themselves, and the naturally occurring average will be better than any policy rule."
Well, I certainly agree that letting women decide for themselves is best — both as a matter of philosophy and as practical policy. But doing what's best isn't necessarily going to work out that well. There are many places in the world that are not China and that never had anything like the one-child policy that are suffering from a lack of new population and a dysfunctional proportion of old people.
When women have options to work and be treated well in the workplace and when they have birth control methods and can avoid subordination, the tend to have very few children.
You could make up for the difference by also allowing full personal freedom to immigrate and let people redistribute themselves "naturally." And you could rely on religious groups that limit women's equality to supply the new people. But that undermines your original concept: to let women decide for themselves. I'm a little afraid that's exactly what we will lose in the end.
The Chinese seem not too fond of hanging on to girl babies. It's traditional.
What is that master degree in international economics for? China is closed off to stew in their own flagging economy. Anything remotely foreign may land you in jail, especially when Emperor Xi is looking into reviving sending young people to the countries to weed the fields and plant the diminishing farm lands.
What happened to the families that defied the one child policy? First, abortion. Second, if the woman had escaped that fate, her baby, would be post-birth aborted by some doctors. Third, the baby might be sold to a childless couple, the state took the proceeds. Fourth, the parents would be fired from their jobs, the children denied schooling.
Now, why do women take the chances of birthing more than one child when govt. mandates can turn on a dime?
I can only speak for my wife and I. Back in the 60’s we drank the population control kool aid and stopped at two. Neither of which has children. So my wife who was born to be Mom and then Grandma has to borrow kids. The one thing that would have made a great life perfect won’t happen. And my line which I can reliably trace back to the middle of the 15th century ends with my son. My moral? Have as many as you can afford. By the time you find out that two wasn’t enough it’s too late.
From my comment earlier today. How prescient!
What Does Sex Mean to Me
I put my finger to my tongue
And I taste vagina
I licked Betty Ford's boots (it's true)
She wore 'em all over China
People say that Chinese people don't
Ball as much as we do
'Cause their cultural revolution has shown
There are more important
Things to see to
So I ask, what does sex mean to me?
And what does sex mean to society?
What does sex mean to me?
What does sex mean to me?
What does sex mean to me?
I see another baby born
One more mouth to feed
Sometimes I can't comprehend
This urge to breed
Travel through a crowded land
Where people love each other as they love the state
They love their work
Their work is love
Love's no excuse to procreate
Their party slogan reads
And I quote
Making love is a mental disease
It wastes time and
Depletes our energies
I see couples walking hand in hand
What does sex mean to them?
Worried women switch
From pills to diaphragms
What does sex mean to them?
My parents wonder how
They made me what I am
What does sex mean to them?
What does sex mean to me?
Now I wonder what you think about
When you're lying there in bed
Someday I think I'll find you out
Push my finger through your forehead
It's just a kind of acupuncture
Wisdom from the east
When my finger presses your third eye
Your secret life is released
It started with the pill, which gave existing choice an effectiveness. Accidental pregnancies always produced a lot of population, before that, with abortion being illegal.
I agree with the Communist Peoples Daily.
And not for the first time.
Good sense can break out anywhere, at any time.
The fundamental bit in there is that of giving birth being a social-communal matter. Individualism is to a great degree a delusion.
One child usually results in a self centered nuisance. An heir and a spare is the perfect formulae, with the corollary that she has to keep on trying until a boy appears.That is the Wisdom of the Patriarchy.
This is a no-brainer! We'll just send them all our Central American migrants.
I'm by no means a connoisseur, but from what little I've heard, singing lessons in China strike me as a particular waste of money.
Buwaya asserts: Good sense can break out anywhere, at any time.
Not in the Democratic Party.
Hari said...
Remind me of the last time central planning worked.
What do you mean by worked?
Statists and their Bureaucrat minders make a lot of money and have a lot of power.
Marxists kill millions of wreckers and hoarders.
You just have the wrong priorities if you want prosperity and freedom.
Democrats and people who like to work in Government noticed who who wins in a competitive environment.
That is why we have "Stewards" determine who wins horse races now.
More evidence humans like other animals practice population control at the species level.
Ann, your point, as I read it was that the naturally occurring problem has been compounded by a government policy that took choice away from women in the first place.
Women in aggregate may not make the optimal choice for society, but they do a better job than central planners. It is one thing for government to incentivize a choice; it is another for the government to forbid a choice.
When women have options to work and be treated well in the workplace and when they have birth control methods and can avoid subordination, the tend to have very few children.
Ah, the mouse looks past the cheese to see the trap.
Look how well Merkel's Germany is doing assimilating all its Muslims, from the Turkish Gastarbeiter from the 1950s to the huge influx beginning in 2015.
Yes, you just have to keep those rape stories suppressed.
One morning we may all wake up & find that the great social experiment whereby women were turned into employees first & wives & mothers second has failed, and that the societies that chose to engage in that experiment have disappeared.
For all of human history pre-1960s, save in times of famine or great societal distress, women had babies. Lots of them. Then, in the 1960s, most of the world decided, for various reasons, that lots of babies weren't a good idea. We have yet to understand the full demographic effects of this decision, but for some cultures, they may be catastrophic.
True story: my work successor and neighbor (a Kiwi originally) is married to a Chinese-born woman. They met while he was teaching in China, and both have doctorates from US universities.
She's in her forties, and has had her mother over to visit; her dad is still alive and doing well. In talking about her family in China, my friend mentioned her sister. I asked about the One Child Policy, and he said she had TWO! WTF?
Turns out the place is still patriarchal to the last degree, and if you were in good standing and/or had connections, as her family must have had, the authorities would let you take a couple of shots . . . have a couple of cracks . . . at getting that all-important boy-baby. It never happened for her father.
Ironically, with so many Chinese now having only one son, a Little Emperor type of spoiled young man is seen as a social problem, and as deep thinkers point out, a patriarchal society full of Only Sons may not be the best pool to look in for aggressive warriors.
Narr
True story 2: I have shaken hands with Xi (when he was FM/PRC) He's tall.
IIRC, underpopulation started being a concern in Europe back around 1900, partly for military reasons, even the Soviet Union became worried in the late 1920's. So it looks like China has joined the first world :)
often referred to as “bare branches”, or guanggun...
China’s surplus of men is attributed, at least in part, to the family planning policy implemented in the country since 1979. The One Child Policy, coupled with the patriarchal tradition of son preference, has led many families to give up on their daughters. This has happened through gender-selective abortion, infanticide or by giving away girl children.
This is one of those cases where a government might have a legitimate interest in outlawing both abortion and gay marriage. Drive the gays underground and pressure them to father children, or if you don’t want to go that far, at the very least, in a case like this, why give benefits of marriage to “useless eaters” who aren’t going to do their part to reproduce.
Apparently China is all over their Uighur problem. These Muslim Chinese are reportedly being put in concentration camps to keep them down and inconsequential to the future of China.
This is a good example to demonstrate my point that the SCOTUS is trying to turn the Constitution into a suicide pact.
Anonymous, True story 2: I have shaken hands with Xi (when he was FM/PRC) He's tall.
Xi, Winnie-the-pooh, tall? How short are you? He is rather fat though.
Glenn, more than two kids does not guarantee your bloodline would go on.
My parents have 9 children. Only 5 are married. The oldest child has four kids, only one is married and has two girls. Other three are unlikely to marry. My parents' third child has one kid, fourth child has one kid who is going for her second baby, fifth child has two kids.
9 children in their 50's and 60's, 8 grand children in their 20's to 40's, 4 great-grand-children... may be more later.
Past performances do not guarantee future results.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again. Sad!
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks, though.
Population is not a new concern:
Having Roman Citizen children was an expensive proposition.
Tax & Inheritance Laws
Augustus’ goal in restoring public monuments and reviving religion was not simply to renew faith and pride in the Roman Empire. Rather, he hoped that these steps would restore moral standards in Rome. Augustus also enacted social reforms as a way to improve morality. He felt particularly strong about encouraging families to have children and discouraging adultery. As such, he politically and financially rewarded families with three or more children, especially sons. This incentive stemmed from his belief that there were too few legitimate children born from “proper marriages.” On the other hand, he penalized unmarried men older than 38 years old by imposing on them an additional tax that others did not have to pay. They were also debarred from receiving inheritances and attending public games. Furthermore, the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus prohibited celibacy and childless marriages, as well as made marriage compulsory.
I agree with the Communist Peoples Daily. And not for the first time.
I knew you were a Leninist but a Maoist too? Overachiever!
Stable (stagnant) or falling population is something that will happen sooner or later. Government and business should plan how to cope before it happens.
As one of 6 who had none myself, but has 10 nieces and nephews, I think the best society can hope to do is come up with policies that encourage women to marry and have kids. Religion and culture used to supply the encouragement (at least to my Irish Catholic parents), and trial and error will hopefully provide a substitute encouragement. No population shortage at the moment, so there's time to figure things out.
Without the need to support a disproportionately elderly population, this decline would actually be a good thing. Less pollution, less competition for resources, more livable communities, technology lessening the need for labor and cannon fodder, a host of advantages with very little downside. I suspect the elderly problem will work itself out, mainly by keeping them in the harness longer, which isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
Meh, totally not a problem for a centrally planned economy - Soylent Green.
Why not explain to women their actual future if they do not have children? It is this. Poverty, following an economic crash. Here's why. When population control is introduced there is a "demographic dividend" in which there are many workers with few dependents. The economy expands and everyone gets richer. But this era is inevitably succeeded by an unsustainable economy because the large group of young workers grows old and there is only a small group of young workers to support this large group of older people. Why didn't the people calling for population control foresee this? Many did and din't mention it because they wanted population to shrink and many others were not demographers. Result: their minds were on other issues such as feminism and getting women out of the house or racism and wanting to shrink the black population or ecology and shrinking the human footprint, many things other than an inevitable demographic development impoverishing a a society than has few children.
Why not just explain? - you will be poor if you don't have children. They don't explain because Socialists can't admit error and, more important, because it's still true that for everyone that thinks about demography, there are a thousand thinking about feminism and ecology and socialism. But you live in a demographic regime whether you think about it or not.
Women with children they can't afford are poorer and will remain so, over those who don't have children they can't afford.
Smart women invest first in their own futures.
If a white researcher at UW recommended whites have more kids to save their civilization, he'd be fired.
"You arrogant ass. You've killed US!"
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/93ad2e63-9749-4f63-b8db-8cc951d8a5c9
I'll keep the arithmetic simple. If you go one child for one generation your breeding population (20-40) is halved. Do it again and you're at one quarter. This is a death spiral. To recover would require 4+ children per woman for two generations. Ain't gonna happen. They're going to end up with much more than half the population age 60+.
It sounded good to some not so bright powerful functionary. Kinda like the captain who fired the torpedo.
I cannot be the only one who think readering avoiding children is not the answer.
Kill yourself for the planet?
Second look at green suicide policies for Leftists?
Women with children they can't afford are poorer and will remain so, over those who don't have children they can't afford.
My mom had lots of kids she couldn’t afford and we take care of her in comfort in her old age.
China's population was large and growing because for Chinese farmers, children were a revenue source (doing chores) not a revenue sink.
The "one child" policy forced parents to invest a lot of energy into that one child (K selection), because that was their only chance for reproductive success. This societal shift means that even people who want multiple children are stuck, because unless they're rich enough to be able to afford multiple children, it's irresponsible of them to have multiples.
And when > 50% of your social class has at most one child, it essentially impossible for you to be rich enough to have multiple kids. Because you have to spend enough to maintain a lifestyle matching your peers, plus spend as much on each of your children as your peers are spending on their one child.
China is screwed
Tried to post earlier, re: Xi's stature, but dognabbit if suddenly the site isn't picky for some reason.
He (Xi) was about the height I was when he was on campus--I'm 6'+ and weighed about 270 at the time, he was as tall I think and pretty burly. Just sayin'.
He was there for a speech and they took him to one of the better campus sniper perches for the view; it happened to be the reading room of my little shop in the library. It was ironic because I knew he was on campus and I had thought about going to hear him. I never would have gotten that close if I had!
His goons were pretty big too.
Narr
Degrees of Separation, Anyone?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा