It looks like China could be reviewing their one child policy.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm gonna have to push for dates because I'm not buying the half figure at face value and the vagueness ain't convincing me. Half compared to 2004? 1994?

OK

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

well if the 1 child policy is working, it would in the next generation. Say 25-30 years.

It's happening now.

Quick google.. http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2010/09/china-population-wang

The ripple effects of fertility decline have begun to emerge everywhere in China these days. In 1995, primary schools nationwide enrolled 25.3 million new students. By 2008, that number had shrunk by one-third, to only 16.7 million. In 1990, China had over 750,000 primary schools. By 2008, due to the combined effects of fertility decline and educational reforms, the number of primary schools nationwide had fallen to about 300,000. In a country where getting into a university has always been a matter of intense competition and anxiety, the number of applicants to universities has begun to decline in the past couple of years.

Between the early nineties and the late noughties China closed 450,000 primary schools. That's a huge drop and over half.

Some more nuggets from that link;

By 2013 China’s demographic dividend growth rate will turn negative: That is, the growth rate of net consumers will exceed the growth rate of net producers.

he number of workers aged 20 to 29 will stay about the same for the next few years, but a precipitous drop will begin in the middle of the coming decade. Over a 10-year period, between 2016 and 2026, the size of the population in this age range will be reduced by about one-quarter, to 150 million from 200 million. For Chinese aged 20 to 24, that decline will come sooner and will be more drastic: Over the next decade, their number will be reduced by nearly 50 percent, to 68 million from 125 million.

And that's just the young, the drivers of an economy, the aged numbers are just as scary.

Another link to peruse; http://www.worldcrunch.com/china-cooking-books-its-census-data/culture-society/is-china-cooking-the-books-on-its-census-data-/c3s3017/#.UJKc2o4hd8w

hina’s labor age group of the 15-64 years old will reach its peak in 2013, and then start to decrease. Changes to the 19-22 years old age group are key to a country’s demographic health, because they are the most active part of the population and what business needs most. In 2009, this age group attained an historical high of 100 million but will rapidly decrease to 58 million by 2019, a drop of 43% over just 10 years.

And

In 2009, the number of university applicants had already decreased by 400,000. In 2010, it decreased by 700,000.

China is set to repeat Japan’s economic recession experience of the 1990s. The difference is Japan became rich before growing old, while China is growing old before even getting rich. The average GDP of Japan today is above $40,000, while it is still just $4,000 in China.Actually I remember the 80's when "they're gonna take over the world you know" was aimed at Japan and look at what happened there and Japan was building on a much better foundation than China, politically and culturally.

Throw in the biggest commodities bubble in history and it doesn't look so rosy at all. Now the way the state financing in China works compared to free banks in the west, they have some leverage, but the bubble will burst, just later and likely in a more massive way.

Like I said that was a quick google I'm sure you could find more expansive/links info out there.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see 2014 mentioned anywhere there and from you did actually post it seems a bit early for levels to fall to half of an undefined peak.

Well shoot me down in flames I was running off memory,:) but if you want to be pedantic... The population of 15-64 year olds will peak in 2013 and thereafter decline. The number of 19-22 year olds will halve between 2009 and 2019. So split the diff and 2014 works well enough as a peak. That oncoming wave of decline is also evident from the drop in their primary school enrollements.

There's major bumps ahead for China, different ones to what other countries have faced and it'll be interesting to see how they handle it. When one bears in mind the millions and millions working in manufacturing there's still room for an increase in the proportion of people going into education instead if they export manufacturing to now-poorer countries.

Possibly. The other major bumps of not getting rich before they age and their construction boom(and other booms on the back of it) don't bode well. The economic slow down in the markets they sell to doesn't help as there's not enough of them rich enough to buy what they produce. Japan weathered it's own demographic issue better because there was. Never mind the growing divide between the urban and the rural. They've a robust and ancient culture and they're hardly short of brains*, but IMHO it'll take a miracle for them to navigate what's coming down the line.




*ASIDE though contrary to popular belief it was only in the Tang dynasty, roughly equating to our Dark Ages where China's per capita worth and productivity was higher than Europe's overall. After that the diffs between an average Chinese and an average European grew decade by decade. A Chinese Farmer of 1000 AD wouldn't have noted much of a diff between him and a farmer in 1800, whereas a European farmer would.

As a civilisation/empire/culture they historically go from brief flowerings of change and real innovation followed by long periods of stagnation. It comes from being a centralised and monolithic empire, rather than a country or more a group of countries. In that sense Rome falling was one of the best things to happen to Europe as an area. Increased competition between smaller nation states brought faster innovation and progress in it's wake.

The invention of movable type printing a good example. It was invented in China and Korea and they used it for printing paper money(another Chinese invention) and small scale religious texts. However when it gets to Europe(via the(again monolithic) Islamic world, who also didn't do much with it. Even the first printed Quran came out of the west) there is an explosion of printed works and arguably the first information revolution and it exploded within a generation. Nothing to do with Europeans as a population, but all to do with competition. I strongly suspect if Rome was still going as a working empire at the time, it wouldnt have happened the way it did.

Further aside, I think this is one reason why the Chinese and the west don't get each others take on Tibet. We see it as a separate country, they see it as part of "China", within the imperial boundary. I suspect a Roman would see the Chinese position more clearly. I also find Tibet and western attitudes to it interesting in another way. The west tends to be dubious about theocratic states, yet is gung ho for Tibet to return to one(a kinda dubious one historically too).