China Allows Couples To Have Three Children (bbc.com) 276
China has announced that it will allow couples to have up to three children, after census data showed a steep decline in birth rates. From a report: China scrapped its decades-old one-child policy in 2016, replacing it with a two-child limit which has failed to lead to a sustained upsurge in births. The cost of raising children in cities has deterred many Chinese couples. The latest move was approved by President Xi Jinping at a meeting of top Communist Party officials. It will come with "supportive measures, which will be conducive to improving our country's population structure, fulfilling the country's strategy of actively coping with an ageing population and maintaining the advantage, endowment of human resources," according to Xinhua news agency.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Decades late. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're going to have a bunch of problems to solve because of it, but the problems can be solved one way or another, and they will be.
They can sustain a significant loss in population before they have show-stopping problems because of it. They're not short on people overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Just on sex. Good thing this story was posted to the right forum.
Re: (Score:2)
He's my counter example. Islam is as repressed if not more so than mainland China and the policies of the CPC. Yet Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. There is probably little direct correlation between a culture's sexual repression and its fertility rate. And being a bit backwards in a culture tends to help a lot with fertility rates, such as: banning contraception, taking reproductive decisions away from women, or denying women an life beyond that of house wife.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is: why?!
Re: (Score:3)
Answer:
a) besides Christianity, Islam is the only religion that is evangelizing/proselytizing
b) some of the muslim countries, e.g. Indonesia, still have a relatively high population growth
c) for Muslims it is still "a gift of god" to have many children
d) some Imams (muslim priests) openly encourage muslims "to outbreed" the other religions
Re: (Score:3)
Watching porn is correlated with less sex and lower birth rates.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that shortage of people in China started about a decade ago. You can track this from salaries in their industries. For example, weaving and sewing industry has largely left China about five years ago because of this, and they're usually the first ones to react to higher worker salaries, as much of their labour is simple manual labour. They're now mainly in Vietnam and Thailand.
And it's been getting worse ever since. Worst part is, there's also a large amount of people who have no prospects and live i
Re: Decades late. (Score:5, Interesting)
Way to go exaggeration. I asked some friends recently from China if the thing you said about street beatings being true. They laughed and said it is false, they have NEVER seen that. Of course there are a couple of viral videos (none of which had police not intervening, but ok.) China has 1.3 billion people of course you can find videos of violence like that. There are PLENTY of viral videos in the US of women beating other women with other people egging it on. Are you going to paint a narrative that it is the norm? Also, in the viral videos you can find filmed in the US it looks like the women are trying to kill each other whereas the video I found occurring in China the women seemed like they just wanted to inflict some pain temporarily.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be true, it may be not... but after talking to chinese people about Beijing, I can tell you they are far out of touch with reality.
At least as bad as trump supporters, anti-vaxxers, and anti-maskers.
Being able to believe what the strong man leader says is true is a strong survival trait and results in the "authoritarian personality type" which was identified in studies after world war 2.
China has a massive racial superiority complex which overlays a deep foundation of racial inferiority complex (due
Re: (Score:2)
My direct report is Chinese, emigrated way back after a few years of college. F1 to USA, PhD and a job here. Goes back once in a couple of years. After one trip he said, they had a class reunion and many of his class mates are remarried and the wives were all very young and very pretty. He was a little shocked and outraged. Some of them were as young as his daughters.
Were they really new wives, or mistresses, or hired to play the role of trophy wives
Re: (Score:3)
To some extent, yes. But East Asian cultures in general are advanced enough to be quite separate from muslim ones for example, and it isn't the wife that's responsible for getting the "wife for a temporary marriage" for her husband. Husband is. Because islam is quite disempowering when it comes to anything that is outside the house and a woman, and marriage is outside the house.
In Chinese culture on the other hand, woman is the master of the household as a whole. Husband brings his paycheck to her, to recei
Re: (Score:3)
So you're going to seriously tell me that in your native Germany, if a German woman drags another woman onto the street by the hair and half naked, strip her almost naked right there in the street and proceed to kick her in the head while onlookers and a police officer just watch. And when she's done, mistress just picks herself up, goes back in to start patching herself up and no outsider will ever do anything?
Really? You're this deranged?
Re: (Score:2)
And it's been getting worse ever since.
The falling birth rate is worse for China's overall economy, but it is not worse for individuals. As low-value jobs move away, growth is slowing, but wages are rising.
You can't get any social services without a local residence permit
The Hukou [wikipedia.org] system is profoundly unjust, but falling birth rates will ameliorate that problem. It is easy to mistreat rural migrants when there are plenty of them. As the labor shortage bites, Chinese urban areas will need to compete for workers and offer them a better deal.
Re: (Score:2)
In China it's expected that you look after your parents when they get old. If you don't have many siblings it creates more of a burden for you.
Maybe they plan on everyone getting a decent pension and affording social care.
Re: (Score:3)
And as wages are rising, jobs are leaving, because jobs were only there for cheap labour. There's plenty of cheaper labour nearby in Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Bangladesh etc.
For a nation that is still as poor and undeveloped as China today, the likelihood that they'll get old before they get rich enough to be able to deal with the problem in a non-Communist manner is going down to zero fast. And that means that those wonderful jobs are going to simply leave as textile industry jobs already did.
Re: (Score:2)
They can sustain a significant loss in population before they have show-stopping problems because of it. They're not short on people overall.
Actually they can't sustain any loss of population. China's economic system is no different from our own, it depends on the future generation to pay for the care and life of the previous generation.
For China this problem is compounded by an incredible rise in life expectancy in the past 50 years bringing their median age from the low 20s to just shy of 40. The percentage of people above 60 has risen from 7.5% to just shy of 20% in that same timeframe.
They one child policied themselves in the foot.
Re: (Score:2)
China's economic system is no different from our own, it depends on the future generation to pay for the care and life of the previous generation.
So either they'll kill off a bunch of old people, or they'll come up with some new way to manage elder care. History says the first one is more likely though
Re: (Score:3)
But they are overall short people [instantrimshot.com]. (SFW)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they now have a bit of a population crunch in the short term? And it's better to grow their already huge population indefinitely until something much worse likely happens at a later date, just to prop up the intergenerational ponzi scheme of a retirement system?
Re: (Score:2)
No matter the system, you need a certain amount of working people to sustain the elderly when they are not able to work anymore. A slow drop can be worked around, a large drop means the elderly end up dying when they are too old to work.
Re:Decades late. (Score:4, Insightful)
I regularly see two types of gloom-and-doom articles:
1. Birth rates are falling and we will soon run out of workers. Civilization will collapse.
2. Robots are taking all the jobs, and soon no one will have any income. Civilization will collapse.
These can't both be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe with their HUGE military buildup they realized that the next step they take in that progression will result in a need for replacements.
May sound harsh to some of you but since they can't feed the population on hand there has to be some clear need they are looking to fill.
Going from JIT manufacturing to JIT cannon fodder production is not out of line in their reasoning.
Maybe Today being Memorial Day and missing my brothers has made me see things a bit bleaker than usual.
Time will tell.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost a universal rule, the more prosperous a society is, the more wealth is in the hands of the average person, the less kids people have. China still has a significant rural demographic still clawing its way out of poverty, but even that group is slowly moving upwards. China's industrialization on overdrive has simply lead it to the same mid-point that the developed world has been facing for a few decades now, and it's going to find that trying to incentivize reproduction isn't going to deliver the
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that part of China's growth strategy has been tapping rural populations for economic growth. As explained, China moves literally tens of millions of people into industrial centers to provide competition for existing jobs. This helps keep wages low, reducing business costs and keeping products competitive while also improving the standard of living for these peop
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite understand the recent panic about shrinking populations. It's the opposite of a problem. Many of the hardest problems we face as a species are a result of too many people. On the negative side of a shrinking population, we need to spend relatively mor
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite understand the recent panic about shrinking populations. ...
Demographics
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to take a look at the economic impact of a dearth of workers available for those jobs today. The economy is linked to so many different things working that you cannot just taper off certain things and expect to be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If people realized what naturally happens to boundlessly growing populations, they'd punch anyone peddling "demographic collapse" in the face.
And they would deserve to be punched in return. The problem here isn't one or the other. The problem is that we need to restructure society to make both problems go away, but you can't do so within a generation. Many of the people using the term demographic collapse know full well what boundlessly growing populations means and also don't consider that and end game.
Rather they are trying to prevent people ripping off the bandaid from the very much gushing wound.
Society needs to be restructured *first*, and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Economic growth for centuries has been built on access to more customers. In simple terms, if you can sell X widgets to Y people, you can sell 2X widgets to 2Y people. But if there are only 0.5Y people, you s
Re: (Score:2)
This is potentially catastrophic for China. 30 years of 2/3 elderly, 1/3 working people & their children isn't something that ANY society has had to deal
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they are doing better than many of their neighbors:
Vietnam 2.05
North Korea 1.90
China 1.70
Japan 1.36
Taiwan 1.2
Hong Kong 1.07
South Korea 0.92
(source [wikipedia.org])
Admittedly China has more room to get richer than the countries below them, and thus more room to fall - but they're currently nearly double South Korea and that says something.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm worried that the poster's data is 20 years out of date.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what the over-sensitive 50 cent army hordes think? Hong Kong is (or was) a different country from China, with a different currency, different customs system on imports and exports, different writing system, mostly a different language, and a totally different culture. Taiwan is, as a simple matter of fact, a separate country from China. The fact that China has been so successful in convincing us all to tiptoe around that fact is kind of sad, and I hope it is coming to an end. I hope every country
Re: (Score:2)
They probably fucked up because they have too many men compared to women (unless a lot of them ends up homosexual), but having a reduced population is not fucking up. It's even a good thing for the planet (biodiversity and climate) and mankind.
If China runs into labor shortage when they have too much old people to take care of, they can always recruit immigrants. A lot of countries in Africa and places with high birth rate would also be better off with less people.
One thing is certain, there won't be a glob
How sweet (Score:4, Funny)
If you get pregnant again after your first one, they won't kill it.
Warms the cockles of my heart.
And to think people say the CCP is uncaring !
Re: How sweet (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer the Biblical version, according which the baby gets a soul the first time they breathes, and abortion is considered a very small misdemeanor that warrants the abortionist paying a small fine to the father due only to the aggression inflicted upon the would-be mother, which makes sense, after all, since the fetus hasn't gained a soul yet because they haven't breathed yet, killing them cannot be punished as an assassination. That fine could be implemented as an automatic cashback on the abortion fee, and the Biblical commandment would be fulfilled perfectly.
Or do you prefer instead the ancient Greek, pagan, polytheist, anti-Biblical teaching according which the soul enters the body at the moment of conception?
Easier to reduce than increase (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Mandatory sex ed. It's like phys ed. But with sex.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me on this doll where John Wi touched you...repeatedly.
Re:Easier to reduce than increase (Score:4, Funny)
A few years ago I read the book "What To Expect When No One's Expecting" ...
Is that the one about The Spanish Inquisition? Because it seemed a little paradoxical.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife lived in Singapore for a few years and had all the usual "fish out of water" stories you'd expect from someone living in a country other than their own, but the thing that most stuck out to me was when she shared this ad that Mentos ran [youtube.com] for National Day (Singapore's independence day). Apparently Singapore's birth rate is abysmal, so it's been encouraging its citizens to do their civic duty of "doing it", with an extra emphasis around National Day each year. Well, Mentos took it a step further with t
Is it really cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is cost really the issue? This is a problem through the developed world as well.
If cost was the issue, wouldn't rich people be having the most kids and poor people the least kids? We immigrated to Canada in the 90s. We were probably technically classified as in poverty. Parents raised 3 kids reasonably well. As I reflect, whatever problems we may have had were not really money related. Don't get me wrong, life without a lot of money is a struggle. I'm not diminishing that struggle. The point I'm making is that money is not *THE ISSUE* for people not having kids.
Even today. I'm married. My wife and I both work. We have 2 kids. We're not going for more. The reason is not money. In our case, it's time.
We got married in our late 20s. Little bit of time to enjoy married life without kids. Pop out 2 kids... we're close to 40. There's no time to time to really have more kids. Maybe we'd have had 3 or more if our fertility was perfect or we popped out a set of twins or something. Technically it's probably possible, but I'm also looking at how old I will be to actually enjoy my kids. I'm not having kids for the purpose of government resource allocation.
I don't propose any solutions here or even that it's bad to be single or have fewer kids. Consider this judgment free social commentary. The social factors that contribute to this are vast and money ranks pretty low on the list in my view.
People marrying later in life for all sorts of reasons (education, finding yourself, finding the right one...)
Some people not marrying at all due to individualist lifestyle
Higher life style expectations. Just a simple one, my older brother and I shared a room for most of our early childhood. Today, too many people assume every kid needs their own room.
Perception of higher child needs. Let me talk of the old days. I've walked to school even in grade 1. My parents didn't really have money for sports, camps... It was just go play and be home before dinner. Ditto for things that simply cost more today. Children gifts are just silly... people seem to get them and the kids barely play with things, but it's a social duty...
Risk of divorce. Everyone protects themselves in one way or another (men and women). I wasn't willing to go all in with family myself putting myself on the line with the risk of all my work being for naught in a divorce. I made sure to protect myself. Gone are the days of let's get married asap cause we're in it for the long haul and we can get through things in thick and thin for the sake of our family and children. I married someone who makes good money as well (not going to lose half my shit) and I make sure I have good savings in case shit. My wife, despite romantic words, pretty much protected herself too.
Lack of religion/culture. These 'force' a certain way of life on you. Maybe for good. Maybe for ill. But most emphasize family life as a way of life for you to be. Comes with a lot of bad. But nothing is perfect. You take the good with the bad and the bad with the good.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Insightful, Pragmatic, Practical, and Realistic
Re: (Score:2)
It's money until you have lots of money, then it's other things as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you not give a short comment regarding the youtube links you quote?
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of commentary is needed when it's basically hostile relationships between the genders reduces incentive to have any further relations.
The US is just as bad! (Score:2, Funny)
After all, we hear about the media reporting on...uhh...wait, how are the naysayers supposed to spin this to say that the US is just as bad as China?
I mean, pretty much any reasonable person will accept that a Floridian whistleblower getting their day in court after having their home raided by the police is just as terrible as secret police regularly "disappearing" political dissidents who are never seen or heard from again. You'd be hard-pressed to tell the situations apart. Likewise, anyone of intelligenc
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument: the other side is worse than ours, so therefore we're good.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument: the other side is worse than ours, so therefore we're good.
He's not saying China is 'just as bad' as the the US, and therefore trying to excuse the US, he's saying China is far worse by nearly any human rights measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your argument: the other side is worse than ours, so therefore we're good.
Your argument: I hope no one reads the part where he wrote, "The US has no lack of issues of its own and we absolutely need to fix them", because that blows a hole in what I just said and makes it clear I'm shoving words into his mouth because I'm nothing more than a shill for an authoritarian regime.
The other side is worse than us, and needs to be called out as such so that we can put an end to the laundry list of atrocities they are perpetuating, but I made it abundantly clear that we still need to fix ou
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, anyone of intelligence will understand that [...] organ harvesting of an ethnic minority ...
Is nonsense, as the organs of that ethnic minority most likely are never compatible with the completely different genetic make up of the majourity of the population. Ooops
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, anyone of intelligence will understand that [...] organ harvesting of an ethnic minority ...
Is nonsense, as the organs of that ethnic minority most likely are never compatible with the completely different genetic make up of the majourity of the population. Ooops
Depending on the organ, compatibility may be as simple as a size and blood type match or may involve far more complicated tissue and antigen matching, among other factors, but suggesting that they "most likely are never compatible" because of "completely different genetic make up" is the only thing nonsensical that's been said here (not to mention seems to be implying these people are subhuman).
Given that it isn't uncommon to hear about organs being transplanted between races within countries that have dive
Re: (Score:2)
On the topic of "disappearing" people, I just went and dug up a post of mine from over two years ago where I recounted a story I heard from a friend of mine who was living in China at the time. They've long-since left the country because of this stuff and have no plans to ever return, but they personally know a German man who was disappeared (then later returned) and had heard secondhand stories from a number of other people in their circles of friends. Mind you, these are foreign nationals being disappeare
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the people who spread this not stop anti-[insert totalitarian country] propaganda are not Useful Idiots, but actually Bad Actors.
In the case of China remember we're all yelling genocide these days. Well what we call genocide was the introduction of birth control policies in Xinjang, policies which are applied everywhere in China: 2 kids in cities, 3 elsewhere.
Now apparently it's become 3 everywhere.
While state enforced birthcontrol policies are ugly, they are not genocide except for our side, where
Re: (Score:2)
what we call genocide was the introduction of birth control policies in Xinjang, policies which are applied everywhere in China: 2 kids in cities, 3 elsewhere.
Now apparently it's become 3 everywhere.
No, that's not what we call genocide. Limits on children are one thing, but we're talking about forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and mass deaths. Just a few snippets from the Wikipedia page on the subject of the Uyghur genocide [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine; sources are available at the linked article):
In February 2021, a report released by the Essex Court Chambers concluded that "there is a very credible case that acts carried out by the Chinese government against the Uighur people in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region amount to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide, and describes how the minority group has been subject to "enslavement, torture, rape, enforced sterilisation and persecution." "Victims have been "forced to remain in stress positions for an extended period of time, beaten, deprived of food, shackled and blindfolded”, it said. The legal team state they have seen “prolific credible evidence” of sterilisation procedures carried out on women, including forced abortions, saying they “clearly constitute a form of genocidal conduct”.
Chinese government statistics show that from 2015 to 2018, birth rates in the mostly Uyghur regions of Hotan and Kashgar fell by more than 60%. In the same period, the birth rate of the whole country decreased by 9.69% [...] Birth rates have continued to plummet in Xinjiang, falling nearly 24% in 2019 alone (compared to a nationwide decrease of just 4.2%).
the Chinese government breached every article in the Genocide Convention [...] “simply put, China's long-established, publicly and repeatedly declared, specifically targeted, systematically implemented, and fully resourced policy and practice toward the Uyghur group is inseparable from 'the intent to destroy in whole or in part' the Uyghur group as such."
there were credible reports of mass deaths under the mass internment drive, while Uighur leaders were selectively sentenced to death or sentenced to long-term imprisonment. “Uyghurs are suffering from systematic torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, including rape, sexual abuse, and public humiliation, both inside and outside the camps,” the report stated. [...] It also reported that the Chinese government gave explicit orders to "eradicate tumours", "wipe them out completely", "destroy them root and branch", “round up everyone", and "show absolutely no mercy", in regards to Uyghurs, and that camp guards reportedly follow orders to uphold the system in place until ‘Kazakhs, Uyghurs, and other Muslim nationalities, would disappear...until all Muslim nationalities would be extinct’.” According to the report "Internment camps contain designated “interrogation rooms,” where Uyghur detainees are subjected to consistent and brutal torture methods, including beatings with metal prods, electric shocks, and whips."
individuals detained in the Xinjiang internment camps "are being murdered and their organs harvested. [...] [A researcher] estimates that at least 25,000 Uyghurs are killed in Xinjiang for their organs each year and that crematoria have been recently built in the province in order to more easily dispose of victims' bodies.
Uyghurs were slaughtered on demand to provide halal organs for primarily Saudi customers. [...] Dr. Enver Tohti, a former oncology surgeon in Xinjiang, supported the allegations
But sure, that 60% drop in the birth rate in the span of just a few years, which the Chinese government readily acknowledges, was because the Chinese government eased up on restrictions, just like you said.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got the sequence wrong. I'm summarizing the problem with the wikipedia page, not the other way round.
This is an excellent introduction [thegrayzone.com].
1. You don't understand how ugly chinese birth control policies can be in general.
2. the birth control policies have been relaxed over time. An important date is 2015 when the policy was relaxed to 2 children for urban families and 3 children for rural families.
3. the Xinjang birth control policies had not been enforced before and families there often had many more ch
Re: (Score:2)
I'm summarizing the problem with the wikipedia page, not the other way round.
The Wikipedia page is about dozens of issues spanning thousands of incidents, only some of which are in any way related to the particulars you're focused on. The vast majority of the page addresses the topic of genocide without any relation to the issues you're bringing up.
1) So far as I can tell, none of the quotes I pulled above are in any way attributed to the source your link suggests is unreliable. I deliberately pulled quotes originating from a variety of sources hailing from at least the US, UK, and
Re: (Score:3)
The quote I provided above suggests 25,000 Uyghur people per year are having their organs harvested, which would be a rather substantial case of organized crime.
I do agree with the presence of significantly biased slant in a lot of what you're talking about, and have even tried to call it out among friends and family (e.g. I have parents who subscribe to The Epoch Times, much to my consternation and repeated suggestions they ditch it).
Thank you for taking the time to provide a reasoned response. Yours have
Joke's on Ping (Score:2)
Real communism? (Score:2)
CCP exercising firm control (Score:2)
GOOD and this is why (Score:2)
The reset is good because the global population is grotesquely high such that it threatens the survival of our species.
It will also reduce pressure on China to go on military adventures among its neighbors.
laws should be feasible (Score:2)
If they have a goal of a stable population and a 1-child or 2-child policy, if the law is obeyed then they are guaranteed to fail their goal. Because some people do not have children, through choice or necessity. Laws should be such that if the laws are actually followed, the desired outcomes are theoretically possible. That would allow 1-child or 2-child policies temporarily (for that particular goal), but not permanently.
I like the goal that if the parents had n children, their children should have a t
Pretty soon they need to mandate it (Score:2)
May be they will force people to have more children, may be they will give awards like they did in USSR for w
I think they will fix it. (Score:2)
The democracies are struggling to with demo-crazies. Same way, they can issue orders saying, all people born before 2000 must have two children, gradually increasing to 3 for people born on or after 2015 and then reducing back to 2 gradually.
The people are willing to obey their government, so who are we to say they are wrong?
Can they actually mandate this? (Score:2)
One thing I wonder is if Chinese families actually want more children. Here in the US, we've become a lot less religious, some have become better educated, and some of us have become more affluent. All these factors translate to fewer children (also, same goes for the more educated and less religious poor -- kids are expensive.) I imagine China's population has also experienced a massive increase in overall wealth given their economic expansion, so it's possible they have the same probkem.
Either way, it's p
Re: (Score:2)
Capital gains/inheritance taxes. What are they like in China? Can you leave your accumulated wealth to your kids? Socialism has already removed the motivation to have a safety net for your old age. The state will care for you.
Ponzi sceme (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's what it is. You can't have a sustainable social security system, unless there are more people under you.
Re: (Score:2)
newsflash : China is not a free country
Re: (Score:2)
The only triggered are those NOT living in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries have tried to incentivize having children; whether it's tax credits, subsidized daycare, or even outright paying people to have children, and thus far there's little evidence that these carrots do very much at all. The reality is that having children is the one thing that even the most dictatorial regime hasn't figured out how to force on to people. When Rome started having a demographic crisis among its Italian citizens in Italy and in their colonies across the Empire, the Roman ideal of fa
Re: (Score:2)
obligating them to military service and paying taxes.
Rome only had obligatory military service in extremely harsh times.
Military usually was done by professionals. No idea about taxes, never dug into that.
Re: (Score:3)
Other countries have tried to incentivize having children
.
Heh. Don't I know it. When I was growing up, my parents used to receive a check for about AUD$25 every month (as I recall it was some very odd number, not round figures at all - like $24.76), which was the government program for incentivizing population growth. That's lap of luxury money right there! My understanding is that the program is now about AUD$6K in the first year of life, which is still nothing compared to child raising costs and opportunity costs.
The fact is that population growth is mainly seen in the developing world; in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
Yes, and there are various explanations for th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, no it didn't net out. Family sizes rapidly dropped in the 20th century, and in fact, if the pre-WWII trend had continued, we'd probably have ended up in the demographic hole a few decades ago, but the massive post-war baby boom created an effective demographic bubble which is still with us. That baby boomer bubble has in fact made things worse in a number of developed countries, as baby boomers steadily left the work force, having built an economic engine that was sustained by and large by and f
Re: (Score:2)
We're celebrating
No one's celebrating. Reporting on a new development is not a celebration. It's literally just letting people know what has changed.
I certainly hope that this triggers you as much as those did.
China was in a different economic position when the law came into place. In an ideal world where resources are distributed fairly and there's no extreme poverty, sure have kids. But when your country is devastated by war, have no economy or the technological or financial rescue, you do what is necessary to allow it to turn around - that means less children, less poverty, more r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a country in the world that is exactly knowing what it is doing, then that is China.
And you are so stupid it is beyond believe: in what regard exactly would China need to keep up with anyone? Especially India?
The problem isn't government (Score:3, Interesting)
You're going to have a government whether you like it or not. Government is just too useful. If you try to dismantle it then the rich and powerful will just make one themselves. One that you have zero say in.
Think of gov't like a box of loaded rifles. You can choose not to pick one up, but if you don't somebody else will.
The solution is more democracy. If you're an American the Republican party currently has 350+ anti-democracy laws either passed or being worked on.
One last reason you can't be rid of gov't (Score:2)
So now you've got a huge army. You've created a huge power structure. You need a huge civilian power structure to manage and counterbalance it. If you don't you're gonna end up in a Junta.
And now that you're stuck with a large civilian power structure congrats, you have a large
The problem isn't Republicans, either (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution is more democracy. If you're an American the Republican party currently has 350+ anti-democracy laws either passed or being worked on. They're also removing the ability of independent Secretary of States to certify elections.
Those damn Republicans!
It's well known that one's goals determines what one sees. The things you see are literally filtered by your position and outlook on life, to the point where you will see only bad things from the other team and only good things from your own team. It leads to the phrase "watching the same screen and seeing two different movies".
It's also believed to imply an impending catastrophic internecine war, potentially tearing the country apart.
If you think that the US is so completely broken that it should be scrapped and something else tried, then you're simply not seeing all the good things our system brings. Despite wealth inequality, real wealth has skyrocketed and shows no sign of slowing down. We produce more food than we need, there's enough housing for everyone, before Covid there were enough jobs for everyone, and during Covid we developed and distributed a vaccine country-wide in about a year.
Dr. Marian Tupy has compiled a list of 10 global trends [tenglobaltrends.org] that give hope for the world, much of which is spearheaded by the US (as we're the 3rd biggest country by population). The US has very little racism (compared to other countries), we're very generous in allowing foreign immigration (compared to other countries), we have a very high levels of individual freedom and wealth, and we have an excellent educational system.
Looking at Dr. Tupy's research, which comes largely from UN measurements and projections, it seems that a) climate change won't be a big deal, and b) the US is working to fix it anyway: solar, wind, BEVs, grid batteries, and research. None of those even existed 20 years ago, so 20 years in the future will climate change even be a problem?
Take a close look at those "anti-democracy" laws and see if they are meant to address a problem someone has pointed out from the last election. Then see if those changes would be catastrophic, in the "break apart the country" version of catastrophic.
Is it such a really big deal? Could your side perhaps suggest modifications to those "anti-democracy" laws that address the problems while keeping your interpretation of democracy intact?
Could understanding, and suggestions for action be a better plan than outright anger?
In the grand scheme of things, we're doing pretty well, and I'd hate to see it all go up in flames with rioting and looting, just because two teams couldn't find common ground.
Real Wealth is great for Jeff Bezos, shit for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that the US is so completely broken that it should be scrapped and something else tried, then you're simply not seeing all the good things our system brings. Despite wealth inequality, real wealth has skyrocketed and shows no sign of slowing down. We produce more food than we need, there's enough housing for everyone, before Covid there were enough jobs for everyone, and during Covid we developed and distributed a vaccine country-wide in about a year.
Real wealth is bullshit. So the top 5% have more than they did 30 years ago? Who gives a shit? Yeah, real estate moguls and investment bankers are doing swell. Everyone else is struggling and living in fear. It's getting harder and harder for blue collar professions to make ends meet. Even for the middle class, being super smart with money and investing used to be optional ways to get ahead. Now most need to do so in order to bring in more than they're spending. Nearly every profession that used to be lucrative is getting squeezed.
Every few years Fox News likes to run some contrarian story saying how we're all wealthier than we were 50 years ago because more of us have refrigerators and our houses have 20% more square footage...basically a big shut the fuck up to anyone demanding wage increases in the face of record productivity and profits. Why? My best guess is for a certain group of people they don't want to acknowledge that things aren't fine and we're not on the right path. Wealth inequality is a HUGE issue. For most of us, we're doing more with less, but our wages have stagnated. Why?...it's not natural forces, your boss is working hard to ensure you don't know what you're worth....suppressing unionization, doing all they can to import workers while publicly chanting "build the wall," hiding key financial data and our strange cultural phenomena where talking about money is taboo. Remember how Google freaked the fuck out when their employees shared their salary in a spreadsheet? I bet if you went around your office and openly told people how much you made, they would find a reason to fire you...they tell every employee "you're overpaid, we can barely afford you...don't tell anyone, we don't want them getting jealous of your great negotiation skills and this special favor I did for you because you're making soo much more than everyone else." Then there's actual collusion that was well documented in Silicon Valley where large employers agreed to not poach from one another, specifically to suppress wage growth among their most valued employees.
Sure, in 2021, I can watch more movies for free on demand than I ever could have in 1996, back when it required a drive to Blockbuster Video. I can watch every show ever created, on whim...that's pretty cool. However, I will gladly trade streaming video to be able to easily afford a home and have every blue collar worker with a good job be able to do the same....even if it is 20% smaller than the average home today. A million things are better today due to technology, but the most important things are worse, thanks to a combination of natural economic forces and primarily Republican policy choices...cutting taxes for the wealthy, repeal of estate taxes ensuring financial legacies are more easily passed on to heirs...a fetish for corporate tax cuts (which produce almost no investment since interest rates are so low and any company that needed to invest got a loan to do so long ago), but record stock buybacks.
Your CEO is living better than ever before and the rest of us are watching our standard of living pushed down. It's harder to buy a house. It's harder to send a kid to college. It's harder to buy food than it was just 10 years ago. Our jobs are less secure. Everything costs more because these technological advancements used to be optional, now it's essentially mandatory for everyone over 10 to have a smart phone and data plan. In my kids' public school, a chromebook is mandatory for 1st grade. Sure, if you can't afford on
Re: (Score:3)
A country with roughly 340million inhabitants, has half a million homeless.
Homelessness is absolutely a problem deserving of aid, but "0.01% of the country is homeless" is not exactly the rousing call-to-arms you seem to be attempting to wield it as.
Re: (Score:2)
That famine was because Mao was whiny, insecure screwup. The CCP was fashioned with that in mind and it has not changed. As to what the U.S. should have done, I give up. You wanted to invade? You wanted to land food on the shores with the Marines? You wanted to invade China's airspace and drop food on parachutes?
Do tell us what your non-bleeding heart would have done.
Re: (Score:2)
That famine was because Mao was whiny, insecure screwup.
That is incorrect. And you can read up what happened on wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was your bleeding heart when millions of Chinese were starving to death in the famine not so many decades ago? Overpopulation is not a trivial matter.
Rightly accusing the government that caused that disaster? Is this a trick question?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The system is rotting.
It all comes back to thermodynamics.
Re:As a father of 5 (Score:4, Informative)
You're skipping over the part where not everyone wants a bunch of kids. Even if you're stable, educated, and have a good job I know many people who just don't want a lot of kids -- maybe 1 or 2.
You're right in that stability will help, but I'm no way in favor of full time employment for 14-year olds so the kids can start having kids.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the common misinterpretation that marriage at that age was the norm. It has never been the norm in Western industrialized society. Going back to the 14th century, average age of first marriage in the US and Western Europe was around the early 20s for women and mid-20s for men. It's stayed around that for cen
Re: (Score:2)
Great point about mortgages (and about security of bodies).
I don't think college is the issue though. College degrees should be finished by 22-23. Having a job that allows you to pay off loans in the future should make you worth marrying now. The problem is that too many people nowadays have trouble finding a job with long-term stability at any age, often even with a college degree. And if they do, the job often has such long hours that it is difficult to commit the time needed to raise kids well and comfor