3 ms·
Considering their population has already stopped growing and will start to shrink starting in ~10 years and the US has population growth projected through at le
by brobinson 7y ago
Considering their population has already stopped growing and will start to shrink starting in ~10 years and the US has population growth projected through at least 2050, I don't think that outcome is likely. China has still yet to escape the "Middle Income Trap". Their GDP per capita is terrible. The PRC as a state is wealthy, but the wealth per citizen is quite poor.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoChina's population is more than 1 billion larger than the USA's. Relative growth rates until the end of the century are irrelevant. The fact that China is still relatively poor per capita while already being the 2nd largest economy overall shows the potential they have left to become the world's central economy (along with India's) Squabbles about postage rates are distractions.
- DuskStar 7y agoPopulation growth rates aren't irrelevant, as Japan's example should show. As the demographic pyramid stops being a pyramid and the retirees start outnumbering the 20-somethings, burdens to health care and other systems start to add up fast. If your population keeps growing, you can keep some semblance of a pyramid shape. But if it's stagnant, and your people reliably survive into old age...
- mytailorisrich 7y agoWhat's important here is the overall size of the country and its economy, not really its relative growth. Switzerland's population might grow faster than the US's at some point, for example, but that'd be irrelevant because it is way too small in any case to threaten the US's position.
- DuskStar 7y agoMy point was that population demographics, which are related to growth rates, impact the efficiency of an economy, or at least the fraction that can be directed towards external ends and not health care for unproductive segments of society.