4 ms·

I'll humor and agree with this take given it can take greater than 7 years for macro effects to occur stemming from policies and choices that countries make. E

I'll humor and agree with this take given it can take greater than 7 years for macro effects to occur stemming from policies and choices that countries make. Example is the former One Child policy which took a long time for the effects to be seen. Another example is that pumping money into the economy doesn't have immediate effects. India had its own policies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790) that would take decades for effects to be seen.

sudosysgen 6y ago
The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended. There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West. The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions. In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated. Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency. The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age. In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.
- simonh 6y ago
  The reasons you give might well be the intention, but it seems misconceived. There were special carve-outs in the one child policy for farmers. If their first child was a girl they could try again for a boy. Also the policy was very hard to apply consistently in the countryside because the bureaucracy is very thin there and its not at all uncommon for families to hide children with relatives. You can't get away with that in the cities. As for the retirement age, life expectancy in China is significantly lower than in the west. In fact in 1970 is was only 59 years. It's still 6 years behind the USA and it's not uncommon for significant health problems to kick in during your 50s. On the other hand as for making way for the new generation, how are they supposed to learn from more experienced older colleagues if they all retired? Oh well, I suppose that's the problem with centrally planned economies.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It's not really that important from where the population is reduced. There is essentially no big difference between the son of a farmer and the son of a factory worker. China's life expectancy is two 2 years under the US, not 6 years. Moreso, the most important way of learning on the job is experience, learning from a 50 year old vs a 60 year old is not that big of a difference.

sudosysgen 6y ago

The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended. There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West. The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions. In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated. Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency. The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age. In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.

simonh 6y ago
The reasons you give might well be the intention, but it seems misconceived. There were special carve-outs in the one child policy for farmers. If their first child was a girl they could try again for a boy. Also the policy was very hard to apply consistently in the countryside because the bureaucracy is very thin there and its not at all uncommon for families to hide children with relatives. You can't get away with that in the cities. As for the retirement age, life expectancy in China is significantly lower than in the west. In fact in 1970 is was only 59 years. It's still 6 years behind the USA and it's not uncommon for significant health problems to kick in during your 50s. On the other hand as for making way for the new generation, how are they supposed to learn from more experienced older colleagues if they all retired? Oh well, I suppose that's the problem with centrally planned economies.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  It's not really that important from where the population is reduced. There is essentially no big difference between the son of a farmer and the son of a factory worker. China's life expectancy is two 2 years under the US, not 6 years. Moreso, the most important way of learning on the job is experience, learning from a 50 year old vs a 60 year old is not that big of a difference.