7 ms·

China's fertility rate is at 1.7, same as the UK and Netherlands, and lower than the US's 1.8. Their annual growth rate has been <1% since 1994, and they've jus

China's fertility rate is at 1.7, same as the UK and Netherlands, and lower than the US's 1.8. Their annual growth rate has been <1% since 1994, and they've just had their first year of population decline. Meanwhile the US is still growing (or rather, being added to) at 0.5%/year. So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Sources: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu... https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/population

filoleg 4y ago
> So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Because you aren't grouping China with Netherlands or the US (which are the countries you are using to defend your rationale for including China), you are grouping China with Japan and South Korea. And the numbers there aren't even comparable. China has just experienced it's first decline of 0.02%, while Japan's decline last year was 0.53%[0]. The factor of nearly x25 is the reason for why grouping them together seems useless at best and misleading at worst. 0. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population
- nhchris 4y ago
  You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the grouping I used. They are countries with population crises, divided by whether they're solving them with immigration or not. That's it. So why would Japan's crisis being worse than China's make the grouping misleading? I cited the US and Netherlands as random examples of countries with population crises (absent immigration) as proof that China is facing a similar situation that drove those countries to choose immigration.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    Major apologies, and thanks for pointing out and summarizing the point of confusion I had earlier. While I still might not necessarily agree with the conclusion you've reached, I can clearly see now why you grouped the countries the way you did, and your argument makes way more sense to me as the result.

filoleg 4y ago

> So why should I exclude the most populous country in the world with sub-replacement fertility? Because you aren't grouping China with Netherlands or the US (which are the countries you are using to defend your rationale for including China), you are grouping China with Japan and South Korea. And the numbers there aren't even comparable. China has just experienced it's first decline of 0.02%, while Japan's decline last year was 0.53%[0]. The factor of nearly x25 is the reason for why grouping them together seems useless at best and misleading at worst. 0. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JPN/japan/population

nhchris 4y ago
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the grouping I used. They are countries with population crises, divided by whether they're solving them with immigration or not. That's it. So why would Japan's crisis being worse than China's make the grouping misleading? I cited the US and Netherlands as random examples of countries with population crises (absent immigration) as proof that China is facing a similar situation that drove those countries to choose immigration.
- filoleg 4y ago
  Major apologies, and thanks for pointing out and summarizing the point of confusion I had earlier. While I still might not necessarily agree with the conclusion you've reached, I can clearly see now why you grouped the countries the way you did, and your argument makes way more sense to me as the result.