4 ms·

Does China not end up running headlong into the problem of demographics? It’s a structural problem that the US isn’t really facing. US: https://en.m.wikipedia.

Does China not end up running headlong into the problem of demographics? It’s a structural problem that the US isn’t really facing. US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_S... China: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China That’s like a 1/3rd reduction in workforce.

vkou 2y ago
Given recent trends, the US will run headlong into the problem of political collapse long before China runs into a demographic collapse.
- thworp 2y ago
  That problem is also ever-present for China. States like China never look like they are about to collapse until they do.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    That's true of all states. The collapse only sets in when enough people start believing it's about to happen - and once this threshold is crossed, it happens in an instant.
maxglute 2y ago
Both JP and SKR increased gdp/productivity ~10-20x when they had <2 TFR by increasing % of workforce to skilled/tertiary (advanced economies have skilled workforce approaching 70/80%). PRC is at ~20% while adding more skilled workforce than roughly OECD combined. Structurally China will add more just STEM in next 20 years than US projected to increase population, i.e. if every US newborn and immigrant (assuming current levels) are STEM, US will merely match PRC STEM generation. PRC also adding 80m other tertiary or vocational skilled ontop of that. For strategic competition, the structural demographic trend you should compare is PRC peaking at roughly 2x-3x US skilled workers who will be in workforce for 50+ years, i.e. greatest high skill demographic divident in recorded history. Meanwhile they'll be shedding 100s of millions of low productive workers. Imagine PRC workforce profile adding 5 japans and losing 3 nigerias. Another caveat being about 200m of population decline will be inefficient farming households that can be effectively replaced with 20m modern ag workers. Or 600m low productive (bottom 2 quantiles who are undereducated / old / left behind by modernization) contributes to like 5% of GDP, i.e. their consumption / productivity is comparable to a few 10s million of high value workers. Then consider PRC is also adding more industrial robotics / automation than RoW combined. The question is whether US can compete with PRC with multiple times more skilled talent and larger industrial base than they have now, both increasing at rates that US is structurally unable to close gap on for decades short of AGI / von neumann machine hailmary (which granted is a real possiblity, but then we're also in a world where PRC is spitting out incubated humans).
- CraigJPerry 2y ago
  Maybe, but if you’re allocating all that resource in STEM, where do the essential trades (carpenters, plumbers, construction in general) come from? Without immigration, It’s a finite resource pool. The analysis of losing unproductive workers and replacing them with highly skilled STEM graduates seems like a recipe for upset when a healthy economy needs more than just STEM.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    STEM is still "just" 1/4 of workforce. Another 1/2 is going to be in other tertiary or vocational including trades. The side benefit of STEM overcapacity is you can drive skilled labour costs down in highvalue/strategic sectors, and the flame outs can do other shit i.e. foreign doctors driving Ubers in the States. China will have STEMs who aren't "good enough" doing banal work too. Except you can get upskilled people to work low skilled jobs and not vice versa, i.e. US isn't going to get glut of humanity degrees to fill fabs. Will there be as many cheap workers as last couple decades pouring 100 years worth of US concrete in 3? No, hence why all the upfront build infra investment right now, while blue collar still somewhat plentiful and cheap. Meanwhile, tons of resources pouring into automation / humanoid robots, because at PRC scale, IMO can't really immigrate/migrant worker way out of issue. Not saying it's not possible, see meme of circle around Asia where 50% of humans live. There's likely still going to be a lot of accessible cheap bodies around if culture willing to tolerate it. The broader picture is big % (like 30%+) of PRC workforce has been (and will be until they die) bluntly... net drag. There were always 100s of millions of farming households (functionally a jobs program) and informal workers spinning wheels doing shit all. All the labourers and workers pouring concrete and building factories were only ever fraction of PRC workforce. PRC losing the fraction that doesn't do much and replacing it with a smaller fraction that does a lot, and when aggregate # of workers that does a lot is 2x-3x more than peers (vs past where peers had orders of magnitude more skilled than PRC), then that's much better net position for future when competing on high tech / high value. Another added benefit of not having 100s of millions of excess mouth to feed and fuel and future PRC demographics is also going to enable strategic autarky like US. IMO PRC "finite" still too much. There are a lot of benefits to where PRC demographics is trending within our lifetimes. Of course if they don't figure out TFR in 30-40 years things will get real bad in 60-70 years, but that's time frame too distant to extrapolate.

vkou 2y ago

Given recent trends, the US will run headlong into the problem of political collapse long before China runs into a demographic collapse.

thworp 2y ago
That problem is also ever-present for China. States like China never look like they are about to collapse until they do.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  That's true of all states. The collapse only sets in when enough people start believing it's about to happen - and once this threshold is crossed, it happens in an instant.

maxglute 2y ago

Both JP and SKR increased gdp/productivity ~10-20x when they had <2 TFR by increasing % of workforce to skilled/tertiary (advanced economies have skilled workforce approaching 70/80%). PRC is at ~20% while adding more skilled workforce than roughly OECD combined. Structurally China will add more just STEM in next 20 years than US projected to increase population, i.e. if every US newborn and immigrant (assuming current levels) are STEM, US will merely match PRC STEM generation. PRC also adding 80m other tertiary or vocational skilled ontop of that. For strategic competition, the structural demographic trend you should compare is PRC peaking at roughly 2x-3x US skilled workers who will be in workforce for 50+ years, i.e. greatest high skill demographic divident in recorded history. Meanwhile they'll be shedding 100s of millions of low productive workers. Imagine PRC workforce profile adding 5 japans and losing 3 nigerias. Another caveat being about 200m of population decline will be inefficient farming households that can be effectively replaced with 20m modern ag workers. Or 600m low productive (bottom 2 quantiles who are undereducated / old / left behind by modernization) contributes to like 5% of GDP, i.e. their consumption / productivity is comparable to a few 10s million of high value workers. Then consider PRC is also adding more industrial robotics / automation than RoW combined. The question is whether US can compete with PRC with multiple times more skilled talent and larger industrial base than they have now, both increasing at rates that US is structurally unable to close gap on for decades short of AGI / von neumann machine hailmary (which granted is a real possiblity, but then we're also in a world where PRC is spitting out incubated humans).

CraigJPerry 2y ago
Maybe, but if you’re allocating all that resource in STEM, where do the essential trades (carpenters, plumbers, construction in general) come from? Without immigration, It’s a finite resource pool. The analysis of losing unproductive workers and replacing them with highly skilled STEM graduates seems like a recipe for upset when a healthy economy needs more than just STEM.
- maxglute 2y ago
  STEM is still "just" 1/4 of workforce. Another 1/2 is going to be in other tertiary or vocational including trades. The side benefit of STEM overcapacity is you can drive skilled labour costs down in highvalue/strategic sectors, and the flame outs can do other shit i.e. foreign doctors driving Ubers in the States. China will have STEMs who aren't "good enough" doing banal work too. Except you can get upskilled people to work low skilled jobs and not vice versa, i.e. US isn't going to get glut of humanity degrees to fill fabs. Will there be as many cheap workers as last couple decades pouring 100 years worth of US concrete in 3? No, hence why all the upfront build infra investment right now, while blue collar still somewhat plentiful and cheap. Meanwhile, tons of resources pouring into automation / humanoid robots, because at PRC scale, IMO can't really immigrate/migrant worker way out of issue. Not saying it's not possible, see meme of circle around Asia where 50% of humans live. There's likely still going to be a lot of accessible cheap bodies around if culture willing to tolerate it. The broader picture is big % (like 30%+) of PRC workforce has been (and will be until they die) bluntly... net drag. There were always 100s of millions of farming households (functionally a jobs program) and informal workers spinning wheels doing shit all. All the labourers and workers pouring concrete and building factories were only ever fraction of PRC workforce. PRC losing the fraction that doesn't do much and replacing it with a smaller fraction that does a lot, and when aggregate # of workers that does a lot is 2x-3x more than peers (vs past where peers had orders of magnitude more skilled than PRC), then that's much better net position for future when competing on high tech / high value. Another added benefit of not having 100s of millions of excess mouth to feed and fuel and future PRC demographics is also going to enable strategic autarky like US. IMO PRC "finite" still too much. There are a lot of benefits to where PRC demographics is trending within our lifetimes. Of course if they don't figure out TFR in 30-40 years things will get real bad in 60-70 years, but that's time frame too distant to extrapolate.