3 ms·

They're cancelling the pointless one child policy. Hukou's will go at some point in the near future, which will help a lot of the rural majority (most of the wo

by wisty 13y ago

They're cancelling the pointless one child policy. Hukou's will go at some point in the near future, which will help a lot of the rural majority (most of the working-age ones live in big cities, but only semi-officially). So they are taking some steps in the right direction. Just as long as they don't have to give up any power. > avoiding the "middle-income trap" of economic growth stagnating http://i.imgur.com/flymMWZ.png http://i.imgur.com/flymMWZ.png - if they can avoid a crisis in the next 2 years, I'll be surprised. On the whole moon thing ... it's 10 billion a year for 10 years. From this article (http://www.tealeafnation.com/2013/04/a-breakdown-of-chinas-trillion-dollar-budget/ http://www.tealeafnation.com/2013/04/a-breakdown-of-chinas-t...), China spends about 150 billion (US) per year on defence. And a truly ungodly amount on "payments of unspecified or unknown purposes", by local governments.

blah32497 13y ago
How is the one child policy pointless? Isn't the point to keep population growth in check? Hasn't it worked?
- wisty 13y ago
  No ... it hasn't worked. Well, it works a little, but other strategies (propaganda, all kinds of readily available birth control) work better. Economic growth works the best. If you look at a graph of China's fertility rate (http://coolgeography.co.uk/Side%20bar%20Pages/Buttons/Index%20Buttons/clip_image002.gif http://coolgeography.co.uk/Side%20bar%20Pages/Buttons/Index%...), you can't even see the once child policy. Hint - it's after the really big drop. Fertility rates were trending down to about 2.0. Instead, they went down a little bit more (to about 1.8). A slight reduction in fertility rates isn't really worth all the problems it causes. It probably knocked the population down a bit, but on the flip-side there's tens of millions of poor angry young men with no families and nothing to lose. Which isn't great if you want a "harmonious society".
  - blah32497 13y ago
    "Economic growth works the best." Well I'm sure they see this as a potential long term solution (though, outside of very advanced first world countries, this doesn't seem to hold). But in such a crowded country that seems like a luxury they can't afford in the shorter term. It seems incongruous to say that the policy has no effects on fertility rates, while leaving devastating social consequences. Are you saying that if the policy was not in place some people that are having a child now would have had none ? And that families that would have children wouldn't care about their gender? I think India is a good picture of what happens if you don't implement a one child policy. They tried to convince people to have fewer children and failed miserably.
    - wisty 13y ago
      China's fertility rate just prior to OCP was lower than India's fertility rate today. The problem of high birth rates was pretty much already solved. You might be right that it's not just economic growth, though. Literacy in women is a huge factor, and one which India lagged behind on.
- anoncow 13y ago
  20 million guys will not find a bride. What are we living for?

by wisty 13y ago

blah32497 13y ago

How is the one child policy pointless? Isn't the point to keep population growth in check? Hasn't it worked?

wisty 13y ago
No ... it hasn't worked. Well, it works a little, but other strategies (propaganda, all kinds of readily available birth control) work better. Economic growth works the best. If you look at a graph of China's fertility rate (http://coolgeography.co.uk/Side%20bar%20Pages/Buttons/Index%20Buttons/clip_image002.gif http://coolgeography.co.uk/Side%20bar%20Pages/Buttons/Index%...), you can't even see the once child policy. Hint - it's after the really big drop. Fertility rates were trending down to about 2.0. Instead, they went down a little bit more (to about 1.8). A slight reduction in fertility rates isn't really worth all the problems it causes. It probably knocked the population down a bit, but on the flip-side there's tens of millions of poor angry young men with no families and nothing to lose. Which isn't great if you want a "harmonious society".
- blah32497 13y ago
  "Economic growth works the best." Well I'm sure they see this as a potential long term solution (though, outside of very advanced first world countries, this doesn't seem to hold). But in such a crowded country that seems like a luxury they can't afford in the shorter term. It seems incongruous to say that the policy has no effects on fertility rates, while leaving devastating social consequences. Are you saying that if the policy was not in place some people that are having a child now would have had none ? And that families that would have children wouldn't care about their gender? I think India is a good picture of what happens if you don't implement a one child policy. They tried to convince people to have fewer children and failed miserably.
  - wisty 13y ago
    China's fertility rate just prior to OCP was lower than India's fertility rate today. The problem of high birth rates was pretty much already solved. You might be right that it's not just economic growth, though. Literacy in women is a huge factor, and one which India lagged behind on.
anoncow 13y ago
20 million guys will not find a bride. What are we living for?