Posted on 02/03/2017 3:05:04 PM PST by NYer
If you have been an avid reader of our blog over the last couple of years (and if you haven’t been, why not?) then you will have heard about the scrapping of the one-child policy in China and its replacement with the two-child policy. Although the one-child policy was barbaric, leading to invasions of privacy, barbaric treatment of pregnant women, fines, forced abortions and infanticide and death of women, (we’ve talked about all of these here before), the policy was not relaxed due to any concerns about its morality. Instead, the Chinese government is worried that its 35 year experiment in massive social engineering is now doing more harm than good economically and socially. That is, the one-child policy has been abandoned not because it is wrong, but because it is no longer useful.
The problem is that the one-child policy and decades of propaganda espousing the benefits of a small family have had the effect of fewer children being born (who would have thought?) Furthermore, those fewer children have been disproportionately male (shockingly so in some areas) due to the abortion and infanticide of female children in a culture that prizes male children – if you’re only allowed one, better make it a boy! This has meant a coming surplus of males and fewer workers entering the workforce at the same time that Chinese are living longer and there are more retirees. The demographic surplus that has benefitted the Chinese economy so much in the last three decades is now drying up. Hence the two-child policy: more babies will mean that there are more future workers and taxpayers.
However, the latest government report, announced last week, and reported by CNBC, suggests that the relaxation has had an impact, but not yet had the desired effect on Chinese birthrates. The number of births in the country has increased by 7.9 percent from 2015 to 2016, and, at 17.86 million, is the highest since 2000. However, it is still below the figure of 20 million that the government hoped would be reached due to the two-child policy, and even 20 million births per year would not solve China’s demographic issues. CNBC reports:
“The report released Wednesday warns that China faces a turning point over the next 15 years, particularly between 2021 and 2030. The aging of the population will accelerate, increasing pressure on social security and public services. At the same time, the working-age population will shrink, damaging economic growth and reducing the tax income required to support the elderly. The report predicted that a quarter of China's population will be over 60 in 2030, compared with about 16 percent in 2015.”
At the same time, the population aged between 15-59 will drop by 80 million by 2030. The overall population is expected to peak that year too, at 1.45 billion. In short, unless things change quickly, China will continue to get older and, in 13 years’ time, less populous. The trouble with expecting China’s demography to change much in the near future is that years of the one-child policy has changed the traditional Chinese attitude to children.
“‘In traditional Chinese culture, more children meant more prosperity, so the traditional household would hope for more children, but the one-child policy has played a role in affecting that,’ said Jieyu Liu, deputy director of the China Institute at London's School of Oriental and African Studies. ‘This recent change to the one-child policy is mostly affecting urban populations,’ she said. ‘Since the 1980s, rural households were allowed to have a second child if their first was not a son. I think that after 36 years under the one-child policy, a lot of urban couples have already adapted into this one-child culture.’”
Not only is living in Chinese cities expensive, but low levels of parental leave and a lack of affordable healthcare makes a second child seem too expensive for many couples. Can the government change this reluctance to have another child?
“‘The bottom line is that this is a very hard area to have any impact on. It's mostly about public attitudes,’ Professor Kerry Brown, director of the Lau China Institute at London's King's College, told NBC News. ‘Trying to have campaigns encouraging people to have bigger families, it's very limited what you can do,’ he said. ‘The economic constraints on people in China are very great. It'll probably have a very limited impact, whatever the government does. It's about creating the right mood music as it were.’”
It’s one thing to force people not to have children – but forcing them to have children? That surely is beyond the power of the Chinese Communist Party. But maybe I should not give them any ideas…
Ah, the elusive and fictitious "Avid Reader Of Blogs".
I’ve met several Chinese nationals with siblings. Payoff the local government official and the one child policy was overlooked. Although not sure if there are enough to offset the demographics.
Instead of this....
I love how the women who claim to be concerned about “keep your laws off my body” never talk about China.
/s
Well there are a few things. First they don’t have SS there. They do have special senior jobs that pay very little for, lets say, sweeping the city streets for 8 hours. You get about $10 a month.
Also, it takes two salaries to live in Chinese cities. Mom can’t just stop working. And the company has to let her have a baby. Right now a boss has to okay the baby.
If they want more babies they could have a three baby policy. And some would have one, while others would have two or three. In China, its the grand parents that take care of the children while the parents are taking care of the grand parents. Homes are small, maybe two rooms, but make it work.
Everything about China - old or recent - makes me kiss the ground and thank God I was born in the U.S.
The worldwide lesson is that once the curve on the fertility rate starts down, it never comes back up, no matter what governments try.
What’s needed is a zero child policy in africa and islamic death holes.”
Sean Hannity’s niece was on his talk show which was broadcast from Houston today. She, an OB-GYN, mentioned delivering the EIGHTH baby of a twenty-four year old female ON MEDICAID. No wonder we spend so much on Medicaid in our state.
Here’s the problem with a one-child policy. The single child is spoiled. But it is not all good for the kid. Besides having no siblings, after a few generations the following is true. No siblings. No uncles or aunts. No cousins. No nephews or nieces. And if a child passes away before the parents, no adult child to care for an aging parent. Additionally, if the adult child hates the parent, there certainly won’t be any caring for the aging elder. Think how lonely it is without uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews, nieces, or any extended family.
China could very easily solve its problem by mandating the suicide / euthanasia of those who become a burden on society.
“but forcing them to have children? “
They will probably kill off the elderly first.
Have a cold? Special cough drop for you!
A private sector demographer said in a lecture Imattemded that some time in the next 20 years (maybe it was 30) the US will be roughly half the size of China in population. The will decrease below 1 billion and we will increase to closer to 1/2 billlion. Where as to day we are near 1/4th.
Our issue won’t be the economic dominance of China it will be the coming collapse of China and how they handle it.
I am an only child, as is my daughter, though not by choice. Everything you describe is personal experience. Lost my mother last year, dad in assisted living, daughter working while I care for her only child. None of my cousins, who moved west, had children. And it didn't take a government program.
As such, I have been a keen observer of how the european population has shrunk and noticed a similar pattern in the US. Their focus has been on ensuring their children receive a college education. That is expensive so they limited their offspring to 2 then 1. Since the child is well educated, they need to bring in outsiders to do menial labor; hence, the massive immigration of muslims. They, OTOH, reproduce like rabbits. What the europeans failed to recognize is that muslims do not assimilate but bring their own culture.
The following is a description (slightly modified) from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim. Like any other minority, they won’t integrate, but work to build their own separate community.
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. South Africa's Muslim population is 2%, but they control 35% of the businesses, a large percentage of the banks and have five Cabinet seats while Christians (77% of the population) have none.
They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves (along with threats for failure to comply).
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia; Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world, but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. (Ei: car-burnings in France last October.) Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (India, Mindanao, Philippines).
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare [Indonesia].
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Western Papua (New Guinea), Iran, Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria].
100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.
President Trump is right to slow down the muslim immigration to the US. He is up against a ground swell of PC politicians who can't see beyond the tip of their uppity noses.
You posted a pretty good report on the stealth invasion by Muslims. Thanks, I agree.
About the limiting children to 1 or 2 thing being about college costs, I don't think that is a primary cause. I come from a medium large family as does my wife. 5 children by my parents, and 6 children by wife's parents. Both sets of parents poor. My mom was an immigrant, became a citizen after 5 years. Same for my wife's mother, an immigrant becoming a citizen after 5 years despite poor English. Both sets of parents did odd jobs to raise money, and despite poor education they managed to raise these kids and a third went to college (most working their way through). No government program.
My wife and I married young, and I worked my way through college without parents help (my dad died when I was a teen and my mom had no money). After college, we got out of the apartment and bought a house, then soon raised two kids. We didn't limit ourselves, because we decided we would raise kids even though finances were tight. My wife had complications after the 2nd kid and couldn't have more. (Side note, we're taking care of her mom in assisted living.) All our siblings had multiple children, money not being a factor. And most of these children went on to college. My adult daughters are raising their own children, and never thought about finances holding them back from having kids. It was more about how many they could control while holding down jobs.
Children are expensive, but you do what you have to do in order to raise them, forget the cost. College is another matter, I feel it is unnecessary for half the kids out there, but that's for others to figure out. I paid for my daughters' college educations, and it has paid off for them as they went on to obtain high-paying jobs. For some of my relatives, it was wasted time and money as the graduated kids didn't get jobs in their major, ending up with low-paying jobs. I don't think a child should be coerced into going to college, but should do so only if their desire and intellect are strong enough to make use of it. Again, I don't think college should be a driving force behind a decision whether to have kids.
By "college", I was referring more to the women who have invested in themselves through higher education. They tend to place greater emphasis on pursuing a career rather than starting a family. And when they do start a family, it's usually later in life. This is not true for all women but it's a pattern I have seen repeated vs the early generation of immigrant parents who embrace family life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.