Posted on 07/21/2019 3:52:40 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
China’s official demographic figures, including the now-cliched “country of 1.4 billion people”, seriously misrepresent the country’s real population landscape. The real size of China’s population could be 115 million fewer than the official number, putting China behind India in terms of population.
This massive error, equal to the combined populations of the United Kingdom and Spain, is a product of China’s rigged population statistics system, influenced by the vested interests of China’s family planning authority.
To start with, the raw data of China’s population figures were “adjusted”. China’s total fertility rate, or the number of kids per woman throughout her life, dropped below the watershed level of 2.1 in 1991, from which moment the population size of the next generation would be smaller than the current one, and the average total fertility rate was 1.36 in 1994-2018, according to data from census and surveys. However, the family planning authority in charge of the country’s population control refused to believe the numbers and “adjusted” the rate to 1.6-1.8 and, accordingly, the official population size.
For instance, the real total fertility rate in 2000 was 1.22, according to a census result, but the government revised it to 1.8. Accordingly, the country had 14.1 million new births in 2000, but the government revised the figure by 26 per cent to 17.7 million. A census, which is conducted every 10 years, should provide the truest picture of China’s demographic situation. But for the 2000 census, the government was unhappy about the original finding of 1.24 billion and revised it up to 1.27 billion.
One incentive to inflate population size is that China’s family planning authority needs to present a picture of a “rapidly growing population” to justify the country’s brutal family control policies and even the very existence of the birth control apparatus.
(Excerpt) Read more at scmp.com ...
Bet they wish they had half that number. Same with India.
I don’t believe it. One child policy was always mostly a sham. I engaged in trade with some family-owned businesses in late 1990s and mentioned that big families at least in northern China were a norm. By big families I mean 3+ children. They usually had older male kid officially and the rest undocumented.
“Lies, damned lies, statistics and Chinese statistics.“
*
Yeh, their biggest problem is their out of whack boy:girl birthdate ratio. It’s been about 100 boys : 80 girls for years. Consequently, young Chinese men are wife shop in neighboring countries. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in coming years....
Their data collection system is terribly corrupt.
When truth takes a backseat to political expeciency, how do you "know" anything?
I believe Party members and government employees are restricted to 1, with loss of membership and/or job the penalty for transgressions. Note that the policy only came into place in the early 80’s. The principal barrier to having more children comes down to money. K-12 education is theoretically subsidized in China, but not free. Children beyond the first have to pay full freight, i.e. full tuition. I don’t know the numbers, but I’ve read that it’s not a small amount relative to typical Chinese salaries.
{Consequently, young Chinese men are wife shop in neighboring countries. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in coming years....]
“justify”
Sorta like the US does with that second hand smoke BS.
Not everybody is a party member to really care and the level of economic activity in China provides an average small business enough money for the owners to be counted as rich by American standards. They don’t care for the subsidized education, they would simply send their kids to Western colleges.
Even the average income in China is about $10k with blue collars making about as much in moderately developed industrial centers and much higher in the more developed South.
If you adjust $10k to their living expenses starting with groceries and consumer goods prices and ending with rent, utilities and health care it is a better deal than $70k in California.
The majority aren’t that poor to care about subsidies.
El Rushbo told of a WHO study of 2nd hand smoke in Europe back in the 80s. The study found that 2nd hand smoke is so diluted vs. 1st hand as to have NO effect at all. The WHO didn’t like that result, so they spiked the story, buried it, and continued the lies about the phony perils of 2nd hand smoke. Disband the UN and the WHO!
The article presumes the fallacy that the population number is known with the accuracy to juggle the numbers as is done by the author
“By big families I mean 3+ children. They usually had older male kid officially and the rest undocumented.”
Yeah, but that wasn’t the norm.
Work groups most people were under literally charted each woman’s menstrual cycle.
A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there, pretty soon you’re talking big population.
1.4 billion or
1.28 billion
I dont think that this is a serious difference at those numbers.
I always thought Russian women and Chinese men would be a good mix. I do know one couple.
He just went back to the mainland China and she moved to Belarus.
“Bet they wish they had half that number. Same with India.”
They’re both busy colonizing us.
As I recall it that WHO study actually cited a “preventive effect” of second hand smoke on the lungs of children. That is it stimulated and strengthened the lungs.
Truth taking a backseat to political expediency is the definition of Political Correctness. It occurs when a political party is entitled, not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. You know, like Democrats (Bob Hope).
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.