Posted on 07/21/2019 3:52:40 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
Chinas official demographic figures, including the now-cliched country of 1.4 billion people, seriously misrepresent the countrys real population landscape. The real size of Chinas 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 Chinas rigged population statistics system, influenced by the vested interests of Chinas family planning authority.
To start with, the raw data of Chinas population figures were adjusted. Chinas 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 countrys 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 Chinas 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 Chinas family planning authority needs to present a picture of a rapidly growing population to justify the countrys brutal family control policies and even the very existence of the birth control apparatus.
(Excerpt) Read more at scmp.com ...
Im curious how they avoided the enforcement mechanisms, such as mandatory menstrual cycle charting and the roving abortuaries that forcefully abort unauthorized babies. Ive read about very heavy handed policies used to enforce the one-child rule.
I suspect NK doesn’t execute people by mortar too.
The Chinese never had an original thought. They have stolen our intellectual properties, manipulated their currency and managed to negotiate trade deals to their extreme benefit and our detriment.
The Chinese are so stupid they have used their own crappy steel to build their new aircraft carrier. After three sea trials its still leaking at the seams.I
The Chinese make cheap, crappy knock off products. In a head to head contest they cannot compete with the US economically. Trump is doing to China what Reagan did to Russia.
Robotics and AI are never going to replace people anymore than self driving cars are. They will not save China.
The provinces lie about everything else. In the old days it was about rice production, now its about economic growth and debt. Why wouldn’t they lie about births and population?
One incentive to inflate population size is that Chinas family planning authority needs to present a picture of a rapidly growing population to justify the countrys brutal family control policies and even the very existence of the birth control apparatus.
Thanks Zhang Fei.
I don't think the "one child" policy was ever intended to apply to the wealthy, but rather to be a eugenics policy to limit the peasant class. Did you notice any poorer families with large numbers of kids?
That might be the case. But I wouldn’t describe people I worked with as rich. More like middle to upper middle class. Haven’t interacted with poor people though so I can’t both prove or disprove your theory.
True about secondhand mortality. Secondhand morbidity (sickness, lost time at work, etc.) was a real issue, costing tens of billions USD per year over decades. Serious health issues with second hand smoke have plummeted in the last 20 years, although spme of that is due to clear air and water and the recent slowdown in coal. Absolutely true that the stats were abused on secondahand smoke mortality.
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.