| ▲ | Maxion 4 hours ago |
| > Less obvious where to run to these days as the US not-an-empire looks like it may crumble. Depending on what you're running for China is in some senses kinda what the US was back in the day, except there's no land so no easy way for them to accept migrants. These day and age migrants also aren't very accepted anywhere. |
|
| ▲ | weinzierl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I agree in a sense, and the writing for this has been on the wall for some time. In my circles, many learned some Mandarin at one point or another. The difference from the past is that the US has always been a melting pot, while China is pretty much a closed society. If you’d emigrated to the US, you always had a good chance of blending into that diverse society no matter where you came from. Assimilating into the homogeneous Chinese society will take generations. For me it’ll be either the westernmost end of Europe or one of the better parts of South America, in the hope that they will prosper modestly in the shadows of the upcoming conflicts. |
| |
| ▲ | vidarh 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm very curious how China will adapt over the next couple of decades. Their population has started contracting, and it's clear the government has seen the fertility rate as a problem for some time. There's no obvious way for them to keep economic growth going without either finding a solution to something nobody else has managed to solve (getting the fertility rate back up), or opening up for more immigration. Either will take significant changes. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fertility really 20/30+ year away problem. PRC growth now based on educated population, which exploded, not total population. Reality is every tertiary median to upper middle class wage is more productive than 10 undereducated peasants... the ones first to age out. There's like 200-400m+ bluntly useless mouths dragging down productivity/per capital metrics, the only saving grace they did NOT get rich before old, i.e. poor old so it's cheap(ish) in terms of resources (but not labour) to support them. Put it this way, PRC is generating OECD combined in tertiary, disproportionately STEM, they have backlog of 200m births from last 20+ years that still haven't got their masters/phds... at 60% and increasing tertiary we're going 100m+ high end talent, aka the greatest high end human dividend in recorded history who will be in workforce for until 2060s, i.e. so far out its hard to project based on present realities, only they have no shortage of advanced economy growth potential. Like if you throw all projected US newborns + immigration into STEM... PRC would still come out FAR ahead. There is no contest, unless AGI displaces everyone. TFR real issue probably 30 year out. There will be some rebound, current crashing TFR because so many entering tertiary last few years = delay family formation. Women going to turn 35-40 and realize they want kids... and have them, especially considering 1:4 dependency ratio also = 4:1 wealth transfer + property going other way when previous generation (with high savings rate) dies. But won't get to replacement level. Then it's matter of what bad levers PRC willing to pull - pro natal fertility policies does not incentivize 2.1 TFR... and no one has tried punitive policies, i.e. limit wealth/property transfers to families with 2 kids... all sorts of inducements liberal societies haven't... or politically can't try. Or immigration, test tube babies, who knows. But IMO they try punitive policies first. That's really the only thing that no one has tried, and we know from wealthy Muslim countries with oil money, religious incentive, domestic help... aka every support imaginable, TFR is below 2 or trending towards it. | | |
| ▲ | vidarh an hour ago | parent [-] | | Fertility is a right now problem for China - it's population has started dropping - its largest cohort is just a few years from being out of child-bearing age, and its fertility rate is one of the lowest in the world, and it will take decades to reverse that even if we knew today how to do it. This isn't just a question of dropping labour, but also a question of the consequent reduction in economic demand. Which is why China started reacting to the low fertility rate already in 2013 by abolishing the agency responsible for enforcing the one child policy, followed by ending the policy in 2015, replacing it with a 2 child policy, which failed to have the desired effect, followed by a 3 child policy in 2021, followed a month later by removing all penalties for having even more children. China's workforce also is at most years from starting to contract excluding any immigration - the cohorts retiring are close to the size of those entering the workforce and the cohorts retiring will be increasing for another 20-30 years, while the ones entering the workforce will be decreasing for the same period even if they somehow figured out how to reverse it today. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > finding a solution to something nobody else has managed to solve In the 21st century, that is definitely something I'd bet on China for being able to do. Across all sorts of problems. The solution is going to be paying people. No, more than that. No, keep going. Higher. Market-clearing price. | | |
| ▲ | vidarh an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The question is how high that price is, and whether it is viable. We don't know. And secondly, whether or not the consequences will be workable for a cohesive society whether because women choose to have children only for financial reasons or get coerced into it for the same reasons. It could get very dark very quickly if it turns out to be too hard to induce enough people who actually would want children under the right circumstances to choose to have them. | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a capitalist solution; China has that option if they want it, but also they have those "reeducation" camps so it could get very Handmaid's Tale. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vidarh 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China's population is dropping, so to the extent they had housing for their peak population, they will have increasing capacity to accept migrants. Their fertility rate has dropped to 1, one of the lowest in the world, despite having now lifted all restrictions on number of children and actively encouraging larger families, so it will become a precarious problem for them soon. China's migration policies have been extremely strict, so to what extent they will be able to loosen that up without political upheaval is still an open question. So far they've only loosened up the restrictions on internal migration. |
|
| ▲ | realharo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China is facing many of the same problems that the rest of the world is, with demographic decline, slowing growth, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | bsoqk 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those problems could be solved with a careful migratory policy (ie what America did back in the day because it was economically impossible for the entire third world to fly there; today, this could be enforced with laws) | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The issue with demographic decline is not just quantity of people, but also quality of people. China (and any country) will want individuals that speak the language, are culturally compatible, with useful skills, and so on. The limited number of people any country can draw on once you consider this starts to make it clear that migration doesn't solve anything. And even with migration, if those migrants don't themselves end up with high fertility rates then you've done nothing but kick the can, and not especially far. Because of all of these issues, I think there's approximately a 100% chance that China will do the equal but opposite of the one-child-policy should their demographic issues fail to start reversing more naturally. | | |
| ▲ | jaza 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "The equal but opposite of the one-child-policy" is easier said than done. A brute-force approach worked for stopping more babies (I don't know if it's true, but what I heard back was that back in the 80s Chinese officials literally killed unauthorised babies moments after they were born - that's probably exaggerated, however they really did carry out forced sterilisations and forced abortions). It wouldn't work so well for creating more babies. You can't force people to have more children. Many countries are offering financial incentives for producing babies right now - cash at birth, free house, free childcare, etc - with limited success. I don't see how China could deliver (hahaha aren't I punny) a significantly different result if it goes down that same road. | | | |
| ▲ | teiferer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The issue with demographic decline is not just quantity of people, but also quality of people "Quality of people". Spoken like a true tech person. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Spoken like someone who does not want to play useless word games. Would you choose an employee, or worse, a spouse, with no positive qualities? If no, you are judging people by their qualities too. | |
| ▲ | Johanx64 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When a company hires people, will it take in just anyone with a pulse? Tech people look at things in terms of - is this true or not. And "Quality of People" is perfectly accurate description. How it makes you feel about it completely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | neal_jones 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I assumed there would be plenty of land in China, is just completely remote or do I just have a completely incorrect perspective on China (generally speaking I’m sure I do, I’ve live my life on the other side of the planet) |
| |
| ▲ | vidarh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's plenty of land in China. There aren't plenty of empty plots that would be attractive for people to farm. I'm not so sure that has much relevance to modern immigration, though. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is .. with the last of the subsistence farmers already living on it. There is basically no good unoccupied agricultural land in the world. The American settlers never appreciated how much work disease did in creating a seemingly empty space for them. |
|
|
| ▲ | GlacierFox 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There's no land in China? |
| |
| ▲ | lompad 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, not the kind of land where you can just massacre the natives and steal it for free without ever seeing consequences for that abominable behavior. Which is what I suppose they're referring to. |
|