Germany and Italy, to take but two examples of large Western economies, haven't had native above-replacement TFR since ~1970.
Even in the US, TFR is well below replacement right now, and in fact is basically comparable to China's TFR from 2010-2017.
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr035.pdf
US population growth is sort of immigration-dependent, which, let's put it this way, isn't an unalloyed good thing.
What metric do you have in mind here? It looks like Japan’s population has dropped ~2% from peak in the last 25 years. China is projected to lose ~8% in the next 25.
Or if we look at percent of population over 65, Japan is at ~30% today. China is projected to jump from <20% to 40% by 2050.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1359964/world-population...
Yeah, Japan is at 29.6% today. China is at ~15% right now and is estimated to be at 26% by 2050.
That's not China in your link. It's Hong Kong, which has an older-skewing population.
I'm not convinced. I don't think that population decline is necessarily worse than changing the cultural and ethnic makeup of your country. If anything, I think that a much stronger case can be made for the other perspective.
Anyway, fact is, things aren't that bad in China. We can see what China's demographic future looks like, because nations like Germany and Japan are forerunners in that regard.
It can bear the burden of developing and producing things like solar panels or batteries or AI because of the sheer size of the population, but that doesn’t work if the population itself is the problem.
Besides, with ~1.4B people, China has a very deep population reservoir. Even with a catastrophically low birthrate in 2023, there were more than 9M births. That's about as much, in that year, as the US, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, England, Mexico, Canada, and Spain combined. (3.5M+.8M+.23M+.7M+.7M+.56M+1.8M+.35M+.32M)
The Economist crowd loves to prophesy doom, but really the facts are not unambiguous and China's position is not uniquely bad in any respect. If anything, it still has a lot going for it.
You are deeply, deeply misunderstanding the problem.
Maybe when Western-oriented, China would have been able to escape the middle-income tier despite their demographic trends. But with the dual gut punch of being excised from Western technology and an economy that will be in a tar pit due to growth crashes (real estate bubble for example), no chance in hell.
Don't get me wrong. It's amazing how many people China has lifted out of poverty. And yes, they do take "100 steps forward" for every "2 steps forward, 1 step back" that the West does. But this is because they came from very low, where there is no ossified infrastructure and plenty of low-hanging fruit to pick.
For example, being in Shanghai and having nothing but quiet streets because virtually every motor vehicle is electrified feels like being in the future. The same goes for massive amounts of high-speed rail being built per year. But this is possible because A) there is no legacy infrastructure and B) the state can just crush you without any recourse.
It is quite well-known that the more free a nation is, the more it prospers. Make of that what you will.
If Russia couldn't beat NATO in a pitched fight against the rest of the world, neither can China.
The fear of the "Red Sun Rising".
The fear that Japan was going to own most of the valuable real estate in America.
The forcing of Japanese car companies to onshore to protect American jobs.
Blaming of Japanese industrial policy as being unfair competition.
It was the collapse of the Japanese growth engine in the mid 90's that finally ended the American panic.
The U.S. and U.K. are a dual world power.
Whenever powers rise to threaten that duality there is a lot of hand-wringing in Washington.
Wait, how did the UK get in there? Especially in this post-brexit century...
Correction: If it accepts the stationing of U.S. troops and succumbs to U.S. financial policies, it's not a big deal
Japan and Germany have paid a huge price to demonstrate their friendship to the U.S. That was not 'just fine'
The situation has waxed and waned but in general West Germany and Japan at the government level have been pretty happy to have US troops stationed there while facing off against the Soviet Union (now Russia) and China. The Ukrainians and the Baltics would love to have some US troops stationed there right now.
you are not mature enough to discuss such topic if you believe the US will be happy to be taken over by some democratic friends.
My perception is that Japan, after some great success, went through a normal semi-inevitable asset bubble, but their response was uniquely Japanese. Rather than letting firms and the social contract of lifetime employment (particularly for older workers) go bankrupt, their firms and country decided to absorb the losses for a generation and stagnate.
Economically it was a very suboptimal approach but socially/morally I'm less confident it was the wrong call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_the...
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/06/us/resentment-of-japanese...
No it was not. The US had taken whole bunch of steps to prevent this from happening and those steps were anything but "let's free market decide" and "compete on merits".
It is a real problem for any country or block. As soon as it looks like it threatens leading position of the US all the gloves come of. Obviously not specific to the US. Any other country would do the same given a chance.
Albeit US cannot speak as US-centric paranoia/"exceptionalism" may do the same thing...and the electorate voted to self destruct the government despite US economy being the strongest in decades.
The vast majority of its people do not share in that success and have seen a declining standard of life relative to prior generations whereas in China, the opposite is quite demonstrably true, despite increasingly similar concentrations of wealth and political power.
> Average age of first-time homebuyers is 38, an all-time high.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/11/05/the-average-age-of-first...
> U.S. homelessness rose 18 percent in 2024, continuing multi-year upward trend
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-homelessness-rose-18...
> analysis of government data estimates that people in the United States owe at least $220 billion in medical debt.
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/the-burden-of-m...
And why is this a problem?
What is wrong with renting for life, exactly? I’m seeing more and more people own rental properties, but do not own their primary residence by choice.
As a free person I want to own my place. I have better ways to spend my money rather than feeding some asshole
https://www.kiplinger.com/real-estate/buying-a-home/renting-...
>"In 21 U.S. metros, the monthly cost of owning is at least 50% more expensive"
I am not in the US. 21 metros do not constitute country. When I bought house in major metro (Toronto) it was $200,000. So please do not feed me this pathetic propaganda.
To add to the irony there are also self-made landlords who do similar work on similar scale on their own! They are usually available for defects and damages day and night.
Back when the people owned the non profits they build and fixed everything asap on the cheap. It might even be better than owning the home directly.
Nobody wants to be your serf until they're 38, bozo.
Ways forward are a) continued denial (status quo), b) YIMBYs defeat NIMBYs, c) change policy (incentivize renting) or d) <insert radical policy proposal here>.
You may think that expensive gasoline and cartons of eggs are a meme, but the reality is that the economy has become pretty damn Shite(tm) for the commons. Costs of living are objectively higher than they were just a couple years ago and incomes haven't kept pace either.
The stock market is having the time of its life (and as a small time investor I find that nice) but it's completely detached from the economy.
Yes, he won by a landslide and the biggest factor was the bad economy.
Anyone who thinks 49.9% of the vote (vs 48.4%) is a landslide will quickly find them in negative approval ratings if they think that gives them much political capital (if trump focuses and spending rather than earning capital, that is, which he definitely will).
Recall that GWB declared a mandate (to reverse all progressive social programs since the New Deal) when he squeaked out a victory over Kerry.
2024 election: Trump 49.7% 77.3 million (312 electoral), Harris 48.4% 75 million (226 electoral). Republicans control of House (but lost 1 seat) and control of Senate (gained 4 seats).
1972 election: Nixon 60.7% 47.2 million (520 electoral), McGovern 37.5% 29.2 million (17 electoral). Democrats control of House (but lost 13 seats) and control of Senate (gained 2 seats).
1984 election: Reagan 58.8% 54.5 million (525 electoral), Mondale 40.6% 37.6 million (13 electoral). Democrats control of House (but lost 16 seats). Republicans control of Senate (but lost 2 seats).
Source: many Wikipedia links
That's not what "landslide victory" means.
In fact Trump's electoral total was scarcely different from Biden's in 2016, and his popular vote margin was far narrower. Historically speaking, both of these are much closer to dead heats than they are to what are generally considered to be landslide victories (like Clinton's wins in 92-96, and Reagan's in 84-88).
You're only saying it's a "landslide" because Trump keeps saying that in his speeches.
But as usual he's either simply lying, or has no idea what he's talking about.
Maybe in western media depictions it would seem so, but eg china invests more and more in europe over the years. Moreover, BRICS are roughly half of world's population. Perceptions of what "the world" or "international relationships" mean are sometimes distorted in the west.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/biggest-trade-partner-of...
Whether China can beat NATO in a head to head military contest is one question, but separate from whether they can take Taiwan, for example.
The "rest of the world" is not limited by NATO. And China is not fighting "the rest of the world". It trades with it, invests and does all kinds of other things. But sure keeping one's head in a sand is a nice position.
China does have a current advantage on lithium battery and rare earth materials - dumb technologies that US and allies can replicate fairly quickly, less than a year. EUV and 3nm and below on the other hand, will take decades, since it involves a number of different and deep technologies controlled by dozens of companies. China has thrown $150B on it since 2014, and has only come up with low yield/unprofitable 7nm via existing DUV machines.
> 80% GDP
China's demographics will more than HALF to 500M by 2100, if not earlier, while US grows to close to 400M by then. Someone actually theorizes that China's population is already only 800M right now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR5F_8dSjOw
Also, a lot of that GDP is debatable in 2024, when real estate prices have dropped by more than 50% in tier 2 and below cities, and deflation has raged on.
Building EVs and supporting infrastructure is a lot more complicated than just having a bunch of blueprints.
Personally, I am not sure yet whether I like this or not. I can see good arguments for and against.
I wish it would be an honest open policy instead of the current vice grip of on the one hand passing aggressive phase out timelines of ICE through regulation, and on the other doing nothing to prepare a grid for mass EV adoption.
I can see why it wouldn't pass a democratic vote, but I also think chances of this passing under the covers are fairly slim as any time one of their roadmapped phases comes near they usually have to postpone them to appease the public.
Laugh in Northvolt
> $150B on it since 2014, and has only come up with low yield/unprofitable 7nm via existing DUV machines
Considering that there are less than 5 countries on Earth that can fab 7nm semiconductors, that aint bad.
- Battery Startup Opens Chicago Plant as US Seeks to Curb Reliance on China https://www.nanograf.com/media/battery-startup-opens-chicago...
- Our own YC: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/energy
- China’s startup scene is dead as investors pull out—’Today, we are like lepers’ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-startup-scene-dead-inve...
Northvolt isnt lacking funding (pedantically they are, else they wouldnt be bankrupt) or clients, but know-how for scaling putting aside some conspiracy theories about Chinese equipments. Turns out scaling isnt easy.
vanadium redox flow isnt very big yet even for Energy Storage System
Side note: The tendency US and Westernin general to depend on Wunderwaffe tech (Vanadium Redox! Solid State Battery!) is quite amusing.
> China’s startup scene is dead as investors pull out
Turns out Emperor Pooh dislike get-rich-quick startup mentality and yet another useless apps. He wouldnt mind hard tech bro like Ren Zhengfei or Wang Chuanfu though.
P.S. Watch the robotic space, things might get interesting in a year or two.
Japan too. It's a sign of helplessness and desperation, as much as I would prefer not to see that. They procrastinated and now see themselves behind.
Can other economies copy that part? I know a bunch of people who'd like to be able to afford more houses & more groceries at the same time. I'd like that, I can't realistically afford a house in the city I live in without a 50% price drop.
I'm sure China has a lot of problems, but key goods getting cheaper is not one of them. What I'm guessing you meant to say is that retirees were led to put too much of their savings into the housing market and are discovering there is a glut. Which is tragic for them. But prices dropping is a good thing; the unachievable ideal is a utopia where everything is free, ie, 100% deflation.
Here are some good posts on why nobody wants deflation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/uzq5bu/why_is...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/mbsxyl/can_so...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/yotf0c/i_dont...
also coincidentally and recently, China’s Xi Jinping asked ‘What’s so bad about deflation?’ amid economic slowdown https://fortune.com/2024/12/29/china-economy-deflation-xi-ji...
And there is an unemployment problem too, obviously.
'CCP is a secret and authoritarian regime that wields immense power' vs 'Some random reporter with English firstname and Chinese lastname know what Xi said before he go to bed'
Have you ever wondered if there's a tiny possibility that the media and the reporter *might* be lying?
...
The lack of spending then further contributes to falling prices, job cuts, businesses closing, etc. It's really not a situation any economy _wants_.
That said, I empathize with your sentiment.
Food, energy, transportation, education, etc.
How long are you going to delay getting a new car simply because cars are getting cheaper and better? Once you probe the theory beyond the surface, it collapses. Yes, a deflationary economy will see less cash velocity than a ZIRP economy with cheap cash sloshing around. But, at the end of the day, humans MUST spend resources today to live to see their savings worth more.
One man's debt is another mans income.
The reason we narrowly avoided full blown deflation in 2008 is because they bailed out the banks. If they didn't we would have had 1929 style depression these last 15 years.
Consider the computer industry. Prices have been falling pretty much across my entire life. Supply-demand suggests that people will keep buying new computers as the price drops and that is exactly what is happening. Demand for compute has never been higher. There is no waiting for improvements, if anything there is a mad rush to buy hardware that everyone knows is about to be obsoleted. It isn't even an irrational rush, the people buying that obsolete hardware often make good money (eg, bitcoin miners in the heyday).
Basic supply demand says as price drops demand increases. Basic life experience says as prices drop I can afford more and better stuff. Observation of real industries suggests - as we would intuit - that industries with regular price drops are actually healthy and great to be in for consumers in the small and the large. Theory suggests that everyone ignores nominal price fluctuations and focuses on real changes so systemic deflation is irrelevant. None of this supports the idea that deflation is bad.
Pretty sure the anti-deflation crowd are just wrong. They have no evidence or argument [0] as far as I can tell, and all the theory is stacked against them. China surely has problems. Deflation is not a problem. It is just a metric.
[0] EDIT Well I suppose they do have an argument, but it involves people randomly going crazy and choosing to live in poverty and discomfort because it gets easier to buy goods. Which is not an argument I really take seriously.
It is rather unlikely that giving people an option that they already have is going to cause a problem. One major benefit of money is that people can hoard it and there is no cost in the real economy because all the resources are still there and prices can just adjust to the amount of cash in circulation.
> here was a small deflationary bump in American history around the 1930s that helps to illustrate what can happen in a deflationary spiral.
The US came out of the 1930s with an economy that was capable of overcoming almost literally the entire world. Again, the evidence that deflation was some sort of major problem is questionable, it seems to have been associated with the creation of one of the most dynamic economies in the history of history.
And the idea that we have this one clear lesson from one instance back in the 30s is just weird and unbelievable. That isn't how history or complex systems work.
While the share of services in the US GDP is more than 3/4. What will you do with all these expensive NY lawyers when push comes to shove? Sue China's drones?