It remains to be seen how different 2010's China—with 90% of the population being under 60—is from 2050's China—with only 69% of the population being under 60.
It remains to be seen how different 2010's China—with 90% of the population being under 60—is from 2050's China—with only 69% of the population being under 60.
China's rise was due to smart planning and investment in their people and infrastructure. The country went from peasant farmers to the manufacturing hub of the world in a generation. Now they're in the process of becoming a major hub of knowledge workers while keeping a strong manufacturing backbone.
And one thing I rarely see mentioned is that the Chinese government keeps its currency artificially devalued in order to sell their products cheaply and undercut competition. Looking at their economy purely on a GDP basis really underestimates how big their economy is. GDP by PPP is more accurate. If China ever decides to stop loosely pegging its currency and let the value naturally rise, their GDP will very likely swell, since GDP is measured in US dollars.
The one child policy means there are no people to do the manufacturing in China in the future. The population pyramid is inverted. You can't do manufacturing without lots and lots of people. Or at least you'll get out competed by your neighbours who have lots of labor.
China invested heavily in machinery and automation many decades ago. They'll be fairly fine.
I visited India a few months ago. Loved it. But I saw construction being done with donkeys hauling dirt and people shoveling the loads onto the donkey's cart with tiny hand shovels. Scaling up from that to the degree of manufacturing powerhouses like China have is not going to be easy.
It also means they no longer do the cheap high volume manufacturing, which will go elsewhere where the cheap labor is.
This is how it goes. Manufacturing keeps migrating to cheap labor. China is running out of cheap labor and volume manufacturing will find it in East Asia and India and Africa instead, because these places will still have lots and lots of young people while those in China have aged out.
Where did you get this from? I am Indian and this is the first time I'm hearing of it.
(It was also not as absolute as people in the West think. There were exceptions for rural China and minorities.)
The Sichuanese might not get along with the Cantonese, but they’re ethnically the same people with a shared culture
One China is a convenient fiction invented by an authoritarian regime, not a day to day reality on the ground.
Westerners buy into it through some combination of propaganda (coming from the Chinese state and our own, both of which benefit from an exaggerated sense of Chinese unity) and our inability to distinguish the various ethnic groups because we're overly fixated on skin color as the primary physical marker of ethnicity.
It's easy to track differences between people around you, in your country, and very hard to track difference between people in other countries. This creates an illusion of "We are very different, and they are all the same".
by the standard of most large landmasses, China was, in fact, far more cohesive and united - compared to the hundreds of local lords and kings with their tiny little fiefs in, say, India
Comparing Chinese unity favorably to India is damning with faint praise, and doesn't do anything at all to help your original argument that China has better "social cohesion and political stability" than Western countries by virtue of having less immigration.
We're not comparing the social cohesion of landmasses, we're comparing the social cohesion of states, and India is a particularly disjointed example to use.
The 90% Han Chinese number isn't especially useful because it's comparable to the way that most of Europe has historically identified itself as the successor of Rome. That they all identify as Han doesn't make Han a truly useful grouping for judging diversity when they all have different ideas of what "Han" means.
Not at all, these are pretty universally agreed upon by global sociologist.
>Europe is extremely ethnically diverse, as is China
Indeed, Europe is extremely diverse, much more so than China.
>they just don't use skin color as the primary ethnic marker the way that is commonly (and still incorrectly) done in the US.
Neither does the US. Skin color is not a primary ethnic marker. No one versed in sociology in the US considers a Black American ethnically similar to an Eritrean. Nor do they consider a Ukrainian ethnically similar to a White American.
>The 90% Han Chinese number isn't especially useful because it's comparable to the way that most of Europe has historically identified itself as the successor of Rome.
It is extremely useful because the subgroups specifically make these claims: "Modern Han Chinese subgroups, such as the Cantonese, the Hakka, the Henghua, the Hainanese, the Hoklo peoples, the Gan, the Xiang, the Wu-speaking peoples, all claim Han Chinese ancestry pointing to official histories and their own genealogical records to support such claims."
Germanic people do not make the claim to be of Roman or Mediterranean ethnicity nor origin. The languages are vastly more varied in Europe versus China, where 70%+ speak Mandarin.
Additionally, Han Chinese are much closer genetically than Europeans. Italians, Brits, and Estonians have much more varied genetics compared to Han Chinese.
https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/2024-SEP-24_IFR_press_re...
https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robotics-race...