| Jian Shuo Wang, OK, now I'm *really* worried. A friend sent me a link that further talks about some concerning things regarding China's One Child Policy, from a business perspective: http://tinyurl.com/kq838 Look, this is very serious, and I'd like to have more solid, knowledgeable, accurate information on this. I don't know whether this article is right or wrong, but if it's true, then the One Child Policy-- if it continues for several more years-- is going to be doing tremendous damage to China's economy within about 15-20 years, and if true, then I and thousands of my business colleagues are not going to be investing in China. We'll be putting our money into places like India and Vietnam instead. I actually think the One Child Policy was a smart idea for China for a while, as it slowed population growth and probably helped China's environment and urban planning to proceed at a more manageable pace back in the 1980's. But it's not supposed to be a permanent policy, and if this article is correct, then the Policy is doing more harm than good. As Shrek7 was pointing out, it takes years-- in fact, often more than a decade-- for a business, especially if invested in a foreign country, to become profitable. For us to feel confident about investing in China, we have to feel confident about the economy's long-term prospects there, and if the One Child Policy continues, we're not going to have that confidence. Again, I'm still not sure how accurate that article is, but if it is accurate about the effects of the Policy, there are three big concerns that we as foreign investors in China have to worry about: 1. The elderly-to-worker dependency ratio. China and all other countries do have to stabilize their population, for the sake of the world environment, we understand that. But when stabilizing a large population, the best way to do it is similar to the best way that you stop a car in a snowstorm, if it's skidding on ice on the road-- you do it gradually so that you come to a smooth stop and then keep moving on the road. If you slam the brakes on too fast, then you skid like crazy and flip over, off the road. We're worried that with the One Child Policy, China has slammed the brakes on too fast, with China's population aging faster than any other in history. The One Child Policy focuses too much on sheer numbers and not enough on the population and age distribution-- you need to have a reasonable number of young workers, and not too great an excess of retired elderly. I realize that China can do things like raising the retirement age (to, e.g., 72 or so) and encourage people to work longer while they're healthy before receiving pensions, also helping elderly people to stay healthy and productive, but you still need a decent ratio of young workers to have a good economy. As the economy and education improve, people prefer small families and the population stabilizes gradually, anyway. If the One Child Policy has indeed sent the Chinese birth rate plummeting to 1.6 or 1.7 suddenly and creating a vast excess of elderly, then this is obviously not a formula for a healthy economy-- if China is filled with hundreds of millions more retired elderly than young workers, then the country's savings would be depleted and business would grind to a halt. As businesses especially in the retail sector (dependent on consumer savings and spending), we're not going to invest our money into such a country. 2. The male:female ratio. This article and others, are implying that in much of China, the male:female ratio at birth has hit something like *130:100* due to the One-Child Policy. For rural families especially, if they're forced to have only one child, then they'll want a boy to help out on the farm-- whereas if they can have more children, they don't worry about this so much since they'll have roughly equal numbers of boys and girls. If true, this is unacceptable and it could be disastrous for China in about a generation, and we won't invest our money there. Societies in history with large excesses of men or women have almost always been politically and economically unstable-- you really need to have a roughly 50:50 ratio of each sex. Otherwise, China in 15 years for example, might be having a massive excess of young men to young women, with the result being that hundreds of millions of young Chinese men wind up not being able to find a woman to marry. Societies like this almost always have massive social problems when they have millions of embittered young men without partners-- higher crime, increased warlike tendencies, depression, generalized social dysfunction. I realize that people can partially make up for the imbalance by e.g. importing brides from places like Vietnam, the Philippines or Korea, but this is a very limited solution. A society with this sex imbalance is probably not stable, and it's not a good place to invest our money. 3. The differential birth rate problem. The consultant warned us that Xinjiang is a "demographic and political time bomb" since the Han Chinese are subject to the One Child Policy while the Muslim Uyghurs are not. So the Han have only one child per couple, while the Muslims have 5 or 6. I once read an article on this and history has shown how dangerous it is. Serbia lost Kosovo because the Serbs were having only one child while the Albanian Muslims were having 7-8 kids per couple. Shiite Muslims have a much higher birth rate than other groups in Lebanon which has made them close to a majority. The US Southwest is re-acquiring its Mexican and Latino culture and character since Latinos have a much higher birth rate than whites. (Southwestern states like California, Arizona and Texas were actually part of Mexico for many centuries, but the US invaded Mexico in the US-Mexican War and seized half of Mexico's territory in 1848, which is why those territories are now part of the US.) With the selective One-Child Policy, according to this consultant, China is producing its own Kosovo in Xinjiang. It would be a much better idea to have a uniform policy for everyone, also try and integrate more Uyghurs into the larger economy and make them less reliant on agriculture, help them find good jobs both within and outside of Xinjiang, and so on. The result? If these articles and the consultant's warnings are true, then the One Child Policy, if continued for several more years, is forcing China into a massive demographic, economic and political crisis in a few decades, and we're not going to invest our money there. We'll put our money into places like India instead. Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with the numbers of English-speakers that India has. English proficiency is by far the single most overrated and useless factor in attracting foreign investment. As retailers especially, we couldn't care less whether workers in India or China become fluent in English or French or German or whatever-- obviously, we'd be hiring mostly among the local people, and we'd be selling our products to them in the local languages and dialects, whether Mandarin in China or Hindi, Bengali, Tamil or the other local languages in India. Training more English-speakers in China would do absolutely nothing to help increase confidence among us foreign investors. On the other hand, we do care a lot about demographics in China over the next 20-30 years, and India, for all its flaws, has much better demographics than China, if these articles are true. India's population growth is also slowing rapidly, but at a more gradual pace overall than China, and it's due to voluntary measures-- like better education and availability of contraceptives-- in India, rather than forced measures like the One Child Policy, which don't necessarily help to increase wealth but force population growth down too fast. Thus, India is starting to look like a better place for us to invest our money in the coming decades, unless China soon changes the One Child Policy. It's funny, because as I've been writing this, another old friend of mine has written to suggest that the articles on the One Child Policy *are* flawed. He's confirming my initial hunches-- that the Policy really doesn't apply much to rural regions, that the Policy is not really enforced much, that wealthy urban couples just pay the fine and have 2-3 kids if they want, that people just hide their kids or migrate if they have e.g. 5 or 6 in the countryside. He also says that China's true fertility rate is much higher than the official figures since the official numbers underestimate it-- rather than 1.6-1.7, it's more like a little above 2.1, at replacement levels. If he's right, then maybe things are OK. But I admit, I'm frankly confused right now. And the truth is, most of my business colleagues have been hearing the very scary things about the One Child Policy from the consultants and the articles, and if the One Child Policy goes on for a couple more years, they're going to lose confidence in China and invest their money elsewhere. Please don't ignore this post, please don't shuffle it around or disregard this issue as unimportant and talk about trivial things. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars (or Euros) in investment here from US and European companies. We'd like to invest a lot of it in China, but the One Child Policy is making us nervous. Honestly, a lot of us are confused and we hear a lot of contradictory information. How does the policy actually work? Can you chart out myths and truths about it? If the One Child Policy has forced fertility down too rapidly and caused China's population to age too fast-- which would be a very bad thing, as I explained above-- are the Chinese authorities in the process of changing and loosening the policy, to encourage voluntary small families (and better economic growth and infrastructure improvement) instead? I'd greatly appreciate clarification here. |
"The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone"