Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China allows couples to have three children

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 339 posts

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#21

Post by yakubin »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #10
hackingthenews wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also be that they see no scenario ahead where they want the average number of children per woman to be above 3. I don't think China wants back to exponential growth ever. They probably want to find their equilibrium. Consider if something unlikely happens that completely changes the dynamic of families, e.g. a cultural shift where women stay more at home and have more babies. If the average family started ha…

> I don't think China wants back to exponential growth ever. Any policy defined in terms of "X children per couple" or "X children per woman" is, by definition, exponential growth. When X is 3, it's very rapid exponential growth.

When X is 2, then 2 people replace 2 in theory, so there is no growth. In practice, some of those children will die early, so 2 is actually a minor reduction, not growth, forget about exponential.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#22

Post by himlion »

stefan_ wrote: post #17
throw0101a wrote: post #11

There is some question on whether the one-child policy was even needed. If you look at a graph of "children per mother" chart before and after the original policy went into effect, it's quite evident that rates were dropping for more than a decade beforehand: * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/october/china... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birth_rate_in_China.svg * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…

There is another graph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/F... Which shows a massive male surplus particularly in the young demographics, way larger than you would biologically expect. How can we claim this policy has no effect if clearly people are still killing female infants?

Killed, or just unreported? Probably both, but I guess more unreported.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#23

Post by thaumasiotes »

yakubin wrote: post #21
thaumasiotes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think China wants back to exponential growth ever. Any policy defined in terms of "X children per couple" or "X children per woman" is, by definition, exponential growth. When X is 3, it's very rapid exponential growth.

When X is 2, then 2 people replace 2 in theory, so there is no growth. In practice, some of those children will die early, so 2 is actually a minor reduction, not growth, forget about exponential.

When X is 2, you have one of the most important functions in the family of functions that display exponential growth. It is the one in which the exponent is 0.

> not growth, forget about exponential.

This is really weird phrasing, since you're on much stronger ground saying "not growth" [arguable] than you are "not exponential" [flat wrong]. I just pointed out that defining results in terms of "X children per woman" will always necessarily produce an exponential curve. That's the definition of an exponential curve. If you want to distinguish between "growth" and "decay", you can say so, but you're still stuck with labeling them "exponential growth" and "exponential decay".

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#24

Post by lucian1900 »

amelius wrote: post #12
axiosgunnar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA talks about this, saying they fear a child number explosion in poor rural areas.

Perhaps time for better social security then.

Which also happens, there are significant anti-poverty efforts in China that have been quite effective.

Attacking both sides of a problem is sometimes necessary for effectively dealing with it.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#25

Post by hackingthenews »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #10
hackingthenews wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also be that they see no scenario ahead where they want the average number of children per woman to be above 3. I don't think China wants back to exponential growth ever. They probably want to find their equilibrium. Consider if something unlikely happens that completely changes the dynamic of families, e.g. a cultural shift where women stay more at home and have more babies. If the average family started ha…

> I don't think China wants back to exponential growth ever. Any policy defined in terms of "X children per couple" or "X children per woman" is, by definition, exponential growth. When X is 3, it's very rapid exponential growth.

You are correct of course.

The 3 children per woman limit is still the smallest number that accommodates for the 2.1 average required for replacement level. To achieve equilibrium and avoid rapid growth the limit must be set to 3 and then hope that the average will be drawn down enough by the women who can't/won't have children for various reasons.

Not advocating for this policy, and I am not considering how well it works in practice and the morality. This is just a reductionist model.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#26

Post by TimPC »

stefan_ wrote: post #17
throw0101a wrote: post #11

There is some question on whether the one-child policy was even needed. If you look at a graph of "children per mother" chart before and after the original policy went into effect, it's quite evident that rates were dropping for more than a decade beforehand: * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/october/china... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birth_rate_in_China.svg * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…

There is another graph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China#/media/F... Which shows a massive male surplus particularly in the young demographics, way larger than you would biologically expect. How can we claim this policy has no effect if clearly people are still killing female infants?

Misread graph. Removed comment.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#27

Post by TimPC »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #4
ginko wrote: post #2

It feels strange to me why they're not just getting rid of the limit at this point. Especially since they already seem to have trouble getting couples to have two children.

TFA talks about this, saying they fear a child number explosion in poor rural areas.

I was under the impression the one child policy never applied in poor rural areas. If it was universally enforced I’d like to see an explanation for China’s population growth over a period where it would have experienced a decline.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#28

Post by yakubin »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #23
yakubin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When X is 2, then 2 people replace 2 in theory, so there is no growth. In practice, some of those children will die early, so 2 is actually a minor reduction, not growth, forget about exponential.

When X is 2, you have one of the most important functions in the family of functions that display exponential growth. It is the one in which the exponent is 0. > not growth, forget about exponential. This is really weird phrasing, since you're on much stronger ground saying "not growth" [arguable] than you are "not exponential" [flat wrong]. I just pointed out that defining results in terms of "X children per woman"…

> When X is 2, you have one of the most important functions in the family of functions that display exponential growth. It is the one in which the exponent is 0.

This is technically correct, but also purely academic. If I called the function f(X) = 5 in an analysis exam "exponential", then I would be laughed out of this exam, and for a good reason.

> This is really weird phrasing, since you're on much stronger ground saying "not growth" [arguable] than you are "not exponential" [flat wrong].

"not A" implies "not (A and B)". That's all I meant.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#29

Post by marcus_holmes »

hyko wrote: post #15

Won’t be long before three children are mandatory.

I think you were joking, but totalitarian regimes have done this before (Romania's orphan crisis was the result of similar policies, iirc).

The poverty/immigration dance - if you reduce poverty, women have less children. Eventually you reach the point where you need to allow immigration to provide enough workers to keep your aging population from starving. Immigration is an existential threat if your country is based on a single ethnic identity (e.g. Han). Immigrants are poorer and therefore have more babies, and at some point will become the ethnic majority, or at least a sizable minority, large enough to cause problems (and economically vital so you can't just round them up and deport them).

Getting middle-class people to have more babies is difficult.

Edit: of course, this isn't a problem if you don't base your country's identity on an ethnic identity.

Re: China allows couples to have three children

#30

Post by thaumasiotes »

yakubin wrote: post #28
thaumasiotes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When X is 2, you have one of the most important functions in the family of functions that display exponential growth. It is the one in which the exponent is 0. > not growth, forget about exponential. This is really weird phrasing, since you're on much stronger ground saying "not growth" [arguable] than you are "not exponential" [flat wrong]. I just pointed out that defining results in terms of "X children per woman"…

> When X is 2, you have one of the most important functions in the family of functions that display exponential growth. It is the one in which the exponent is 0. This is technically correct, but also purely academic. If I called the function f(X) = 5 in an analysis exam "exponential", then I would be laughed out of this exam, and for a good reason. > This is really weird phrasing, since you're on much stronger ground…

> If I called the function f(X) = 5 in an analysis exam "exponential", then I would be laughed out of this exam

That's not true at all; you'd have to look at the context. If you called it an exponential function as part of a discussion of exponential functions, you'd raise no eyebrows.

Even if you were doing it in a weird way, it's unlikely you'd get laughed out of the room; math exams are not known for penalizing you for being correct.

Post reply on HN