China’s baby bust is happening faster than many expected, raising fears of a demographic collapse. And coping with the fallout may now be complicated by miscalculations made more than 40 years ago.
The rapid shift under way today wasn’t projected by the architects of China’s one-child policy—one of the biggest social experiments in history, instituted in 1980. At the time, governments around the world feared overpopulation would hold back economic growth. A Moscow-trained missile scientist led the push for China’s policy, based on tables of calculations that applied mathematical models used to calculate rocket trajectories to population growth.
Four decades later, China is aging much earlier in its development than other major economies did. The shift to fewer births and more elderly citizens threatens to hold back economic growth. In a generation that grew up without siblings, young women are increasingly reluctant to have children—and there are fewer of them every year. Beijing is at a loss to change the mindset brought about by the policy.
Births in China fell by more than 500,000 last year, according to recent government data, accelerating a population drop that started in 2022. Officials cited a quickly shrinking number of women of childbearing age—more than three million fewer than a year earlier—and acknowledged “changes in people’s thinking about births, postponement of marriage and childbirth.”
Some researchers argue the government underestimates the problem, and the population began to shrink even earlier.
The US spends that much on healthcare each year because the US has multiple inefficient healthcare systems with private healthcare being the worst offender by far. I recommend reading “The Healing of America” by T. R. Reid which breaks down the four major healthcare systems that are found around the world and compares them to America’s. We’d effectively save trillions by overhauling ours and eliminating the Out of Pocket model most of us rely on here and at minimum negotiating costs like the Bismarck model.
Of course funding should be expanded beyond the ultra-rich, but right now the majority of that wealth is sitting idle and benefiting nobody but themselves. The population decline in first-world countries is going to cause a lot of strain on the system, but not doing anything is going to make it muuuuch worse.
Yes, I’m aware, which is why I specifically highlighted that and mentioned how if you do the analysis with a European level of spending, the outcome isn’t fundamentally different.