China Three Child Policy and Other Pro-Child Policies

China is legally allowing three child families to slow the plunge in births. there are also other pro-child policies. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress canceled the leveling of fines for breaking the earlier child restrictions and called for additional parental leave and childcare resources. New measures in finance, taxation, schooling, housing and employment should be introduced to “to ease the burden on families”.

Mothers will be entitled to 98 days of maternity leave.

South China Morning Post (SCMP) economist, Yao Yang said that the policy will not prevent a long-term trend toward lower annual births in China, and the country will struggle to raise the retirement age by more than a couple of years by 2025.

One “realistic” option would be to raise the retirement age by an average of six months a year over the next five years, resulting in a 2.5 year increase by 2025, Yao said. By 2030, the retirement age for men and women could be five years higher than current levels.

China had announced the three child policy back in May.

49 thoughts on “China Three Child Policy and Other Pro-Child Policies”

  1. A 3 child policy is a great idea, and will fix the problem as long as China implements it by 1990. If they can do that, great.
    If they implement it today it's too little too late.

    Reply
  2. They will have that demographic crunch. Too much of China's population has already aged out of being able to have children. They simply can't. Too old.
    The One Child Policy was particularly evil. Parents favored sons, so they killed off female children. But they didn't actually "kill" them, did they? No. They would put them in nurseries and then just never feed or otherwise care for them.
    There are creepy videos from these nurseries. The girls never cried because even at that age they understood nobody was going to feed them. They just quietly died "on their own" without anyone technically killing them.

    Today we have millions more young men than young women. Direct result. These men can never find a wife, and they know it.

    If there were more women, China could institute polygamy and have more children. But a woman with two husbands wouldn't be able to become double pregnant. Polyandry won't help.

    China is in severe demographic collapse. This can't be stopped.

    Reply
  3. The problem China is facing now is one of demographic collapse. Their experienced work force is retiring and there are many of them for a smaller group of young workers to support. This is a real problem.
    Decades ago, this generation was fine with killing off its own babies under the One Child Policy, supposedly to make a better China. Soon it will be time to see if the surviving children return the favor, to make a better China.
    Under normal circumstances, the old people represent wisdom. When a significant portion of the country is old and in need of great support for life, they represent a drain on the system.

    Mao has already devalued human life. It won't take long before the remaining Chinese workers implement a Logan's Run type of system where they kill off all the "useless" old people.

    Reply
  4. While the Amish do live in the USA now, they originated in Switzerland and nearby areas a few centuries ago and migrated to what was at the time the English colonies in North America in the 1700s. I'm not clear on the reason for the migration, but I imagine it was partly fleeing religious intolerance and partly seeking economic opportunities.

    Reply
  5. You really don't see the bigger picture in the way I see it. I always see the same arguments "Taiwan, Philippines fishermen, some separatists in Tibet region". All this is tribalism in its core.
    This unfortunately still dominating wordview is connected with your country interests, even if there wouldn't be Taiwan, Philippines, Tibet issues, you would made up hundreds more, because destabilising/making your competitor weaker/looking bad is in your interest, simple as that. And to be clear, this is not only US(I don't have a problem with US), it's the same situation with every country on the world(India-Pakistan, Russia-Ukraine etc) because every country has some interests to protect and smaller or larger differences with other nations. If you watch Pakistani media you only see constant flow of negative stuff about India, making them literally the most evil country in the world although here in the West India is "good".
    Once again, nationalistic/tribalistic worldview/ 0 objectivity, few facts. Mostly manipulations, fake data, half truths, picking up only bad, not writing about positives, the same circus all over the world.
    Monkeys from various tribes fighting for resources, this is what it is.
    I transcended beyond that some time ago 🙂
    Now I am wating for the rest of humanity to join me, it's hard to enlighten people in scarcity era, because this territorial,tribalistic thinking is hardwired in our brains, but in abundance era majoiry will abandon it, I am quite sure of that

    Reply
  6. Tell Tibet that they're being left alone. Tell Taiwan they're being left alone. Tell the Philippines, seeing their territorial waters gobbled up hundreds of square miles at a time, that they're being left alone. Tell the Ughyrs, while there are still any left, that they're being left alone.

    Don't be an apologist for this aggressive totalitarian state. It's disgusting.

    Reply
  7. What you by "they leave the world alone"
    What are they doing that US is not doing?

    They are trading like every country and will in the future and being 1,4B of people instead of just 330M people they obviously will become a lot bigger trader than smaller nations.

    Compared to West(number of wars with other nations, sticking its nose in other nations affairs) they are exponentially more peaceful and non interfering civilization and I respect that. I have 0 worries about China,only some brainwashed by media Americans believe all that "China evil" nonsense.

    Noone is bad, there are simply various interests, just because someone is your competitor and may take some market share from you doesn't make him evil.
    We still have this scarcity mentality which is feature of young/ pre abundance/pre Singularity civilizations.

    As they develop, educate more and more engineers, scientists and are becoming richer, China will contribute enormously to the world's scientific and technological progress. Singularity will arrive faster with China additional contributions in the fields like for example AI, than it would have arrived without them. After Singularity, silly nationalism will become a joke.

    I wish you to be in good health and alive when SIngularity will take place and then meet new englightened post Singularity version of you, cured from nationalism etc. By then it will be obvious for everyone how silly, false, backward this way of thinking really is

    Reply
  8. Sufficiently good life extension might resolve the problem, both by slowing the decline on the death end of things, and extending the period of fertility. 

    A significant part of the problem is people not becoming economically secure and comfortable enough to want to raise children before they've left their most fertile years behind them. With a few extra decades of health and fertility, maybe people would start having kids after careers, rather than before.

    Reply
  9. The sort of sex ratio skew China is currently facing is often resolved by starting wars that kill off the excess males. So I'm not betting that they'll pull in and leave the world alone.

    I think it's actually more likely that they make aggressive moves to capture as much as they can before they lose the capacity to make them.

    Reply
  10. Life extension could make the numbers look better, though that wouldn't help on the "bright young minds" angle. But maybe minds can be sustained at "bright" longer, or even brightened – other potential biotech outcomes.

    Things get hard to predict once you can muck about with human nature – though anything affecting human biology that radically is likely to arrive slowly, not from lack of brain power, but from societal pressure to be very careful what we wish for. Barring a major existential war, at least.

    Reply
  11. Thought you were going to mention that the Romans lost their empire when their population fell by half over the 3rd and 4th centuries.

    Reply
  12. Rather hippie dippie super open minded view.

    What one wishes vs reality is something too many fail when looking at economics, politics, and social structures. China is a totalitarian dictatorship. Why would the dear leader want to live in peace and harmony as oposed to having greater geo political power. Remember, people who seek power are often narcissist, and this guy is the unelected head for life of one of the most powerful nations on Earth. If it does not benefit him and his "kingdom" – why do it?

    Best read "The Prince" and listen to less John Lennon.

    Reply
  13. It will just keep declining until something fundamental changes.

    But a world with 50%, 25% of the current population, is a world where something fundamental has changed.

    To say that simple continuation of the growth curves from 1950 to 2020 was enough to completely rewrite human reproductive choices, but a complete reversal back to 1950, or 1900 populations would not have a similar sized effect is special pleading.

    We may end up in a world where Mormons, Orthodox Jews and Sufi Muslims make up 50% of the world population.

    Reply
  14. The whole definition of a singularity is that it is such a major change that we can't predict how things will be on the other side.

    Reply
  15. How will it change after we will achieve material abundance. Let's say post Singularity 'economy'/productivity with no less than equivalent to today's $billion per month per person UBI for everybody and growing each passing month due to ongoing progress?

    Reply
  16. Rather close minded view.
    This "THEY WE" divisions various people including racists like to write about won't exist in near future, we will grow up from this "separatism" phase/nonsense.
    There is only "WE", one human race, human civilization, all divisions are artificial, manmade, countries are lines in the sand, silly stuff
    US citizens, including family members may and in fact differ more(being for example republican and democrat) than some random guys from US, EU, China who all may be liberals or communists for example, have the same hobby and wordview. Guy living next door from you having internet shop selling for example cosmetics is your competitor in the same way as some Chinese/EU guy having the same kind of business and at the same time, living on other side of the planet (assuming you have such eshop in this example). In global, digital age there are millions of such examples.
    More advanced humanity in the future will be laughing at those current mentality existing still in some many people's minds, tribalism, nationalism etc

    Reply
  17. "… learning to become less dependent on physical and mental labour is one we would probably be better off…"
    oouff. the dream of a post-work society. that would be a shame. I don't think the simplistic but not unlikely moral of the old Time Machine (1960), featuring the savage Morlocks and the work-allergic Eloi, is to be easily dismissed. I would argue that most violence, radicalism, emotional disorders, and general malaise is fundamentally rooted at either lack of constructive toil or inability to find meaningful and conceptually-challenging work (looseley and without religious intent: idle hands are the devil's work(shop)). I work frequently in co-ops, non-profits, retirement (but not nursing) homes, etc., where few work and much support, but not wealth, is prevalent. For all the time and lack of worry, these are the most miserable, petty, radical, and judgmental creatures I have had the misfortune of being exposed to-especially as group size increases. A radicalized mob, but without the cause.
    One of humanity's greatest dreams should be to 'find meaningful and challenging work' for all, free of drudgery and undesirable (by the doer) risk. Ethic, achievement, productivity, and challenge – the best use of scarce time and intelligence.

    Reply
  18. "We" do not have 'growth momentum'. The shrinking third world are still reproducing, the 2nd world are at about replacement, and the first world is well below replacement.

    That may average at a slight rate of growth at the moment, but it's hardly the same thing.

    Reply
  19. Given we don't seem to be slowing down on AI nor biotech development neither going Amish, I think it's more likely we will be following the route of artificial wombs and caretaker AI and robots in the future.

    But if we go that way, we better hurry. The ability to bring forth those things still depends on the availability of bright young minds to drive them forward, which would be an scarcer resource in the future.

    Expectations of exponential development still look to me as very after the fact. There's no assurance development will continue that way forever.

    Reply
  20. the world could do with some more human efficiency. Many have children when they are bored (too much time, too little money) with 'not regrets exactly' at the time, but certainly that feeling of poorly planned choices.
    It makes a difference. I feel that we have moved down 2006's Idiocracy path too far. With more choices and knowledge about pregnancy options, more productivity familes and better individuals (parent and kid) would result (kids after 35 is way safer now)…
    It would be harsh and irresponsible to cheer for new laws in those states on their 'heart beat' Bill, but…

    Reply
  21. (Funny, the moment I read your reply, I looked up and the muted TV was showing the scene of ‘War of the Worlds’ where alien tentacles were plucking humans out of the water. So I guess the Martians agree with you.)

    For most of civilization, great powers like the Roman Empire came up with interesting technologies and prototypes but never took them beyond the toy or novelty stage because there was no point in reducing labour. They just used slaves. Slaves were considered valuable but no one understood that by relying on them they were stunting their own civilization’s development. 

    As modern societies got rid of slavery and embraced industrial productivity they needed less labour as the years passed but the growing population of Earth means the number of humans who need *too* labour to survive reduces the value of their labour because of the over supply. The vast majority of humans are not Elon Musks or Thomas Edison, or highly trained experts in anything. They are just people struggling to survive by competing with a growing pool of labour.

    Reply
  22. If you mean by 'sheep' as a law-abiding, ambitious-but-not-too-ambitious loyal member of a system of transparent rules but not obstruction or oppression – then of course. Who would want to be the lower-class angsty wolf? The one who cries 'freedom'. Possibly. But what do they mean by freedom – a system without responsiblity, structure, consequence, or support?? — or a system that does not unreasonably suppress but that typically allows most paths of life choice and experience in a structured and rules-based environment.

    Reply
  23. Let us hope that China has a sufficient demographic crunch so that they will leave the rest of the world alone, preoccupied with their own problem. That way, we can have peace, a recognized Taiwan (it is a country!) and the neighbors of China will not have to live in fear.

    Reply
  24. I think that well before our number will start to fall, problem will be solved.
    At this moment, growth momentum is still strong and we should easily pass 8,5-9 Billion people. We are growing by 82 millions per year. At the end of next year/beginning of 2023, we will pass 8billion mark. Even with 0% growth from let's say 2040 it will take decades to fall below 6 billion or so. Well before those times, we will have extremely advanced rejuvenation/aging reversal technologies, we won't be aging, concept of aging will become alien quite fast. We will become race of non aging, maybe even immortal beings. It should happen soon after Singularity(which I believe will take place before 2030, even if it will be 2050 it is still relatively fast).
    Soon after Singularity we probably won't even be biological and will have way more sophisticated methods compared to today's cutting edge like CRISPR. My point is that after Singularity and even without it happening soon we will solve aging and our numbers won't be declining.

    Reply
  25. No, kids are expensive in China. 2-3 kids = 2-4 times the expense. You can live the comfortable consumer lifestyle if you have 0-1 kid.

    Reply
  26. "Now, you could deliberately intervene with robot nannies and artificial wombs, and make having children cheap and convenient enough people would resume having them."

    Once you have that The State will just grow people. Very Brave New World.

    "Or pay people to have children."

    Which we kind of do now.

    "Or maybe stop making children a common good by making old age pensions a function of how many productive children you have."

    Seems reasonable. Mining the next generation and making them provide for the parent generation rewards free riders who didn't do their part. Current social security structure is based in mid 20th century thinking where people had children.

    Just to contribute some ideas some of which are more serious than others:

    If you don't have kids but have a pet then tax the pet annually. No more cat ladies!
    Phase out Social security and go back to multi-generational living.
    Fire any university professor doing an impression of Agent Smith and calling humanity a virus.

    Reply
  27. I’m not in favour of dramatic reductions in global population but we did get along okay with less than a billion people for most of our history and all of our pre-history. Shaving off a couple billion (peacefully) while we learn to balance our need to reproduce with our modern lives isn’t a terrible thing and the challenge of learning to become less dependent on physical and mental labour is one we would probably be better off for having addressed.

    Reply
  28. Understanding that your country’s fertility rate is well below replacement rate; understanding that the population is either now shrinking (likely) or soon will be, yet still maintaining a limit of the number of children per family is a perfect example of central planning. With most people having one child, (two at most and none in many cases) the idea that a tiny number of people who want to have 4 or 8 is some kind of danger to society is the kind of madness that can only be produced collectively.

    Reply
  29. unsubstantiated alarmism.
    a world of 50% less first-world and 75% less third-world would be a productivity and economic panacea. Existing infrastructure supported on fewer necessitates better individuals and more efficient allocation of labor. High-maintenance old people and the nearly/newly retired would think twice before stopping their essential toil/ dependent living lifestyle. Artificial scarcity of engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. that didn't make the cut for non-merit reasons would be welcomed in a quality-heavy society. Witess today's higher productivity economy (and better post-pandemic GDP) based on a lower employment participation and overall worse employment rate as the filler-jobs are discarded. People place the number of under-employed, under-interested, under-utilized, over-skilled workers no where near their operating potential at way over a quarter of currently employed. Reduced parentage is the 'purge' this society needs to re-invent it into the meritocratic civilization it appears to be veering from, more and more.

    Reply
  30. nah. the real trophy is the 'having it all' lifestyles featuring nanny/in-law/communal raising 3+ kids (some rescue-adopted with the names of rare trees) with double-power white-collar working couple and private education (bizarrely recently condemned in China with some tutoring for some reason)

    Reply
  31. meh. gender politics nonsence. harems. dating your dad's best friend. artificial insemination. surrogatism. breeding pods. mormonist cults. who cares? family units of sentimentality are dead except as a tax benefit. Better to have room mates, co-occupancy/co-habitation to afford that 2-bedroom city flat.

    Reply
  32. The bigger issue is the artificial selection of males over females. Same happens in India- males are preferred so females would get aborted.
    Now you have a much larger, young male population vying for a smaller female population that is going after a lot of older men and foreigners.

    Reply
  33. Hmmm… I could swear I was talking about people "outside of communist China" and not the Chinese people.

    But are you tacitly admitting the Cultural Revolution didn't work?

    Confucianism is one of the old ideas Mao's Cultural Revolution was supposed to eliminate.

    Reply
  34. Well, I suppose, if you don't mind that in a couple hundred years Earth will be inhabited exclusively by robots, with maybe some humans living in wildlife preserves. The thing about exponential declines is that they don't stop just because it would be convenient for them to stop.

    If our population starts declining because we're not reproducing, (And that's the case in every developed country on Earth!) we're not going to suddenly start reproducing just because there are fewer of us a half century later. It will just keep declining until something fundamental changes.

    Highly intelligent robots won't change that, though they may make our extinction more comfortable.

    Now, you could deliberately intervene with robot nannies and artificial wombs, and make having children cheap and convenient enough people would resume having them. Or pay people to have children. Or maybe stop making children a common good by making old age pensions a function of how many productive children you have.

    But you have to do SOMETHING, or extinction looms.

    Reply
  35. Confucianism is a value system that promotes a certain piety to ancestors, community leaders, and governing bodies – almost cultish in nature. They see their leaders as Father figures to be respected and even mirrored, if not in total agreement. This grand-scale Stockholm Syndrome is hard to break if the Party keeps delivering on improved world-standing, increasing growth and opportunity, and the unwavering co-dependence of its adherents.

    Reply
  36. don't agree. better to have less humans, living longer lives, and with more resources and opportunities available to each.
    Birth out the hordes to support your ancient and under-productive ancestors, as required with an immense and bloated tax base? screw that prehistoric economic system. Replacement value will necessarily diminish with life expectancy increases -and- who cares about keeping 7 – 10B people on this planet anyway – how many actually provide a net additional value over their entire life span? Automate the lower skills and provide a greater share (proven-achievement dependent) for the rest.

    Reply
  37. A bit late, the demographic transition is a sticky transition; Once people readjust their lives to not having children, it's really tough to get them to change back.

    Essentially, modern societies have made children a collective good, and collective goods are always under produced.

    I think you'd have to actively pay people to raise children, and enough that somebody could have a decent career doing it, to reverse this trend.

    Reply
  38. Low birth rate isn't a problem for 2021(almost 2022) level tech/science civilization.
    Automation and AI(even narrow AI's) are already solving the problem and soon we will be able to automate more than 90% of jobs. With AGI cracked we will be basically mass producing high IQ AI's (equivalent to humans) in billions, trillions or more per year(as much as many NN chips/quantum chips we will be able to mass produce per year). Add to that tech like advanced humanoid bots.
    We will have all that before 2030, maybe even in the next few years(exponentials are surprising).
    Even if AGI won't be here by 2030, 10's of thousands of narrow AI's will be enough to do the job and we're already creating tens of new narrow AI's per day, each day automating new things
    The future is bright

    Reply
  39. America, Europe don't have these limitations and their population growth has slowed. I don't think a 2,3,4,5 child policy is going to provide any magic bullet to China.

    Reply

Leave a Comment