I can't agree with your assumption that "the key to solving the problem of low fertility rates is to make childrearing a job with income and to ensure that the income of nurturing families is stable and predictable". The decision to choose to have a child is a commitment by a couple to have time to care and love that child (not to be forced to go to work to support the child). Social engineering is not working. Grinding out a "996" schedule prevents this. The popularity of Tangping, or "lying flat" in China is a manifest form of social protest against overwork and unrealistic expectations.
I agree with your point on the influence of 996. I also doubt the policy will go that far, but I think providing some subsidies is better than doing nothing. There is another Chinese net influencer Ma Dugong calling “Social upbringing”, which means extending the the country's responsibility for day-caring and education(it's optional for parents).
The comments here appear to be very USA skewed, personal freedom, love and such sentiments - typical of western style capitalism, and of a provincial branch at that
And to not understand that it is a matter of collective concern to ensure that fertility rates not continue to decline - as with the Economist article there seems to be no understanding of the fatality of the situation
Immigration is smugs game, a temporary palliative , zero sum by definition - sure, buying people from poorer countries is currently cheap, but is s exploitative, for those have to do the hard work of having rearing and educating - so just wait until they catch on! or to the not very far off point when their fertility rates decline as well
The only wirking way to have more children in a somehow developed soceitiy at this time is having a religious population. This can be seen with Muslims, Jews and fundamentalist Christians. They value human life in itself.
The Western world is brainwashed with the fear of overpopulation and the promotion of a hedonistic lifestyle. Long time it has been thought as silly to have more children.
We have five children and we enjoyed raising them. We had also enough support from our German government to do so. But subsidies alone do not rise fertility. It needs a certain mindset to have more children.
To change a certain mindset of a soceitiy ist no easy Task.
Hi, thanks for this interesting post. James Liang seems to advance somewhat contradictory claims: one the one hand, he says "raising fertility rates is a public policy responsibility", on the other hand he says "people are ends, not means". If people are ends, not means, what business is it for fertility rates to be a matter of public policy? People's decision on how many children to have is a private matter, not a matter for public policy.
However, I do think there is a case for state support for families bringing up children.; but it is not to raise fertility rates. Rather, we want to give every child a broadly equal opportunity to "succeed in life". We don't want a situation where the wealthy can give the best possible care to their children, while the less wealthy struggle to do so. It's especially tough for Chinese families when both parents have to work, and often leave their children behind because of the lack of social support for bring up children.
It is likely that state support for bring up children will indeed raise fertility rates. But that is not the policy goal of state support; rather the policy goal is to give every child a broadly equal opportunity to succeed in life. Indeed, "people are ends, not means".
Just my view. I do get annoyed by the view expressed in many societies (not just in China) experiencing low fertility rates that this is a public issue problem per se. If a country feels it needs a larger population, the solution is to have a sensible migration policy allowing migrants to take up residence. Some countries like Australia, Canada, NZ have thrived from their migrants. For China, migration is unlikely to make a short-term difference, but it could make a long-term difference in at least stabilising the population (vs following S Korea and Japan).
Thanks for your reply! I think he's trying to express that to maintain a sustainable society and current social structure, the government should address the issue of low birth rates through subsidies or other means, which helps to increase individual welfare.
I can't agree with your assumption that "the key to solving the problem of low fertility rates is to make childrearing a job with income and to ensure that the income of nurturing families is stable and predictable". The decision to choose to have a child is a commitment by a couple to have time to care and love that child (not to be forced to go to work to support the child). Social engineering is not working. Grinding out a "996" schedule prevents this. The popularity of Tangping, or "lying flat" in China is a manifest form of social protest against overwork and unrealistic expectations.
I agree with your point on the influence of 996. I also doubt the policy will go that far, but I think providing some subsidies is better than doing nothing. There is another Chinese net influencer Ma Dugong calling “Social upbringing”, which means extending the the country's responsibility for day-caring and education(it's optional for parents).
The comments here appear to be very USA skewed, personal freedom, love and such sentiments - typical of western style capitalism, and of a provincial branch at that
And to not understand that it is a matter of collective concern to ensure that fertility rates not continue to decline - as with the Economist article there seems to be no understanding of the fatality of the situation
Immigration is smugs game, a temporary palliative , zero sum by definition - sure, buying people from poorer countries is currently cheap, but is s exploitative, for those have to do the hard work of having rearing and educating - so just wait until they catch on! or to the not very far off point when their fertility rates decline as well
The original article is on a much higher level
The only wirking way to have more children in a somehow developed soceitiy at this time is having a religious population. This can be seen with Muslims, Jews and fundamentalist Christians. They value human life in itself.
The Western world is brainwashed with the fear of overpopulation and the promotion of a hedonistic lifestyle. Long time it has been thought as silly to have more children.
We have five children and we enjoyed raising them. We had also enough support from our German government to do so. But subsidies alone do not rise fertility. It needs a certain mindset to have more children.
To change a certain mindset of a soceitiy ist no easy Task.
Hi, thanks for this interesting post. James Liang seems to advance somewhat contradictory claims: one the one hand, he says "raising fertility rates is a public policy responsibility", on the other hand he says "people are ends, not means". If people are ends, not means, what business is it for fertility rates to be a matter of public policy? People's decision on how many children to have is a private matter, not a matter for public policy.
However, I do think there is a case for state support for families bringing up children.; but it is not to raise fertility rates. Rather, we want to give every child a broadly equal opportunity to "succeed in life". We don't want a situation where the wealthy can give the best possible care to their children, while the less wealthy struggle to do so. It's especially tough for Chinese families when both parents have to work, and often leave their children behind because of the lack of social support for bring up children.
It is likely that state support for bring up children will indeed raise fertility rates. But that is not the policy goal of state support; rather the policy goal is to give every child a broadly equal opportunity to succeed in life. Indeed, "people are ends, not means".
Just my view. I do get annoyed by the view expressed in many societies (not just in China) experiencing low fertility rates that this is a public issue problem per se. If a country feels it needs a larger population, the solution is to have a sensible migration policy allowing migrants to take up residence. Some countries like Australia, Canada, NZ have thrived from their migrants. For China, migration is unlikely to make a short-term difference, but it could make a long-term difference in at least stabilising the population (vs following S Korea and Japan).
Thanks for your reply! I think he's trying to express that to maintain a sustainable society and current social structure, the government should address the issue of low birth rates through subsidies or other means, which helps to increase individual welfare.