Taiwan population declines for the 1st time

[Tender Branson]

In 2020, Taiwan's population shrank for the first time on record, the Department of Household Registration reported. A low birthrate and an aging population are the main causes.

Taiwan’s population stood at 23,561,236 at the end of 2020, down by 0.18 per cent, or 41,885 people, from the previous year.

Births stood at 165,249 births, down by 7.04 per cent, 12,518 births lower than the previous year. Deaths also dropped to 173,156 deaths, but remained higher than births by 7,097.

According to a report by the National Development Council released in August 2020, Taiwan began to experience negative population growth in January last year after peaking at 23.6 million in 2019.

Taiwan will become a super-aged society by 2025, when one in five citizens will be over the age of 65, mainly due to the falling birth rate and rapidly aging population.

In East Asia, Taiwan is not alone in experiencing demographic problems. In 2020, South Korea also saw its population decline for the first time.

Its fertility rate is the lowest in the world at 0.84 in the third quarter of last year, a far cry from the 2.1 deemed necessary by the United Nations to maintain the population.

The birth rate hit an all-time low in China in 2019, a trend that was not reversed by the easing of its one-child policy.

According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese population of working age will begin to decline in 2027, which will have a major impact on seniors and pension plans.

In Japan, the negative trend started years ago. In 2018, the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research calculated that the country’s population would drop from 127 million to less than 100 million by 2049.

Link

[Tender Branson]

Taiwan predates China by about 15 years demographically.

Taiwan had a birth rate of 10-11 per 1000 around 2000-2004 and a natural growth rate of 3-4 per 1000.

The same as China had in 2019, when its birth rate was 10.5 vs. 7 for the death rate.

Using Taiwan’s development, we can expect mainland China to experience more deaths than births slightly after 2030 ...

[Samof94]

Taiwan predates China by about 15 years demographically.

Taiwan had a birth rate of 10-11 per 1000 around 2000-2004 and a natural growth rate of 3-4 per 1000.

The same as China had in 2019, when its birth rate was 10.5 vs. 7 for the death rate.

Using Taiwan’s development, we can expect mainland China to experience more deaths than births slightly after 2030 ...

Korea is undergoing this too right now. Japan is a society where the elderly outnumber the youth.

[dead0man]

we can expect mainland China to experience more deaths than births slightly after 2030 ...

sooner if Pooh keeps pressing

[CumbrianLefty]

Aren't some European countries in a pretty similar situation?

[DC Al Fine]

Aren't some European countries in a pretty similar situation?

Yes, although they generally have better immigration situations to help offset the natural decrease.

[Pick Up the Phone]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

[DC Al Fine]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

[Samof94]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

[DC Al Fine]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:



Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

[Samof94]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:



Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

[jaichind]

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

A combination of

a) Singapore baby bonus subsidies
b) Removal of all government old age pensions/social security so parents has to understand that having more children is the only way to ensure they will be taken care of in their old age from a risk mitigation (all eggs in one basket) point of view
c) my pet project - polygamy - as the economy becomes service intensive the economic payoff becomes more skewed so parents only have resources to make sure one child has a chance to be in the top 10%.  Very rich men will have such resources to do this with many children simultaneously if the law and social customs allows for it.

BTW there is no way ROC will adopt a more liberal immigration policy.  There is a de facto consensus    on ROC being a Chinese ethno-state just like PRC is a Chinese ethno-state and Japan being a Japanese ethno-state as well as ROK/DPRK being Korean ethno-states.  Politically the progressive liberal youth on ROC might be for a more Western style immigration policy but the conservative rural base of the DPP, especially in the South, will never go for this and join forces with the Pan-Blue forces to stop anything that looks like a more liberal immigration policy. 

[CumbrianLefty]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:



Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

[Samof94]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:



Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

That is blindingly obvious. The Duggar family model isn’t a way to fight population decline and it has both.

[Samof94]

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

A combination of

a) Singapore baby bonus subsidies
b) Removal of all government old age pensions/social security so parents has to understand that having more children is the only way to ensure they will be taken care of in their old age from a risk mitigation (all eggs in one basket) point of view
c) my pet project - polygamy - as the economy becomes service intensive the economic payoff becomes more skewed so parents only have resources to make sure one child has a chance to be in the top 10%.  Very rich men will have such resources to do this with many children simultaneously if the law and social customs allows for it.

BTW there is no way ROC will adopt a more liberal immigration policy.  There is a de facto consensus    on ROC being a Chinese ethno-state just like PRC is a Chinese ethno-state and Japan being a Japanese ethno-state as well as ROK/DPRK being Korean ethno-states.  Politically the progressive liberal youth on ROC might be for a more Western style immigration policy but the conservative rural base of the DPP, especially in the South, will never go for this and join forces with the Pan-Blue forces to stop anything that looks like a more liberal immigration policy. 

I think you are more likely to see a US President convert to Islam long before you’d see that immigration policy.

[jaichind]

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

Well the are many impossible trinities in the world.  The one that is apt here is

Gender Equity in terms of results
Hypergamy
Monogamy

You can only have at most 2 out of the 3. 

This is why I keep on pushing for polygamy as the solution.  The behavior of feminist in terms of their choice of mates seems to indicate they are not willing to lower standards  so if they want the first two then the last one has to be out.

[jaichind]

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

A combination of

a) Singapore baby bonus subsidies
b) Removal of all government old age pensions/social security so parents has to understand that having more children is the only way to ensure they will be taken care of in their old age from a risk mitigation (all eggs in one basket) point of view
c) my pet project - polygamy - as the economy becomes service intensive the economic payoff becomes more skewed so parents only have resources to make sure one child has a chance to be in the top 10%.  Very rich men will have such resources to do this with many children simultaneously if the law and social customs allows for it.

BTW there is no way ROC will adopt a more liberal immigration policy.  There is a de facto consensus    on ROC being a Chinese ethno-state just like PRC is a Chinese ethno-state and Japan being a Japanese ethno-state as well as ROK/DPRK being Korean ethno-states.  Politically the progressive liberal youth on ROC might be for a more Western style immigration policy but the conservative rural base of the DPP, especially in the South, will never go for this and join forces with the Pan-Blue forces to stop anything that looks like a more liberal immigration policy. 

I think you are more likely to see a US President convert to Islam long before you’d see that immigration policy.

The type of immigration policy on ROC is mostly a combination of guest workers from SE Asia much like Turks in FRG in the 1960s plus immigration via marriage.  The marriage route are mostly Mainland Chinese (which I do not consider immigration anyway since PRC and ROC are part of One China), Vietnamese, and some Koreans/Chinese.  Recently there has been some Ukrainian brides that have showed up.

All things equal the immigrant (usually wife) and children from these marriages have been having a hard time adopting.  It is easiest for those from Mainland China, harder for non-Chinese Orientals and the hardest for non-Orientals.  Because of this I doubt the marriage route will be that many in numbers in the medium run. 

[DC Al Fine]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:



Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

That is blindingly obvious. The Duggar family model isn’t a way to fight population decline and it has both.

I'm not advocating the Duggar model. I'm advocating for an additional 0.3-0.5 kids per woman.

Further, I fail to see how it's anti-feminist to help women have the children they'd already like to have.

[Samof94]

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

A combination of

a) Singapore baby bonus subsidies
b) Removal of all government old age pensions/social security so parents has to understand that having more children is the only way to ensure they will be taken care of in their old age from a risk mitigation (all eggs in one basket) point of view
c) my pet project - polygamy - as the economy becomes service intensive the economic payoff becomes more skewed so parents only have resources to make sure one child has a chance to be in the top 10%.  Very rich men will have such resources to do this with many children simultaneously if the law and social customs allows for it.

BTW there is no way ROC will adopt a more liberal immigration policy.  There is a de facto consensus    on ROC being a Chinese ethno-state just like PRC is a Chinese ethno-state and Japan being a Japanese ethno-state as well as ROK/DPRK being Korean ethno-states.  Politically the progressive liberal youth on ROC might be for a more Western style immigration policy but the conservative rural base of the DPP, especially in the South, will never go for this and join forces with the Pan-Blue forces to stop anything that looks like a more liberal immigration policy. 

I think you are more likely to see a US President convert to Islam long before you’d see that immigration policy.

The type of immigration policy on ROC is mostly a combination of guest workers from SE Asia much like Turks in FRG in the 1960s plus immigration via marriage.  The marriage route are mostly Mainland Chinese (which I do not consider immigration anyway since PRC and ROC are part of One China), Vietnamese, and some Koreans/Chinese.  Recently there has been some Ukrainian brides that have showed up.

All things equal the immigrant (usually wife) and children from these marriages have been having a hard time adopting.  It is easiest for those from Mainland China, harder for non-Chinese Orientals and the hardest for non-Orientals.  Because of this I doubt the marriage route will be that many in numbers in the medium run. 

Why Ukrainians?

[Samof94]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:



Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

That is blindingly obvious. The Duggar family model isn’t a way to fight population decline and it has both.

I'm not advocating the Duggar model. I'm advocating for an additional 0.3-0.5 kids per woman.

Further, I fail to see how it's anti-feminist to help women have the children they'd already like to have.

Of course it isn’t. These religious types tend to oppose ivf(which even straight people use).  Like having two kids if you really want to? Of course, supporting children is feminist.

[Zinneke]

Jaichind, how is the PRC an ethno-state? It has over 56 recognised ethnicities and the Chinese you hear spoken in the south is different to the north.

Taiwan too has various ethnic groups. Both states and the identities that underpin them are artificial creations, as artificial as Belgium.

[jaichind]

Jaichind, how is the PRC an ethno-state? It has over 56 recognised ethnicities and the Chinese you hear spoken in the south is different to the north.

Taiwan too has various ethnic groups. Both states and the identities that underpin them are artificial creations, as artificial as Belgium.

The PRC and ROC educational system is based on the primacy of the Chinese historical experience.  Sure are some token aspects of the education the does not take away from the primacy of Chinse history and cultural.  There are differences between the Japanese and Chinese ethno-state  approach.  In Japan assimilation is off the table so there are talks of 5th generation Koreans in Japan.  The Chinese approach allows for assimilation but the nature of educational and economic system means that assimilation is the only real way for advancement.   I agree for the PRC in ethnic minority majority areas this narrative is not as true.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

c) my pet project - polygamy - as the economy becomes service intensive the economic payoff becomes more skewed so parents only have resources to make sure one child has a chance to be in the top 10%.  Very rich men will have such resources to do this with many children simultaneously if the law and social customs allows for it. 

Sounds very New Confucianist.

[DC Al Fine]

Time for Taiwan to think about a new immigration policy.

Agreed, although that raises a long term policy question:

The UN predicts that the global birth rate will drop below replacement around 2060 (and probably sooner since that projection relies on Western fertility increasing. Fertility rates decreases as a society's wealth increases, so as the 3rd world develops, there will be a double whammy, with fewer babies born in immigration-prone societies, and fewer of those kids will want to emigrate since they will be living in more prosperous societies.

In the very long term, Western societies will need to increase their birth rates to avoid Japanification, even if they have solid immigration now.

That policy sell doesn’t work outside the super religious. Where do robots fall?

I dispute that.

This isn't about Mormons having six kids a piece. It's about encouraging some people to have one more child than they otherwise would have, children that they'd like to have in fact:

Img snip

Women's ideal fertility has been stable at about 2.2-2.3 kids (i.e. above replacement) since 1990, and their intended fertility was similar until the Great Recession. Meanwhile actual fertility has dipped below replacement. This means that there are many families out there that want to have more kids, but aren't having them.

I'm just suggesting that the state encourage people to have the babies that they already want.

Okay. How can this be promoted without homophobia(Putin used homophobic arguments to increase Russians fertility)??

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

That is blindingly obvious. The Duggar family model isn’t a way to fight population decline and it has both.

I'm not advocating the Duggar model. I'm advocating for an additional 0.3-0.5 kids per woman.

Further, I fail to see how it's anti-feminist to help women have the children they'd already like to have.

Of course it isn’t. These religious types tend to oppose ivf(which even straight people use).  Like having two kids if you really want to? Of course, supporting children is feminist.

I think IVF is immaterial to solving the problem of low fertility. Here in Canada, there's little opposition to IVF, many provinces subsidize it, and it's still only 1-2% of births. This suggests that there isn't some massive pent up demand for it.

But getting back to your original question, my very rough ideas for increasing fertility without going for a "Duggar model" are:

Direct support: Very generous child benefits and/or reductions of tax for parents of children, especially young children. This should also increase with each additional child. (e.g. Canada has very generous child benefits but the clawbacks get quite aggressive with each additional child. I'd reduce clawbacks for each additional child)

Indirect support: After direct cash aid, I'd look to make life cheaper for families. This would mostly have to do with housing and transit. Reduce barriers to building housing, and zone for moderate density. Make good public transit readily available etc.

Cultural support: There are a lot of ways society unintentionally discourages people from having babies. This can take all kinds of forms, from the "mommy track" in the corporate world at the high end, to my local rec centre's family pass only covering two children at the bottom end. I'd try to get the state to remove some of those barriers. I realize I'm being a bit vague here. The point is, I'd like the government to be aware that these barriers exist, and consciously try to identify and remove them.

[H. Ross Peron]

Well, either homophobic or anti-feminist.

Well the are many impossible trinities in the world.  The one that is apt here is

Gender Equity in terms of results
Hypergamy
Monogamy

You can only have at most 2 out of the 3. 

This is why I keep on pushing for polygamy as the solution.  The behavior of feminist in terms of their choice of mates seems to indicate they are not willing to lower standards  so if they want the first two then the last one has to be out.

1 and 3 are the only acceptable answers for a society aspiring to republican (in the small "r" sense) ideals. Promoting polygamy leaves you will a pool of angry, single poor young men which is a perfect recipe for violence and crime.