CCP is in trouble - the communist miracle is over

[Harpy Eagle]

The average age in China is 45. They don't have enough children to replace their population, so yeah, I don't know where you got your numbers, but they are wrong.

I got my numbers from people that actually understand data and statistics.

Key facts about China’s declining population

China has had the world's largest population since at least 1950 but is now projected to experience an absolute decline as early as 2023.

www.pewresearch.org

Feel free to debunk their numbers with your feelings and biased opinions.

 

[Mac-7]

The communist party in china is in deeper trouble than libs on this forum know or are willing to admit

Population decline is real and we wont have to wait until 2050 to see the harmful affects of it for china

Harm that could eventually result in the downfall of the CCP if trends continue

Then its a different ballgame entirely

 

[westwall]

I got my numbers from people that actually understand data and statistics.

Key facts about China’s declining population

China has had the world's largest population since at least 1950 but is now projected to experience an absolute decline as early as 2023.

www.pewresearch.org

Feel free to debunk their numbers with your feelings and biased opinions.

So, they use UN projections, but not actual numbers from China.

Don't you find that weird?

 

[westwall]

The communist party in china is in deeper trouble than libs on this forum know or are willing to admit

Population decline is real and we wont have to wait until 2050 to see the harmful affects of it for china

Harm that could eventually result in the downfall of the CCP if trends continue

Then its a different ballgame entirely

Yup. Demographers have been watching closely, and by the end of 2050 the Chinese population will be around 650 million. Contrary to pew, the birth rate is extremely low. The Chinese aren't having enough babies to replace population, and by a significant margin.

The UN is pretty much owned by the Chinese communist party, so it makes sense they would put out fraudelent numbers, amazing that pew would actually use them though.

 

[Mac-7]

Yup. Demographers have been watching closely, and by the end of 2050 the Chinese population will be around 650 million. Contrary to pew, the birth rate is extremely low. The Chinese aren't having enough babies to replace population, and by a significant margin.

The UN is pretty much owned by the Chinese communist party, so it makes sense they would put out fraudelent numbers, amazing that pew would actually use them though.

I have not seen the number you suggest and am inclined to believe the change will be less by 2050

But either way both are just projections aka guesses And subject to change

In any case its bad news for the commies

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, they use UN projections, but not actual numbers from China.

Don't you find that weird?

The UN projections are based on the actual numbers from China.

But hey, I am open minded on this, give me the data you are using, and not just some random talking point, actual facts and figures.

 

[westwall]

I have not seen the number you suggest and am inclined to believe the change will be less by 2050

But either way both are just projections aka guesses And subject to change

In any case its bad news for the commies

Victoria University published a report this year that projects the Chinese population to drop to 525 million by 2100.

Even with the three child policy in place with its tax incentives, there aren't enough births. The death rate is increasing, while the birth rate is continuing to decrease.

The one child policy was in place for so long that the female population was significantly impacted. And, because the economy of China is in such poor shape, those women who are of child bearing age, simply aren't having any.

China's population has declined two straight years in a row. That hasn't happened since the famines.

 

[westwall]

The UN projections are based on the actual numbers from China.

But hey, I am open minded on this, give me the data you are using, and not just some random talking point, actual facts and figures.

Look up the study from Victoria University, it was published this year.

 

[Mac-7]

Victoria University published a report this year that projects the Chinese population to drop to 525 million by 2100.

Even with the three child policy in place with its tax incentives, there aren't enough births. The death rate is increasing, while the birth rate is continuing to decrease.

The one child policy was in place for so long that the female population was significantly impacted. And, because the economy of China is in such poor shape, those women who are of child bearing age, simply aren't having any.

China's population has declined two straight years in a row. That hasn't happened since the famines.

The year 2100 will be much different than 2050

I think 650 million is the most common guess for that year and seems reasonable

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Look up the study from Victoria University, it was published this year.

I gave a link to my numbers, if you cannot do the same, they do not exist.

 

[Dragonlady]

China halves its population in 15 to 20 years. So, they have two options, cease to exist as they are, or bring the rest of the world down to their level.

They have bought the democrat party outright, and most of the repub party. So how will they use that to their advantage?

Also, they are making inroads into controlling your favorite escape hatch, Panama. So, you will be going back home to china!

They must be having a sale on tin foil this week.

How does China halve its population???? Sounds like Jade Helm to me.

Where is the evidence that China has bought all American politicians???

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Look up the study from Victoria University, it was published this year.

From your study, I found it for you.

The same research team at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and the Centre for Policy Studies at Australia’s Victoria University have China’s population falling by more than one-half to around 525 million by 2100, a fall about 62 million bigger than previously forecast.

Not, 20 to 25 years, but in 2100, which I what I posted.

You are welcome.

 

[westwall]

The year 2100 will be much different than 2050

I think 650 million is the most common guess for that year and seems reasonable

The population drop will be fast, but then slow to a much lower level. But China has always been very cagey about releasing population numbers, that population of theirs has always been one of their primary weapons.

It doesn't behoove them to report accurately on its decline.

 

[westwall]

They must be having a sale on tin foil this week.

How does China halve its population???? Sounds like Jade Helm to me.

Where is the evidence that China has bought all American politicians???

Try reading on the subject.

 

[westwall]

From your study, I found it for you.

The same research team at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and the Centre for Policy Studies at Australia’s Victoria University have China’s population falling by more than one-half to around 525 million by 2100, a fall about 62 million bigger than previously forecast.

Not, 20 to 25 years, but in 2100, which I what I posted.

You are welcome.

Ummmm, what will the population be in 2050? It has to drop through that floor, before it can then drop to 525 million.

You're welcome.

 

[Mac-7]

The population drop will be fast, but then slow to a much lower level. But China has always been very cagey about releasing population numbers, that population of theirs has always been one of their primary weapons.

It doesn't behoove them to report accurately on its decline.

I agree that any estimate based on official communist chinese numbers is liable to be inaccurate

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ummmm, what will the population be in 2050? I

1.313 billion

 

[Blaster]

Communism is doomed to failure.

 

[westwall]

1.313 billion

Those numbers aren't credible. What's funny is you think the numbers you post are somehow "better". Losing as much population in only 50 years, as the Victoria study postulates in 75, is far more catastrophic.

But hey, you keep on being you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Those numbers aren't credible. What's funny is you think the numbers you post are somehow "better". Losing as much population in only 50 years, as the Victoria study postulates in 75, is far more catastrophic.

But hey, you keep on being you.

Well, yes they are credible as they are based on data and a methodology to derive them, while yours are based on your feelings.

Even the study you claimed supported your number does not do so, yet you persist because you are a moron that does not understand data and stats.