Taiwan's falling birth rate

France had been suffering a low birth rate, and took a number of measures to increase it.

As a result of this success, Taiwan recently invited a number of French population experts to share information with them on these programs and their success. Whether this will result in any policy changes remains to be seen.

My first thought was that perhaps the government measures had nothing to do with the rise in births. I mean, would you really decide to have another kid in order to get free subway passes? :laughing: :loco: Or was it that an increase in immigration was resulting in a rise in overall birthrate due to greater fecundity among immigrants? But this does not appear to be the case:

If so, I wonder whether the same will occur here – that is, is the current drop in fertility due to a postponement of childbirth which will later translate into a boom when those professional women do end up ready to have kids?

Birthrate drastically decreasing? The best ever news for decade.

Have a look at this web site vhemt.org/ (it might shock some of us, but really worth to read)

:slight_smile:

[quote=“emiletw”]Birthrate drastically decreasing? The best ever news for decade.

Have a look at this web site vhemt.org/ (it might shock some of us, but really worth to read)

:slight_smile:[/quote]

excellent site… thanks for the link…

now if only there was a Chinese version… :wink:

population decline = decreased wealth ?

yes, but i assume this is total GDP of a country, not GDP per capita. which means the population of a country each have less, but stay the same relative to each other, right ? so does this only hurt the people at the far right of the bell curve (i.e. bill gates & co with thousands of times the national average wealth). the people at the far left probably fell less effect as they are living a subsistence lifestyle less sensitive to global economic effects.

lets assume all countries have a similarly declining birth rate, so the net wealth of the planet (on paper) shrinks, but does this actually mean anything in real terms of labour, jobs, cost of living, etc ? perhaps less NASA programs, and other big budget, limited return projects? less wars - those able bodied are needed to be employed, not off invading other countries, and less money to invest on ever more complex and effective weapons programs?

of course, the few countries with growing birth rates will have a larger labour force to support those not working, so may experience growth in the global GDP/capita rating, and generally could experience better economies. but then you have the overpopulation effects to consider, and what effect that has on the economy.

comments from other 2nd grade apprentice economists?

I ran across this somewhere and think it must also play a factor.
So what happens to the balance between the men and women below? Are the women just no getting married or what?

A total of 17,339 foreign women married Taiwan men last year, while 2,768 foreign bridegrooms tied the knot with Taiwan women"
clta-gny.org/foreignbrides.htm

[quote=“Hongda”]I ran across this somewhere and think it must also play a factor.
So what happens to the balance between the men and women below? Are the women just no getting married or what?

A total of 17,339 foreign women married Taiwan men last year, while 2,768 foreign bridegrooms tied the knot with Taiwan women"
clta-gny.org/foreignbrides.htm[/quote]How many supposedly single Taiwanese women are in fact second wives? Sure, this recent wave of mail-order foreign brides sticks out because there are statistics, and a xenophobic society pays attention to these statistics. The habit of wealthy men to have more than one wife/household has gone on for a lot longer and for all we know could actually be more prevalent.

[quote=“redwagon”][quote=“Hongda”]I ran across this somewhere and think it must also play a factor.
So what happens to the balance between the men and women below? Are the women just no getting married or what?

A total of 17,339 foreign women married Taiwan men last year, while 2,768 foreign bridegrooms tied the knot with Taiwan women"
clta-gny.org/foreignbrides.htm[/quote]How many supposedly single Taiwanese women are in fact second wives? Sure, this recent wave of mail-order foreign brides sticks out because there are statistics, and a xenophobic society pays attention to these statistics. The habit of wealthy men to have more than one wife/household has gone on for a lot longer and for all we know could actually be more prevalent.[/quote]

:bravo: :smiley: Good mathematics redwagon! Damn! you think 10,000 women per year are into this?!
I can’t see where else they are disapearing to unless there’s some statistical snag because of them marrying late and suddenly they will pop up in a few years.
Maybe the old single mainlanders play a part in the numbers.
I guess we’d need a breakdown in ages to hae a better guess.

Reducing the GDP of the country with less people is not exactly amazing, but it does not always translate to a lower living standard with less people. Firstly net per capita GDP and then perhaps looking at it on a PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) basis. eg With less people it would not be suprising to have lower property values. This might hurt some, but not all. Lower property prices would be a significant help to those who spend a large portion of their income on rent or trying to purchase a house or apartment. I suspect that means a significant percentage of people in Taiwan. Also less crowding on Taiwan’s roads etc may not be a 100% bad thing.

[quote=“ac”]population decline = decreased wealth ?

yes, but i assume this is total GDP of a country, not GDP per capita. which means the population of a country each have less, but stay the same relative to each other, right ? so does this only hurt the people at the far right of the bell curve (i.e. bill gates & co with thousands of times the national average wealth). the people at the far left probably fell less effect as they are living a subsistence lifestyle less sensitive to global economic effects.

lets assume all countries have a similarly declining birth rate, so the net wealth of the planet (on paper) shrinks, but does this actually mean anything in real terms of labour, jobs, cost of living, etc ? perhaps less NASA programs, and other big budget, limited return projects? less wars - those able bodied are needed to be employed, not off invading other countries, and less money to invest on ever more complex and effective weapons programs?

of course, the few countries with growing birth rates will have a larger labour force to support those not working, so may experience growth in the global GDP/capita rating, and generally could experience better economies. but then you have the overpopulation effects to consider, and what effect that has on the economy.

comments from other 2nd grade apprentice economists?[/quote]

In her history of the 14th century, A Distant Mirror, Barbara Tuchman argues that the Black Plague - which wiped out around half of Europe’s population - actually stimulated Europe’s economy. As there was a labor shortage, the cost of labor became higher. This stimulated the economy because workers now had more money in their pockets because of higher wages, and used their surplus to spend. Similar arguments have been put forth to explain why the U.S., Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. rocketed off in the 19th century. Employers had to pay and treat their employees well because if they didn’t, the workers could just up and homestead it across the continent. This also explains why the South was retarded economically compared to the rest of the U.S., since they depended on a slave economy (as did much of Latin America).

So you may be correct. A large surplus of cheap labor, which is what we have under globalization, is great for employers but a shitty deal for employees. Underpopulation drives up wages, which may be bad in the short run for those doing the hiring, but is beneficial to society as a whole in the long run. Remember the Henry Ford principle of paying his employees enough so that they could afford the cars they produced on the assembly line - a win/win situation. Only businessmen who are shortsighted enough to try to squeeze maximum short-term profits at the expense of the big picture would think that slave-labor wages are good thing for the economy - which, ahem, might explain why so much of Asia is economically retarded compared to Europe and the Americas. After all, the richest and most successful country in Asia is one where the average executive only makes 6 times the salary of his lowest-paid employee. Japanese make good wages and that’s one reason their economy is so strong - never underestimate the power of internal consumer demand. Compare that to the Chinese laoban ethic of treating your employees like shit and getting away with paying them the least amount possible. It’s no wonder Taiwan still hasn’t quite made the transition to a fully-advanced first-world economy. To put it simply, people need money to buy stuff, so you have to pay people money so that they can buy stuff.

[quote=“Hongda”]
:bravo: :smiley: Good mathematics redwagon! Damn! you think 10,000 women per year are into this?![/quote]I really don’t have any figures, but it’s not a crazy get-outta-here number, is it?

[quote=“Hongda”]
I can’t see where else they are disapearing to unless there’s some statistical snag because of them marrying late and suddenly they will pop up in a few years.[/quote]Uh, they could be gay y’know. Or maybe they are all being strung along and living in sin with foreign English teachers who are avoiding marriage…[quote=“Hongda”]
Maybe the old single mainlanders play a part in the numbers.[/quote]I think the vast majority of them are dead now.
thank god

[quote=“Hongda”]
I guess we’d need a breakdown in ages to hae a better guess.[/quote]That would help, yes.

All concerned forumosans should start having children to offset this negative trend. It’s the least you could do.

We already have 2, way over the average, so we have done our duty.

Declining birth rate in Taiwan is both good and bad. I agree that by reducing the population, it will decrease our consumption of natural resources and put less strain on the environment. However, in the future, I also see that this will have more negative consequences, espcially on the economy and society. The growing number of elderlies will require more health care and from the welfare system. This no doubt will put more pressure on the government to raise taxes or borrow money to pay for that. Now with less children and people in the workforce, the economy suffers from a lack of available labour and this affects the “dependency ratio” as one young person will have to support more elderly than before and also lower national productivity.

On an other note, the increase spending on the government’s part will affect the price of treasury bonds. In the long-run, the Taiwanese government will have to increase interest rates to compete with bonds offered by other countries and overally not good for the economy and the national debt.

That’s my two cents on this issue. :slight_smile:

storm in a teacup IMHO…

in a couple of years another one of Taiwan’s dwindling list of Banana Republic “allies” will come to it’s senses and tell TW to hit the diplomatic highway, thus freeing up about NT$7Trillion a year in “dollar diplomacy” funds… Taiwan could easily take care of it’s own people regardless of population demographics if they just stopped throwing massive chunks of government wealth down various “obsolete weapon deals” and “donations to banana republics” black holes…

sad but true…
:s

[quote=“plasmatron”]Taiwan could easily take care of it’s own people regardless of population demographics if they just stopped throwing massive chunks of government wealth down various “obsolete weapon deals” and “donations to banana republics” black holes…

sad but true…
:s[/quote]

Ya, but then Presidential Office cronies couldn’t cavort with China Airline stewardesses and fall asleep on trips visiting the overseas missions, and DPP-friendly academics and starlets couldn’t appear in videos planting rice with African farmers and giving teddy bears to Latin American school children. If the aid programs are cut, the sons and daughters of the chattering classes in ROC allied countries might actually have to pay for their educations instead of getting freebies. Know how many well-connected bureaucrats in allied countries went to the JFK School of Government at Harvard or did their Masters in Interntional Relations at Oxford thanks to the ROC etc.?

:smiling_imp: Quite a few

[quote=“ac”]population decline = decreased wealth ?

yes, but i assume this is total GDP of a country, not GDP per capita. which means the population of a country each have less, but stay the same relative to each other, right ? so does this only hurt the people at the far right of the bell curve (i.e. bill gates & co with thousands of times the national average wealth). the people at the far left probably fell less effect as they are living a subsistence lifestyle less sensitive to global economic effects.

lets assume all countries have a similarly declining birth rate, so the net wealth of the planet (on paper) shrinks, but does this actually mean anything in real terms of labour, jobs, cost of living, etc ? perhaps less NASA programs, and other big budget, limited return projects? less wars - those able bodied are needed to be employed, not off invading other countries, and less money to invest on ever more complex and effective weapons programs?

of course, the few countries with growing birth rates will have a larger labour force to support those not working, so may experience growth in the global GDP/capita rating, and generally could experience better economies. but then you have the overpopulation effects to consider, and what effect that has on the economy.

comments from other 2nd grade apprentice economists?[/quote]

It doesn’t just shrink on paper, it shrinks in reality. From what I’ve been led to believe is that are less people making widgets, less widgets produced overall (which from the other point of view is that everyone has lower incomes) and that means ther overall decrease in the level of economic activity. Once you have lower overall levels of economic activity, then the economic surplus to do all the things we like to do like art, support the elderly, redistribute income, invest in new projects, wage war…etc (guns & butter get hurt). Because many things in the economy work on multipliers (like the banking system), taking 1 $ out of the system has a cascade effect. The way to avoid this is to improve your productivity or import labor so that a reduced working population can support a larger amount of non-productive population. However, you are right if it is a steady state- ie the ratio of productive to non-productive population does not change while the population is shrinking. Then, while GDP goesn down, the GDP per capita does not - however, I think you still run into issues of funding things that require a certain critical mass. Anway, a steady state population is hard to achieve without doing something like Soylent Green (sp?) to your old folk.

[quote=“mod lang”][quote=“ac”]population decline = decreased wealth ?

yes, but i assume this is total GDP of a country, not GDP per capita. which means the population of a country each have less, but stay the same relative to each other, right ? so does this only hurt the people at the far right of the bell curve (i.e. bill gates & co with thousands of times the national average wealth). the people at the far left probably fell less effect as they are living a subsistence lifestyle less sensitive to global economic effects.

lets assume all countries have a similarly declining birth rate, so the net wealth of the planet (on paper) shrinks, but does this actually mean anything in real terms of labour, jobs, cost of living, etc ? perhaps less NASA programs, and other big budget, limited return projects? less wars - those able bodied are needed to be employed, not off invading other countries, and less money to invest on ever more complex and effective weapons programs?

of course, the few countries with growing birth rates will have a larger labour force to support those not working, so may experience growth in the global GDP/capita rating, and generally could experience better economies. but then you have the overpopulation effects to consider, and what effect that has on the economy.

comments from other 2nd grade apprentice economists?[/quote]

In her history of the 14th century, A Distant Mirror, Barbara Tuchman argues that the Black Plague - which wiped out around half of Europe’s population - actually stimulated Europe’s economy. As there was a labor shortage, the cost of labor became higher. This stimulated the economy because workers now had more money in their pockets because of higher wages, and used their surplus to spend. Similar arguments have been put forth to explain why the U.S., Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. rocketed off in the 19th century. Employers had to pay and treat their employees well because if they didn’t, the workers could just up and homestead it across the continent. This also explains why the South was retarded economically compared to the rest of the U.S., since they depended on a slave economy (as did much of Latin America).

So you may be correct. A large surplus of cheap labor, which is what we have under globalization, is great for employers but a shitty deal for employees. Underpopulation drives up wages, which may be bad in the short run for those doing the hiring, but is beneficial to society as a whole in the long run. Remember the Henry Ford principle of paying his employees enough so that they could afford the cars they produced on the assembly line - a win/win situation. Only businessmen who are shortsighted enough to try to squeeze maximum short-term profits at the expense of the big picture would think that slave-labor wages are good thing for the economy - which, ahem, might explain why so much of Asia is economically retarded compared to Europe and the Americas. After all, the richest and most successful country in Asia is one where the average executive only makes 6 times the salary of his lowest-paid employee. Japanese make good wages and that’s one reason their economy is so strong - never underestimate the power of internal consumer demand. Compare that to the Chinese laoban ethic of treating your employees like shit and getting away with paying them the least amount possible. It’s no wonder Taiwan still hasn’t quite made the transition to a fully-advanced first-world economy. To put it simply, people need money to buy stuff, so you have to pay people money so that they can buy stuff.[/quote]

Yeah, but once the black plague was finished, the population was growing again and needing more stuff again (ergo a labor shortage). You can think about a shrinking population like a supply-side shock; it costs more to get the same or less output.This will force you to increase productivity (which is what you’re saying essentially) which will also speed economic development. The US in the 19th century may not be a great example. Ithad a fast growing population and required a tremendous amount of investment in its expanding territories (like deadwood:) ). This investment was supplied by wealthier nations in Europe like the UK (our biggest creditor) and generated a lot of economic activity and created a lot of wealth by increasing the productive assets in use. Kind of like China is today. Ford generated a tremendous amount of wealth - but its not just the labor that went into the cars, but all of the internal linkages: now that cars could be produced en masse; you now needed and could support new jobs like car salesmen, car mechanics, increased demand for goods that spun-off all sorts of new industries like car tires (Michelin), accessories (Dunhill)…etc…But going back to a shrinking ageing population - when you shrink the population not only do you create more expensive labor = your demand for goods relative to the production base you have decreased = equals lower productivity = lower aggregate incomes = less savings = less investment (these multipliers work backwards too). If your population is ageing at the same time and will require increasing resources, you have a real recipie for trouble.

Of course, take this with a grain of salt :smiley:

Thought it was about time to revisit this thread. The discussion here so far centered primarily on the good/bad economic ramifications of Taiwan’s falling birth rate. Thought I’d post some more recent info about the effects on education. Back in May, I posted this:

[quote=“smell the glove”]The baby bust is already having huge effects in education: predictably, each year the number of students is shrinking dramatically. There were 18,000 less college freshmen in 2004 from 2003, and this is widely attributed to the slowing birth rate of the 80s. In 2003, there were 300,000 less first grade students than in 2002. Noting the significant drop in the birthrate just between 2002 and 2003 (1.51), the Ministry of Education says that by the time the children born in 2003 enter elementary school in 2009, there will 2,900 fewer classes than there are now. That means serious downsizing, and possibly the closure, of a good many preschools, private schools, buxibans, and even colleges.

Anyone seeing the effects firsthand? I know of a few preschools that have closed their doors, and others with just a handful of students – but there still seem to be quite a few that pack them in. Some buxibans are down by half of what they were a decade ago. I also know a good number of elementary school teachers who worry about keeping their jobs… [/quote]

Well, as the new school year approaches, it looks like elementary schools across Taiwan are taking a hit in the lower grades. One public elementary school teacher I spoke with today told me that her school used to average 5 new first grade classes (30 students per class, 150 total) each year, but dropped to 4 last year, and barely made 4 this year. She said most of the schools in her district are down 60-100 students from just a few years ago. In fact, her school’s administration formally announced that they will not lay off any teachers before 2009 due to decreasing enrollment, but after that will probably have to. It’s no secret that the newest teachers will be the first to go This is corroborated by about a dozen teachers I’ve spoken to who don’t dare try to switch schools and are very concerned about their job security just three years from now.

In related news, waitlists at private elementary schools are evaporating. One noteworthy example is Zaixing Elementary School in Taipei’s Mucha district: for the first year ever, they did away with the lottery system they used to use to pick students from their ridiculously long waitlist - instead, they went out and tried to recruit students. Private schools are not only having trouble getting new students, but are also finding it increasingly difficult to keep the old ones. An insider at KCBS (Kang Chiao Bilingual School) told me that this year many parents decided to switch to other schools (many going into the public school system) due to the high cost of KCBS tuition - and these are generally fairly wealthy parents. The situation shouldn’t be all that surprising - after all, there is still a general perception of economic stagnation, salaries haven’t kept pace with the cost of living, and no matter what the comparisons to other countries, it’s now more expensive to raise a child in Taiwan than it ever was before.

Then there’s the “foreign bride” phenomenon.

Statistically speaking, marriage and birth rates tend to decrease then level off as women attain higher levels of education - in Taiwan, gender differences in education disappeared back in 1991, but neither rate is levelling off. At present, 45% of Taiwanese between 20-39 are single. It’s hard to say for sure whether that includes lots of women who don’t want to marry and lots of men who do, but one thing’s for sure: Taiwanese men have been increasingly turning abroad for marriage partners (primarily to Mainland China and Vietnam). Though the trend started a few years earlier, since 2002, 1 in 4 marriages in Taiwan have been to foreign brides, accounting for about 13% of children annually born in Taiwan. If you want more detail, I highly recommend Laurence Eyton’s excellent article on the subject from 2003.

So where are we now? It’s estimated that of 30 kids in first grade public school classes in Taiwan, 5 have a “foreign bride” mother (17%). Where the fathers are the traditional patriarchal type, the onus of caring for children and helping them with homework often falls on the mothers, many of whom don’t speak Mandarin (including many Chinese brides, who speak their local dialect at home with their children). Public school teachers are now in a panic about the demographic shift, with some wildly speculating that the numbers will increase to 50% in just a few years’ time. One positive development, however, is that more and more Taiwan public elementary schools are opening evening “foreign bride classes” (外籍新娘課).

On a personal note, I recently went to a friend’s house, and her uncle was there with his wife and kids. The wife was from Vietnam, and her Mandarin, though heavily accented, was excellent. She told me that in the beginning there was no “class” at the elementary school for foreign mothers, so she just learned Mandarin along with her children. She said she worked really hard at it, but that most of her Vietnamese friends only know survival Chinese – even after several years here and with kids in school. I asked about her kids’ education, and she said they had a lot of difficulty in the beginning (particularly the eldest), but that they now all know the language far better than she does. The children primarily speak Mandarin, but they can understand Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese. Some people at my friend’s house seemed to look down on her. But we had a great time talking about experiences in Taiwan and sharing tips for learning Chinese…