peter Zeihan 2020

[Cherico]

I really like Peter Zeihan, but often his military knowledge is lacking in comparison to his other talents. I am starting to think his primary military advisor is someone with lots of time in DC and little time in places where mortar fire is more common then campaigning in locals where waiters serve flutes of bubbly.

This is my view of what Peter is missing in his model of the coming campaign season.

Peters view of Russia ignores issues like their new troop call up is short of trained veterans to be cadre for the spring offensive. The Russians expanded their cadre trying to fix their last spring offensive.

The last call-up of 300,000 men was lacking ~100k troops; the convict call out of 30000 dregs just freed 24 convict a to freedom after 6 months of fighting. Less than 1%, casualties for the convicts may have been 80%.

Nearly half of the Russian contract soldiers,( professional, not conscripts) have refused to extend their contracts. I should say the ones still alive seemed to have issue with not being paid and were left to live off the land for food while in Ukraine.

Russia is having to pull out old T-62s because their newer tanks had not been maintained in the depot and/or high-tech components were looted by the people that “maintained the tanks” for profit. Thermal sights seem to be an issue. Items that need western parts that are not being sold to Russia currently. Not sure the T-62s in storage ever had a main gun upgrade to 125 mm. That means ammo is most likely 40+ years old.


Russia had ~ a million military-aged males flee the country. That is over a year's intake for conscripts. Even if they can reach the goal of 500k troops for the spring offensive the Russians will have an army that is the equivalent of PFC’s and 2nd Lieutenants with very little combat training, little support, with questionable leadership. I doubt the new Russian troops will be technically proficient and I see no way for them to be tactically proficient.

Equipment that is 3 generations old, not maintained for decades, ammo, and expendable items twice the age of the untrained soldiers being led by political reliable appointees sounds like a swell time to be at the end of the broken manufacturing/logistic/transportation system.

All without the belief of defending the homeland to stiffen the Russian soldiers.

yeah its going to be a really sucky year for the Russians.

But there is still a chance for them to win this off of numbers and brutality alone, but the butchers bill would be a very large one. In all likely hood if Russia loses this they are done as a regional power for a generation at least.

 

[Cherico]

Eastern europes demographics kind of sucks and Russias demographics were terminal before the war.

 

[History Learner]

I really like Peter Zeihan, but often his military knowledge is lacking in comparison to his other talents. I am starting to think his primary military advisor is someone with lots of time in DC and little time in places where mortar fire is more common then campaigning in locals where waiters serve flutes of bubbly.

This is my view of what Peter is missing in his model of the coming campaign season.

Peters view of Russia ignores issues like their new troop call up is short of trained veterans to be cadre for the spring offensive. The Russians expanded their cadre trying to fix their last spring offensive.

The last call-up of 300,000 men was lacking ~100k troops; the convict call out of 30000 dregs just freed 24 convict a to freedom after 6 months of fighting. Less than 1%, casualties for the convicts may have been 80%.

Nearly half of the Russian contract soldiers,( professional, not conscripts) have refused to extend their contracts. I should say the ones still alive seemed to have issue with not being paid and were left to live off the land for food while in Ukraine.

Russia is having to pull out old T-62s because their newer tanks had not been maintained in the depot and/or high-tech components were looted by the people that “maintained the tanks” for profit. Thermal sights seem to be an issue. Items that need western parts that are not being sold to Russia currently. Not sure the T-62s in storage ever had a main gun upgrade to 125 mm. That means ammo is most likely 40+ years old.


Russia had ~ a million military-aged males flee the country. That is over a year's intake for conscripts. Even if they can reach the goal of 500k troops for the spring offensive the Russians will have an army that is the equivalent of PFC’s and 2nd Lieutenants with very little combat training, little support, with questionable leadership. I doubt the new Russian troops will be technically proficient and I see no way for them to be tactically proficient.

Equipment that is 3 generations old, not maintained for decades, ammo, and expendable items twice the age of the untrained soldiers being led by political reliable appointees sounds like a swell time to be at the end of the broken manufacturing/logistic/transportation system.

All without the belief of defending the homeland to stiffen the Russian soldiers.

It really should say a lot that this entire analysis was rejected out of hand by no less an authority than the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine back in December:

The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces said Thursday that there will be a new offensive against Ukraine’s capital by Russia.​

​

“According to our estimates, they (Russia) have a reserve of 1.2-1.5 million people ... the Russians are training about 200,000 new soldiers. I have no doubt that they will make another trip to Kyiv,” Valerii Zaluzhnyi told The Economist magazine.​

​

Zaluzhnyi rejected claims that there are problems in Russia concerning a lack of will to fight.​

​

"Russian mobilization worked. It is not true that their problems are so serious that these people will not fight. They will,” said Zaluzhnyi. “I studied the history of the two Chechen wars -- it was the same. They may not be as well equipped, but they are still a problem for us.”​

​

Zaluzhnyi said Ukraine does not have enough resources to carry out new major operations on the frontline but work to procure such resources was underway.​

​

"I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles), 500 Howitzers. Then, I think it is completely realistic to get to the lines of February 23rd," he said.​

Since then, he's been completely vindicated:

 

[History Learner]

China's population has recently peaked now china starts aging fast.

I'm still confused as to where this idea comes from because their average age is the same as ours and this is reflected in their long term aging outlook:

basically the russians are pulling another genocide

What specific data is the basis of this argument?

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm still confused as to where this idea comes from because their average age is the same as ours and this is reflected in their long term aging outlook:

Is it just me or is that tweet comparing 2020 Japan to a projection of what they think the US might look like in 2070?

Also, the projection shows that China is poised to have a much older population than the US shortly so it's actually supporting @Cherico's claim instead of yours.

 

[History Learner]

Is it just me or is that tweet comparing 2020 Japan to a projection of what they think the US might look like in 2070?

With the point being to show the U.S. will age less rapidly than Japan will long term, yes.

Also, the projection shows that China is poised to have a much older population than the US shortly so it's actually supporting @Cherico's claim instead of yours.

By 2070, yes, but not anytime soon given that's 50 years ahead. Given Zeihan argues they're going to collapse this decade, that's a rather big difference in of itself.

However, right now their old age dependency ratio is substantially less than ours, at 18.5% in 2020 as compared to 28.4% for the United States in 2020. Likewise, Zeihan makes the argument Japan will be fine and that China is the fastest aging society; this chart destroys the latter decisively given Japan will still be older later this century and Zeihan's point cannot logically be both. Either they're both going to collapse, or neither will. If they both collapse, given the U.S. will be at ~50% dependency ratio by 2070 too, what does that imply about our long term prospects?

 

[Bear Ribs]

With the point being to show the U.S. will age less rapidly than Japan will long term, yes.



By 2070, yes, but not anytime soon given that's 50 years ahead. Given Zeihan argues they're going to collapse this decade, that's a rather big difference in of itself.

However, right now their old age dependency ratio is substantially less than ours, at 18.5% in 2020 as compared to 28.4% for the United States in 2020. Likewise, Zeihan makes the argument Japan will be fine and that China is the fastest aging society; this chart destroys the latter decisively given Japan will still be older later this century and Zeihan's point cannot logically be both. Either they're both going to collapse, or neither will. If they both collapse, given the U.S. will be at ~50% dependency ratio by 2070 too, what does that imply about our long term prospects?

He's also using data that was just released, not stuff from 2020. Literally, in the first minute, he points out that previously believed false information's been proven wrong now and his new figures are compensating for it.

 

[History Learner]

He's also using data that was just released, not stuff from 2020. Literally, in the first minute, he points out that previously believed false information's been proven wrong now and his new figures are compensating for it.

Noticeably, he never defines what said information is or links it for review. That chart was also prepared in 2022, so not much older than any of this data Zeihan proclaims to know of it. Let's also not pretend Zeihan was actually changed in his opinions by new data, given he keeps making the same predictions over and over again:




Before 2010, he was claiming in 2005 China would collapse by 2015. In 2011, he claimed it would collapse in "three to five years". He's essentially no different than Gordon Chang, who has been claiming China was going to collapse "soon"...since 1997. Most of the user's of this forum weren't even alive then and are now well into their 20s or late teens.

Hell, for a more recent version, you remember the video he released in late 2021/early 2022 claiming the PRC would collapse in 2022? They're still here, fam.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Noticeably, he never defines what said information is or links it for review. That chart was also prepared in 2022, so not much older than any of this data Zeihan proclaims to know of it. Let's also not pretend Zeihan was actually changed in his opinions by new data, given he keeps making the same predictions over and over again:




Before 2010, he was claiming in 2005 China would collapse by 2015. In 2011, he claimed it would collapse in "three to five years". He's essentially no different than Gordon Chang, who has been claiming China was going to collapse "soon"...since 1997. Most of the user's of this forum weren't even alive then and are now well into their 20s or late teens.

Hell, for a more recent version, you remember the video he released in late 2021/early 2022 claiming the PRC would collapse in 2022? They're still here, fam.

That's a heck of a goalpost move from what we were discussing, namely the silly tweet you were using as evidence and it's contradicting your claims. Zeihan's reliability is another discussion, one I'm inclined to agree with as I think he's a touch overhyped.

However, your claim is still nonsense. Firstly you mistake age dependency ratio for demographics, it's not, age dependency is just how many seniors you have vs. everybody else. China has a lower one because they have a lower life expectancy than the US. However even with previous data, the facts showed a different picture.

United States vs. China - demographics comparison

China's "average" is the same as the US but they have way fewer teens, way fewer young people under 25, a lot more in the 25-65 group, and then way fewer seniors allowing it to "average" out the same but producing a much faster-aging population. Even your own tweet showed that China could be expected to age faster than the US and you just selectively ignored that part and only read what you wanted from it.

This is beyond the fact that you think old data should be allowed to override newer information just because it's "not that much older." That's not how data works.

As for not defining his data, I'm presuming you have a hearing disorder or something. He did define it, he said he's using data the CCP just released and it's kinda all over the news. Everybody and their dog has been discussing it.

China’s Population Falls, Heralding a Demographic Crisis (Published 2023)

Deaths outnumbered births last year for the first time in six decades. Experts see major implications for China, its economy and the world.

www.nytimes.com

China’s Population Falls For First Time In 60 Years—Here’s Why

Government efforts to boost falling births have failed to create a baby boom and the population decline marks the first drop since the huge famine triggered by Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

www.forbes.com

China's population falls for first time since 1961

The birth rate fell to 6.77 births per 1,000 people - the lowest it has ever been.

www.bbc.com

China’s population declines for the first time in decades

Record low births in the world’s most populous nation challenge its consumption-driven growth model and raise questions about whether it can overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy.

www.nbcnews.com

China’s population falls for the first time in 60 years - Washington Examiner

The population of China has decreased for the first time in decades, with the nation reaching a record low of 6.77 births per 1,000 residents. This is the first decline in the country's population since 1961, the year of China's Great Famine, Reuters reported. The population in 2022 sat at...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[History Learner]

That's a heck of a goalpost move from what we were discussing, namely the silly tweet you were using as evidence and it's contradicting your claims. Zeihan's reliability is another discussion, one I'm inclined to agree with as I think he's a touch overhyped.

Which is false, because in what world is 18.5% larger than 28.4%? It's not a goalpost either, given the entire crux of Zeihan's argument is China is aging into oblivion, in which case old age dependency ratio is both a metric to judge that claim as well as the means of how it's supposed to effect them according to him.

However, your claim is still nonsense. Firstly you mistake age dependency ratio for demographics, it's not, age dependency is just how many seniors you have vs. everybody else. China has a lower one because they have a lower life expectancy than the US. However even with previous data, the facts showed a different picture.

Which is an odd thing to claim given old age cohorts are entirely decided by demographics? Or do we assume the elderly just poof into existence now? And no, China surpassed the U.S. in life expectancy last year.

China's "average" is the same as the US but they have way fewer teens, way fewer young people under 25, a lot more in the 25-65 group, and then way fewer seniors allowing it to "average" out the same but producing a much faster-aging population. .

This is laughably false. Between 2001 and 2010 alone China had 161,280,000 births. Between 2011 and 2020, China had 169,230,000 births. In other words, China's under 25 demographic is larger than the entire population of the United States.

Even your own tweet showed that China could be expected to age faster than the US and you just selectively ignored that part and only read what you wanted from it.

Not at all, as I directly addressed that. 50 years from now China will be about 7% older than the United States; in what way is that imminent population collapse as Zeihan contends?

This is beyond the fact that you think old data should be allowed to override newer information just because it's "not that much older." That's not how data works.

Sure but, as I also noted, Zeihan presented no data for us to review at all directly.

As for not defining his data, I'm presuming you have a hearing disorder or something. He did define it, he said he's using data the CCP just released and it's kinda all over the news. Everybody and their dog has been discussing it.

China’s Population Falls, Heralding a Demographic Crisis (Published 2023)

Deaths outnumbered births last year for the first time in six decades. Experts see major implications for China, its economy and the world.

www.nytimes.com

China’s Population Falls For First Time In 60 Years—Here’s Why

Government efforts to boost falling births have failed to create a baby boom and the population decline marks the first drop since the huge famine triggered by Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

www.forbes.com

China's population falls for first time since 1961

The birth rate fell to 6.77 births per 1,000 people - the lowest it has ever been.

www.bbc.com

China’s population declines for the first time in decades

Record low births in the world’s most populous nation challenge its consumption-driven growth model and raise questions about whether it can overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest economy.

www.nbcnews.com

China’s population falls for the first time in 60 years - Washington Examiner

The population of China has decreased for the first time in decades, with the nation reaching a record low of 6.77 births per 1,000 residents. This is the first decline in the country's population since 1961, the year of China's Great Famine, Reuters reported. The population in 2022 sat at...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Notably, none of these sources are from the CCP and none of them are claiming imminent population collapse of China, as he portends. If you go and review population projections for China, at current rates, they expect them to be around 700 million or so in 2100. Notably, this is around 2.5x the projection for the U.S. in the same timeframe.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Which is false, because in what world is 18.5% larger than 28.4%? It's not a goalpost either, given the entire crux of Zeihan's argument is China is aging into oblivion, in which case old age dependency ratio is both a metric to judge that claim as well as the means of how it's supposed to effect them according to him.

Which is an odd thing to claim given old age cohorts are entirely decided by demographics? Or do we assume the elderly just poof into existence now? And no, China surpassed the U.S. in life expectancy last year.

Old age dependency is derived from demographics, in the same sense that orange juice is derived from orange trees. Using it as you are is equivalent to claiming that you can determine the number of orange trees in the world by counting bottles of juice. Everybody who isn't you is counting actual trees.

This is laughably false. Between 2001 and 2010 alone China had 161,280,000 births. Between 2011 and 2020, China had 169,230,000 births. In other words, China's under 25 demographic is larger than the entire population of the United States.

Guess we can add a lack of reading comprehension to your hearing disorder.

Not at all, as I directly addressed that. 50 years from now China will be about 7% older than the United States; in what way is that imminent population collapse as Zeihan contends?

You didn't address that, and you are wrong.

Sure but, as I also noted, Zeihan presented no data for us to review at all directly.

Why on earth would he need to? If I say I'm quoting Shakespeare there's no earthly reason I should also present the complete works of Shakespeare, any person with an actual functioning brain can go look it up.

Notably, none of these sources are from the CCP and none of them are claiming imminent population collapse of China, as he portends. If you go and review population projections for China, at current rates, they expect them to be around 700 million or so in 2100. Notably, this is around 2.5x the projection for the U.S. in the same timeframe.

But all those sources are discussing the information from the CCP, which is what's actually useful in this situation. You're going past asking me for food here and into the realm of wanting me to cut up your meat and partially digest it for you at this point.

 

[History Learner]

Old age dependency is derived from demographics, in the same sense that orange juice is derived from orange trees. Using it as you are is equivalent to claiming that you can determine the number of orange trees in the world by counting bottles of juice. Everybody who isn't you is counting actual trees.

I'm not sure which part of "given old age cohorts are entirely decided by demographics" is hard for you to understand? Maybe I should offer picture book explanations from now on? I'm also not sure who the "everybody" else is that you are refering to, given Zeihan's argument is literally about the aging of China, which is measured by average age and old age dependency.

Since you noticeably avoided answering in your post: by what metric is China supposed to collapse from demographics?

Guess we can add a lack of reading comprehension to your hearing disorder.

That's a funny way of saying you were wrong about China's under 25 demographic being smaller than that of the United States. Would you like to try again?

You didn't address that, and you are wrong.

But I did, hence why you're reduced to just saying I'm wrong now without being able to show how. Again, would you like picture books?

Why on earth would he need to? If I say I'm quoting Shakespeare there's no earthly reason I should also present the complete works of Shakespeare, any person with an actual functioning brain can go look it up.

Because when you make an empirical claim, the burden of evidence to prove that claim is upon you? Zeihan has no academic credentials, and refuses to debate anybody on his claims because it's ultimately made up.

But all those sources are discussing the information from the CCP, which is what's actually useful in this situation. You're going past asking me for food here and into the realm of wanting me to cut up your meat and partially digest it for you at this point.

I'm still waiting on an explanation on how any of this information portends imminent collapse of China, or how this is secret information straight from the CCP saying that. I get you're projecting because you're getting embarrassed because you're getting basic details wrong, but please do better from now on.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm not sure which part of "given old age cohorts are entirely decided by demographics" is hard for you to understand? Maybe I should offer picture book explanations from now on? I'm also not sure who the "everybody" else is that you are refering to, given Zeihan's argument is literally about the aging of China, which is measured by average age and old age dependency.

Since you noticeably avoided answering in your post: by what metric is China supposed to collapse from demographics?

I gave me like half a dozen different news articles discussion the recent events. What more can you possibly need?

That's a funny way of saying you were wrong about China's under 25 demographic being smaller than that of the United States. Would you like to try again?

No, because as expected, I'm the one who's right here (expected because I'm the one presenting links) and your facts are being sourced from your backside.

United States vs. China - demographics comparison

Apparently linking information doesn't work on you, you don't bother actually reading it and instead make up your facts. So, metaphorically cutting up your meat for you, I'll also copy the data here so you don't have to strain yourself clicking a presented link and reading it.

USA	China
0-14 years: 18.46% (male 31,374,555/female 30,034,371) 15-24 years: 12.91% (male 21,931,368/female 21,006,463) 25-54 years: 38.92% (male 64,893,670/female 64,564,565) 55-64 years: 12.86% (male 20,690,736/female 22,091,808) 65 years and over: 16.85% (male 25,014,147/female 31,037,419) (2020 est.)	0-14 years: 17.29% (male 129,296,339/female 111,782,427) 15-24 years: 11.48% (male 86,129,841/female 73,876,148) 25-54 years: 46.81% (male 333,789,731/female 318,711,557) 55-64 years: 12.08% (male 84,827,645/female 83,557,507) 65 years and over: 12.34% (male 81,586,490/female 90,458,292) (2020 est.)
total: 38.5 years male: 37.2 years female: 39.8 years (2020 est.)	total: 38.4 years male: 37.5 years female: 39.4 years (2020 est.)

But I did, hence why you're reduced to just saying I'm wrong now without being able to show how. Again, would you like picture books?

I can always use some more books so if you're giving them away, sure. As for showing how, I presume that people reading this thread can actually read, and are on this thread, and since the proof is all your previous posts I'm not sure what more proof than you being you I can give.

Because when you make an empirical claim, the burden of evidence to prove that claim is upon you? Zeihan has no academic credentials, and refuses to debate anybody on his claims because it's ultimately made up.

And again, he provided ample proof, he stated where the data came from and anybody can go read it. That's all that's needed for people who aren't you and have the ability to click links and go to other websites, instead of having to have all your meat chewed up for you and then spooned into your mouth the way you have been in this thread, such as me having to transfer over a table since you weren't reading my links.



I'm still waiting on an explanation on how any of this information portends imminent collapse of China, or how this is secret information straight from the CCP saying that. I get you're projecting because you're getting embarrassed because you're getting basic details wrong, but please do better from now on.
[/QUOTE]

 

[History Learner]

I gave me like half a dozen different news articles discussion the recent events. What more can you possibly need?

For one, you citing an article that backs up his claim China is about to collapse, which neither of them say. Next, you could answer the question I've asked three times now: by what mechanism is China supposed to collapse? Is it, just maybe, the claim about it's population aging? For someone defending Zeihan's position, it's remarkable how you don't seem to even understand what that position is.

No, because as expected, I'm the one who's right here (expected because I'm the one presenting links) and your facts are being sourced from your backside.

I'm sure you think you're right in the safety of your mind, but anybody who has more IQ than a rock should probably realize you just confirmed exactly what I said before.

USA, 0-14: 61,408,926
USA, 15-24: 42,937,831

Total: 104,346,757

China, 0-14: 241,078,766
China, 15-24: 160,005,989

Total: 401,084,755

Now that you've thoroughly embarrassed yourself, would you like to explain how 400 million is smaller than 100 million?

I can always use some more books so if you're giving them away, sure. As for showing how, I presume that people reading this thread can actually read, and are on this thread, and since the proof is all your previous posts I'm not sure what more proof than you being you I can give.

Given the only proof you've shown so far is that you can't do basic addition, perhaps you should start with showing proof of any of your claims?

And again, he provided ample proof, he stated where the data came from and anybody can go read it. That's all that's needed for people who aren't you and have the ability to click links and go to other websites, instead of having to have all your meat chewed up for you and then spooned into your mouth the way you have been in this thread, such as me having to transfer over a table since you weren't reading my links.

Except he provided no proof, as I said, hence why you had to link articles there weren't even by him nor even said what he claims. There were easier ways for you to embarrass yourself than this.

 

[Bear Ribs]

For one, you citing an article that backs up his claim China is about to collapse, which neither of them say. Next, you could answer the question I've asked three times now: by what mechanism is China supposed to collapse? Is it, just maybe, the claim about it's population aging? For someone defending Zeihan's position, it's remarkable how you don't seem to even understand what that position is.



I'm sure you think you're right in the safety of your mind, but anybody who has more IQ than a rock should probably realize you just confirmed exactly what I said before.

USA, 0-14: 61,408,926
USA, 15-24: 42,937,831

Total: 104,346,757

China, 0-14: 241,078,766
China, 15-24: 160,005,989

Total: 401,084,755

Now that you've thoroughly embarrassed yourself, would you like to explain how 400 million is smaller than 100 million?



Given the only proof you've shown so far is that you can't do basic addition, perhaps you should start with showing proof of any of your claims?



Except he provided no proof, as I said, hence why you had to link articles there weren't even by him nor even said what he claims. There were easier ways for you to embarrass yourself than this.

So in dealing with demographics, in relation to an aging population, where only percentages matter, and where I was answering your statements which used percentages, you arbitrarily decided I must have been using absolute numbers and those are more important than percentages.

Either you're playing silly semantic games because you think you can score points by deliberately pretending to misunderstand and playing the pedant, or you genuinely have no idea how demographics work at all and are speaking out your ass.

I'm leaning a bit towards the latter given you have proven not to understand the difference between 0ld age dependency and an aging population but who knows? Either way, do you have anything actually constructive to discuss or are you just going to harp on supposed gotchas based on not being able to parse basic English sentences and reading charts?

 

[JagerIV]

So in dealing with demographics, in relation to an aging population, where only percentages matter, and where I was answering your statements which used percentages, you arbitrarily decided I must have been using absolute numbers and those are more important than percentages.

Either you're playing silly semantic games because you think you can score points by deliberately pretending to misunderstand and playing the pedant, or you genuinely have no idea how demographics work at all and are speaking out your ass.

I'm leaning a bit towards the latter given you have proven not to understand the difference between 0ld age dependency and an aging population but who knows? Either way, do you have anything actually constructive to discuss or are you just going to harp on supposed gotchas based on not being able to parse basic English sentences and reading charts?

So, what have you actually proved? Everything he and you have posted seems to point to him being right: there is no plausible senario where old age pushes china into collapse in the next 10 years. Your numbers suggest China would be marginally older than the US for at least 20-40 years, not materially.

 

[LordsFire]

So, what have you actually proved? Everything he and you have posted seems to point to him being right: there is no plausible senario where old age pushes china into collapse in the next 10 years. Your numbers suggest China would be marginally older than the US for at least 20-40 years, not materially.

There are serious consequences to an inverted demographic structure, especially in heavily statist nations that have promised generous and relatively early retirements for their senior citizens.

It's one thing to have 300 million retired seniors.

It's another to have only 200 million people aged 40-60, and 100 million aged 20-40, paying taxes to support their government retirement fund.

 

[Bear Ribs]

So, what have you actually proved? Everything he and you have posted seems to point to him being right: there is no plausible senario where old age pushes china into collapse in the next 10 years. Your numbers suggest China would be marginally older than the US for at least 20-40 years, not materially.

Mostly that he was misusing his terms and being a goofball using a source that said the opposite of what he was claiming it said.

As far as actual collapse, I think 10 years is too optimistic but I also think we're seeing obvious signs of financial woes right now.

China entered a series financial decline around April last year. Banks began failing.

Small banks in China are running into trouble. Savers could lose everything | CNN Business

Peter had put his life savings of about $6 million into accounts at three small banks in China's central Henan province. He says he hasn't been able to access them since April.

www.cnn.com

Several of the largest banks began freezing payouts, essentially telling customers they were no longer allowed to withdraw their own savings. When people protested, every protestor was suddenly and simultaneously marked as "at risk" of spreading COVID and locked down using their draconian COVID policies. We're seeing riots and unrest forming. This is basically an economy eating its seed corn.

Protests Rage As Chinese Banks Won’t Let People Withdraw Their Funds

Crowds of Chinese bank customers demonstrated outside a bank on Sunday over bank accounts that were frozen for months in the Chinese city of Zhengzhou.

dailycaller.com

Real estate companies have also visibly melted down in the same period. This is especially significant because in China, the peasants aren't allowed to own stocks, invest in companies, and the like. They can put their money in two places, real estate or savings, and both are being taken away simultaneously.

Chinese Real Estate Collapse Throws Economy Into Crisis | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

The figures we do have for population look fairly grim for the next ten years. China pretty much always lies about its population and makes things look rosier than they are. This means that this population pyramid is probably highly optimistic.

Population Pyramids of the World from 1950 to 2100

China - 2023

www.populationpyramid.net

What you might notice is that there's a very wide swelling at the 50-54 and 55-59 group, and then almost no seniors. Over the next ten years, that huge swelling is going to... age 10 years and become seniors which is going to kill whatever's left of the economy, meanwhile the groups under that are all much smaller and won't supply enough workers. There's another bit of a swell at the 30-39 group that will become Seniors in 20-25 years, and then a straight drop for every generation under it. I suspect that is when things will truly go to hell, as that's the point of no return and they'll have a massive senior population and nothing but a steadily dwindling workforce to look forward to for at least 50 years straight. Note that their female half of the equation is notably much smaller than the male half, even in the 0-4 year old age group, which means children, and thus more population in the pipe, are going to face a severe bottleneck for at least several more decades, those 4 year olds aren't even going to be of childbearing age for another 15-20 years so every generation is going to look smaller than the last since women are aging out of the childbearing age group while fewer women are entering it.

Though given how things are falling apart now, it's possible that just the current 50+ demographic aging 10 years will in fact coup de grace things by itself, China may not have that 20-year period to work with. I just wouldn't bet on it, nations like China can be impressively resilient to crises because they're often willing to sacrifice or even outright kill their own citizens to gain a temporary advantage, something western nations generally won't do and will take the hit to their economy instead.

 

[JagerIV]

There are serious consequences to an inverted demographic structure, especially in heavily statist nations that have promised generous and relatively early retirements for their senior citizens.

It's one thing to have 300 million retired seniors.

It's another to have only 200 million people aged 40-60, and 100 million aged 20-40, paying taxes to support their government retirement fund.

Sure, but that's also not going to happen. Current demographics already show its not. Assuming zero of the current 40-60 die and all move into old age, that's a population of 430 million "retired", vs the current pop of 40-20 year olds of 410 million. So, absolute worst case is 1-1, under grossly unrealistic assumptions: most 80 year old's don't, well, live, so that already knocks the likely retirement population down to to roughly 300 million, they're already talking about raising retirement ages which will likely keep another 50-100 million in work, reducing the overall ratio to 2-1. workers to retirees. Its not super growth, but its not crippling collapse either.

 

[LordsFire]

Sure, but that's also not going to happen. Current demographics already show its not. Assuming zero of the current 40-60 die and all move into old age, that's a population of 430 million "retired", vs the current pop of 40-20 year olds of 410 million. So, absolute worst case is 1-1, under grossly unrealistic assumptions: most 80 year old's don't, well, live, so that already knocks the likely retirement population down to to roughly 300 million, they're already talking about raising retirement ages which will likely keep another 50-100 million in work, reducing the overall ratio to 2-1. workers to retirees. Its not super growth, but its not crippling collapse either.

I was using exaggerated numbers to make the point; 1:1 still is not enough people to fund retirement feasibly; heck, 3:1 isn't.

Imagine telling each worker that one third of their income is being taken to fund someone else's living, when another third to half is already being taken for other government programs.