Economists believe that a huge population and abundant and cheap labor force are demographic dividends. Essentially, workers are used as tools. In the process of considering this issue, it is obviously from the standpoint of the boss who uses these tools, not from a fair standpoint. Some people say that workers are workers, how can they be tools? In the factory, those workers repeat a certain job for hours or even more than ten hours. They have to endure the harsh environment of the factory, such as noise, unpleasant smell, hot or cold environment. They are still in use because their work content cannot be replaced by inanimate tools for the time being. Once there are new tools in the future, more advanced machines can replace these workers and will be eliminated by machines immediately? So workers are tools in the eyes of the boss. It is just a living tool, but it is essentially a tool. So from the standpoint of tools, the demographic dividend is really not a dividend for them. ?
Rare things are expensive. The fewer similar tools, the worse the substitutability, and the more valuable the tools are. The more similar tools, the stronger the substitution, and the less valuable the tools. More people used to farm land than now, which is the demographic dividend of agriculture. But for farmers at that time, was their income higher than now? In the past, there were more workers than now, which was also the demographic dividend of the industry at that time, but was the income of workers higher than now? It's cheap because it's more. If the wages of workers are less, bosses can earn more, so the so-called demographic dividend is just the boss's dividend.
Now that the birth rate has dropped, some people worry that the so-called demographic dividend will disappear. Of course, a large population is a good thing, because population is the greatest resource. Now our economy is developing, the medical level is also developing, and the population mortality rate is further decreasing. According to the cognition and laws of our ancestors for thousands of years, we will think that there will be an explosive population growth. The reality is that the birth rate has not increased because of economic growth, and has not increased because everyone has lived a well-off life, but has declined. In the near future, we may also step into an aging society. The increase of the elderly population means the increase of social expenditure, and the declining birthrate means the decrease of labor force and labor output. High housing prices have discouraged many young people from getting married and having children. The last wave of people who have the idea of having more children and happiness can't regenerate after 70 and can't move after 80. The remaining 90 s and 00 s don't want to have children at all, and they don't have the desire to have children.
Then why is this happening?
First, because we used to think that the population should be appropriately reduced and the labor force should be compensated by the development of science and technology and productivity, we have been encouraging everyone to marry late and have children late for a period of time and have fewer and healthier children. But the reality is that technology is overrated. The development of science and technology cannot offset the side effects caused by the decline of labor force. Because only production is considered, not consumption. Although the development of science and technology will certainly improve productivity, it takes people to consume these products. If there is no one, who will the product be sold to? Can't form? Perfect and powerful internal circulation will be lifeless? .
Second, the role of encouraging fertility is overestimated. We used to think that once we let go of birth, the birth rate will definitely rise sharply, so we are not worried. But the reality is really not what we expected. We missed a wonderful time. If we let go of the second child and the third child, the situation may be different five years ago.
Third, I think it is also the most important point, that is, we used to be too tolerant of bosses who enjoyed the demographic dividend but didn't spit out their bones. It is precisely because they once devoured the demographic dividend and openly said, "You dare not, some people are willing", which will make more and more people choose to lie flat. Choose a person to live a lifetime, don't have so many children, and don't let them repeat their lives. I don't want to stand for those big bosses, but I still hope that everyone will have more children, because we want to stand for our nation, our country, and our national inheritance needs population as a carrier. Without anyone, our efforts and those of generations above us will become meaningless. The common prosperity that our country has been talking about for the past two years is actually sending a signal, that is, telling those bosses that the good days of dividends are over, and harmonious coexistence and common prosperity are the future direction. Don't fantasize about telling workers that if they don't do it, they will leave. Some people are willing to do it.
It may be that once the population falls, it is difficult to increase again. Judging from the current experience and lessons all over the world, the only useful possibility is to encourage foreigners to become naturalized. However, our traditional culture is in conflict. Our nation is indeed very hospitable, but hospitality does not mean that we hope the other side will join us. In a country with a dominant ethnic group, the resistance of immigration is very great, so it is definitely not a good idea for us to expect foreigners to immigrate. The possible effective measures we can think of are as follows. If there is anything wrong, please add it in time.
First of all, let go of the birth restriction in an all-round way, and stop hiding half of her face behind the guitar from us. On the one hand, it verbally encourages fertility, on the other hand, it restricts the birth of four children and five children. I don't think it's appropriate. Because since we realize that population is a kind of resource, the new population will not occupy everyone's public resources, why only encourage those who have one child, two children or no children to have children, and limit some people to have four children and five children? I think this is somewhat unreasonable, and we should first release the existing fertility desire. If a family wants four, five or even six children, they should be encouraged to have children.
Second, give young people more social resources, especially housing and living security, and give them more care. The current housing prices are really not low, and many people choose not to have children because of the pressure brought by housing. Young people should be given more social resources in terms of housing and living security, so that they can afford to have children and raise them, but at least they can have no worries before deciding to have children. Including children's future education and medical care, we should concentrate on giving them the greatest support.
Third, I think it is necessary to prescribe the right medicine and increase labor security. For bosses who used to enjoy the demographic dividend, they should be given certain restrictions, and they should not be allowed to arbitrarily increase their working hours and arbitrarily reduce their labor remuneration and welfare. As long as workers have high income and more personal time, they will create the basic necessary conditions for having children.
In fact, the common prosperity proposed by the party leadership also sets a tone for this matter, but it should be done step by step.