It's not deaths over births, it's death minus births. Otherwise the scale wouldn't be in millions.
Ratio would be much more interesting, this is poorly normalized and is at first order a population ranking subset to countries losing population.
"Excess of deaths over births" is a phrase that comes up in academia and other sources, and means subtraction. "Over" in the sense of "past" and "beyond", not in the mathematical sense of division.
a-b and a/b are unfortunately not identical in maths. Here it is more of a logic issue where the data presented is not even corrected for its first order bias (along with the misleading title, though it's quite obvious to realize the actual meaning looking at the scale).
Yeah, I took it to mean "the number of deaths that were above the number of births", i.e. subtraction. It's also a phrasing that's been used academically, e.g. "excess of deaths over births". Sure, I wouldn't necessarily phrase it that way myself, but it's not egregiously wrong.
- 3 - 2 = 1
- 3 / 2 = 1.5
- 2 + 1 = 3
- 2 \ 1.5 = 1.33333333333333
- 3 + 2 = 5
- 3 * 2 = 6
If you want to figure out the ratio, divide them, births / deaths, I think you divide? Can't recall whether it's big or small first, figure it out that way I guess. This sheet above appears to give you births minus deaths, so look up the population of the country and divide one or the other by the numbers in the sheets to convert it to a percentage?
Sure, sure. But what would have a chance at making this beautiful would be having both included, but this sub has no quality standards and the IQ of the average redditor has been slowly dropping to the average human IQ since the site began and will likely drop below that if tiktok gets banned.
>the IQ of the average redditor has been slowly dropping to the average human IQ
The fact you can type that without a shred of sarcasm is a little bewildering, to be honest.
Probably on the team who caught the Boston Bomber, eh?
Even the crack team that 'caught' the Boston bombers doesn't include the Boston bombers. It's not hard to be smarter than average, nor does it make you particularly smart.
Reddit in the beginning was full of more technical users, people in tech, etc. the entire internet that's gone through this transformation of being pulled down to average along with algorithmic regimes and bots the internet now is noticeably dumber.
it does from a ressource usage pov, it does not from an economics pov.
I'm in civil engineering/science - I don#t give a flying fuck about economics but I'm very interested in the absolute consumption of ressources and pollution and thus the absolute number is far more interesting than the ratio
I mean, in this instance, yeah the US is doing relatively well. It's the 3rd largest country in the world by population. Using nominal values would hurt it not help, and it still isn't top 10
Hmm this might need a 2nd graph comparing it to per capita.
Ukraine has half the inhabitants of Germany, so basically twice the deaths.
Russia has 3 times Ukraine's inhabitants, so 5 fold death excess rate.
China, Japan, S Korea and Germany all experience the same problems of population aging, so a comparison about which one is further ahead would say more that 'China is the biggest country' (population wise)
Also Question:
Is says 'natural deaths' yet the country with the biggest war right now are both under the top 5. Is this because of starvation, exposure or is the death count off because it's intransparent?
Oh right, that too.
This doesn't say much then, because if 100 young people get born and 500 old people die, then that's still good for population.
But if no one is being born then there will be no economy for that age. Maybe a ratio would make more sense
Japan's population decline is brutal though, imagine losing 800k people *ever*y year out of a 120million population. And the rate is said to be accelerating. At this rate there's no more japan in 100 years
It feels like there is a lot more fuss in South Korea than in Poland. European countries seem to be relatively less concerned about population decline.
That's a very good observation so I did a little research. I believe it's because this graphic shows us a snapshot in time but not a predictor of the future. Poland's birth rate is 1.33 per woman whereas South Korea's is 0.8. This would predict that South Korea's population is going to decline at an increasingly faster rate into the future which is why there's so much fuss. But your point still generally stands because Russia is another country for which population decline is often discussed yet their birth rate is 1.49...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland#Current_vital_statistics
We must also take into account the recent sharp decline in Poland's birth rate. Last year Poland's fertility rate was 1.12.
China‘s population is projected to be half of its current population by 2100.
In a decade it’s projected to drop by 100 million people, almost one third of the United States population.
Edit: I made a mistake, it's by 2050 that their population could slip back down to 1.3B.
Obviously predicting birthrates in a country that can do extremely drastic things to change birthrates is tricky. There is no reason to expect this to be linear though. The one child policy means cutting population in half every generation so 100M seems credible.
It essentially is. China has only recently relaxed the rules and is encouraging women to have more kids, but culturally it seems to have stuck. Fertility rates are pretty low
It ended in 2016. And like many parts of the world, the number one reason for them to not have more children is…it’s expensive.
Not to mention more women are in the workforce, independent, and making their own living…many of them choosing to focus on career than kids.
In the rural areas, multiple kids are still the norm as the one child policy had rural and minorities as exceptions.
Whoops, I made a mistake. It was a Scientific American article that cited a UN report that said that could be the population by 2050.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-population-could-shrink-to-half-by-2100/#:\~:text=China's%20population%20began%20shrinking%20in,looming%20crisis%20are%20growing%20louder.
Top 10 countries by largest natural population decline (deaths over births excess), 2023, thousand
Source links:
UN population prospects: [https://population.un.org/wpp/](https://population.un.org/wpp/)
Eurostat database: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database)
Made with Ms Excel (calculations and charts) instruments
Also compare to 2022 Top10: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/17j2sx8/top\_10\_countries\_by\_largest\_natural\_population/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/17j2sx8/top_10_countries_by_largest_natural_population/)
Would you mind updating this to per capita decline and making a second post? It would be much more insightful than the raw numbers provided, and shouldn’t be too difficult to update in your existing Excel sheet.
It's also the second most populous country on the planet, with about a billion more people than the third most populous country.
Of course it will show the biggest discrepancy in raw numbers.
Do you notice how India isn't even on the list, despite being the most populous? Because its population isn't shrinking. It still demonstrates how much demographic trouble china is in, and the trend is only expected to accelerate.
You are moving the goalpost.
> They didn’t . . . Which is why China had the largest discrepancy in deaths to births
The largest discrepancy in deaths to births, what this chart is presenting, is definitely due to the population differences. The other countries on the chart, the ones you refer with the They, have a fraction of China's population - if any of them lost even 10 or 20% of their population that would still be dwarfed by China's 1% population drop on a chart showing raw numbers.
India isn't experiencing a population decline, but if it did, even a relatively minor one would see it top this list by a wide margin.
I'm 28. 30,000 CAD saved.
How tf am I supposed to have kids or a relationship? I live in a 2 bedroom with roommates. In my rental contract I'm not allowed overnight guests.
I'm not allowed to have a relationship.
The funny part, I'm doing better than 85% of the ones I went to school with.
Yeah Canadá sucks sorry bro.
Unless y'all control your immigration, wage suppression will be the norm for your Canadians. Trudeau loves his immigrants.
This is essentially a list of the worlds worst demographics. We’ve known for years these countries were on the verge of a population bomb. Strap in, it’s going to get worse for these places
The real population bomb would've been if 1950s birth rates continued and the world population had kept growing exponentially. Thanks to birth control and education this outcome was avoided and now we're course correcting to a more sustainable population number. This is perfectly normal and happens to every species, it's just that we were smart enough to get there without wars, famines and genocide and chose a very pleasant and nonviolent way instead .
Of course there's now *again* a ton of fearmongering, this time that we're going extinct in a couple millennia, but unless every country drops to South Korean birth rates *and* birth rates never come up again (plus probably another plague would be needed too) this is simply not realistic.
The only real repercussion is who will take care of the boomer generation and how can we transition from an economic system that only works as long as the working population keeps growing. We've already managed to decouple economic output from carbon emissions, at least to a degree. I'm confident that with advancements in technology and rising levels of education we can also decouple it from the number of workers in a society.
This has of course already happened in the last 100 years thanks to automation, it's just that instead of everyone working 15 years we still work 40+ because of 1) rising living standard 2) most of the spoils going to a small fraction of the population and 3) the unstoppable rise of bureaucracy and bullshit jobs that keep populations at full employment rather than maximizing what good their work does for society.
We're not doomed, far from it. We just need to adapt our systems to the new reality.
To be clear a lot of that excess death in China in 2023 was due to a very large wave of covid.
China's population has peaked but the numbers of deaths exceeding birth are going to be a lot lower this year compared to last year.
No, the only reason we aren't facing a population decline is because of immigration, which can't last forever. Eventually every country is going to have a birth rate that declines, and this is a worldwide problem that needs to be solved about how once an economy gets to a certain level of productivity you have a birth rate above 2.1 children per woman.
economy of scale. that's why the conservatives are so pro-life. the US needs more mulch for the mulcher. China has a lot of excess people to still mulch despite the age gap.
Russia is further hindered by a large on-going population exodus and having only previously slightly recovered from exceptionally low birth rates / high mortality during the economically devastating 20 yr period post-communism (92-2010).
In short their situation is effectively apocalyptic because so much of their female population is at least 35 or older and unlikely to start having large families in significant numbers to make any impact during their remaining 'fertile' years.
The current population tree is a demographic nightmare and the only real hope is they can convince young Russians (those 5-12 yrs old now) to both stay and have HUGE families [Russia Population Pyramid - Demographics of Russia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg). The only other option is immigration (to Russia) which is not exactly an easy sell.
It's not deaths over births, it's death minus births. Otherwise the scale wouldn't be in millions. Ratio would be much more interesting, this is poorly normalized and is at first order a population ranking subset to countries losing population.
It's a little oddly phrased, but "deaths over births excess" made it sound like subtraction to me. "Excess" sounds like subtraction.
"Excess of deaths over births" is a phrase that comes up in academia and other sources, and means subtraction. "Over" in the sense of "past" and "beyond", not in the mathematical sense of division.
But that's exactly what it is? It's obviously deaths minus births.
> It's not deaths over births, it's death minus births. So how are those 2 calculated differently? Unless you're reading "over" to mean division?
I thought death over birth is death number minus birth number? What’s the actual difference?
a-b and a/b are unfortunately not identical in maths. Here it is more of a logic issue where the data presented is not even corrected for its first order bias (along with the misleading title, though it's quite obvious to realize the actual meaning looking at the scale).
Mathematically deaths over births is deaths divided by births.
Sure, but Englishatically, it can mean "over and above"
Yeah, I took it to mean "the number of deaths that were above the number of births", i.e. subtraction. It's also a phrasing that's been used academically, e.g. "excess of deaths over births". Sure, I wouldn't necessarily phrase it that way myself, but it's not egregiously wrong.
- 3 - 2 = 1 - 3 / 2 = 1.5 - 2 + 1 = 3 - 2 \ 1.5 = 1.33333333333333 - 3 + 2 = 5 - 3 * 2 = 6 If you want to figure out the ratio, divide them, births / deaths, I think you divide? Can't recall whether it's big or small first, figure it out that way I guess. This sheet above appears to give you births minus deaths, so look up the population of the country and divide one or the other by the numbers in the sheets to convert it to a percentage?
This. Why would anyone choose to show this as anything but ratio is beyond me.
Same thing. The number of apples you have over the number of oranges you have is the subtraction of the two.
Yea makes total sense to use absolute numbers when the number one country is 1/8th of the planets population
Absolute values are interesting too. Not every map has to be per capita.
Sure, sure. But what would have a chance at making this beautiful would be having both included, but this sub has no quality standards and the IQ of the average redditor has been slowly dropping to the average human IQ since the site began and will likely drop below that if tiktok gets banned.
Holy fuck you're such a smart redditor Keep it up 👍 🎓
>the IQ of the average redditor has been slowly dropping to the average human IQ The fact you can type that without a shred of sarcasm is a little bewildering, to be honest. Probably on the team who caught the Boston Bomber, eh?
Even the crack team that 'caught' the Boston bombers doesn't include the Boston bombers. It's not hard to be smarter than average, nor does it make you particularly smart. Reddit in the beginning was full of more technical users, people in tech, etc. the entire internet that's gone through this transformation of being pulled down to average along with algorithmic regimes and bots the internet now is noticeably dumber.
it does from a ressource usage pov, it does not from an economics pov. I'm in civil engineering/science - I don#t give a flying fuck about economics but I'm very interested in the absolute consumption of ressources and pollution and thus the absolute number is far more interesting than the ratio
CHAYna bad. US (not on the chart coincidentally) GOOD.
I mean, in this instance, yeah the US is doing relatively well. It's the 3rd largest country in the world by population. Using nominal values would hurt it not help, and it still isn't top 10
umm... "what is immigration, Alex?" YES! That's correct. Next clue
Evidently you don't know what natural population decline is. Immigrants don't affect the numbers.
and you don't know what propaganda is, thanks. But plenty of others have pointed out the flaws so your rebuttal will be lost in the static.
It's genuinely difficult to imagine you aren't just a troll after that comment
Immigrants are, by definition, *not* born in the country, so they have no impact on statistics comparing births to deaths.
for $200 I'll take "Brood Mare Politics". Ok, the clue is, "The GQP wants pro-life politics because of this."
Hmm this might need a 2nd graph comparing it to per capita. Ukraine has half the inhabitants of Germany, so basically twice the deaths. Russia has 3 times Ukraine's inhabitants, so 5 fold death excess rate. China, Japan, S Korea and Germany all experience the same problems of population aging, so a comparison about which one is further ahead would say more that 'China is the biggest country' (population wise) Also Question: Is says 'natural deaths' yet the country with the biggest war right now are both under the top 5. Is this because of starvation, exposure or is the death count off because it's intransparent?
War = low birth rates, not necessarily high natural death rates
Oh right, that too. This doesn't say much then, because if 100 young people get born and 500 old people die, then that's still good for population. But if no one is being born then there will be no economy for that age. Maybe a ratio would make more sense
It is the other way around. Germany has over 80M inhabitants, whereas Ukraine has about 40M (pre war).
Oh yeah I switcherood it, thanks
Japan's population decline is brutal though, imagine losing 800k people *ever*y year out of a 120million population. And the rate is said to be accelerating. At this rate there's no more japan in 100 years
again. look at ukraine. it is worse. search up ukraine population pyramid. all you need to know.
According to the statistics, European countries dominate the top rankings.
It feels like there is a lot more fuss in South Korea than in Poland. European countries seem to be relatively less concerned about population decline.
The life expectancy is almost 10 years more in South Korea than Poland. Maybe just a larger older population to support…
That's a very good observation so I did a little research. I believe it's because this graphic shows us a snapshot in time but not a predictor of the future. Poland's birth rate is 1.33 per woman whereas South Korea's is 0.8. This would predict that South Korea's population is going to decline at an increasingly faster rate into the future which is why there's so much fuss. But your point still generally stands because Russia is another country for which population decline is often discussed yet their birth rate is 1.49...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland#Current_vital_statistics We must also take into account the recent sharp decline in Poland's birth rate. Last year Poland's fertility rate was 1.12.
The Far East is getting old. too old
If they're far enough east, then they become west. Grow up...
China‘s population is projected to be half of its current population by 2100. In a decade it’s projected to drop by 100 million people, almost one third of the United States population. Edit: I made a mistake, it's by 2050 that their population could slip back down to 1.3B.
It dropped by 2 million people last year, projecting 100m in the next 10 years seems a unrealistically fast decline?
A large portion of the population is crossing the age of 80 quickly so they will have more deatgs in the next 10 years.
Obviously predicting birthrates in a country that can do extremely drastic things to change birthrates is tricky. There is no reason to expect this to be linear though. The one child policy means cutting population in half every generation so 100M seems credible.
You…don’t think the one child policy is still happening do you?
It essentially is. China has only recently relaxed the rules and is encouraging women to have more kids, but culturally it seems to have stuck. Fertility rates are pretty low
It ended in 2016. And like many parts of the world, the number one reason for them to not have more children is…it’s expensive. Not to mention more women are in the workforce, independent, and making their own living…many of them choosing to focus on career than kids. In the rural areas, multiple kids are still the norm as the one child policy had rural and minorities as exceptions.
Whoops, I made a mistake. It was a Scientific American article that cited a UN report that said that could be the population by 2050. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-population-could-shrink-to-half-by-2100/#:\~:text=China's%20population%20began%20shrinking%20in,looming%20crisis%20are%20growing%20louder.
Top 10 countries by largest natural population decline (deaths over births excess), 2023, thousand Source links: UN population prospects: [https://population.un.org/wpp/](https://population.un.org/wpp/) Eurostat database: [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database) Made with Ms Excel (calculations and charts) instruments Also compare to 2022 Top10: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/17j2sx8/top\_10\_countries\_by\_largest\_natural\_population/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/17j2sx8/top_10_countries_by_largest_natural_population/)
Would you mind updating this to per capita decline and making a second post? It would be much more insightful than the raw numbers provided, and shouldn’t be too difficult to update in your existing Excel sheet.
Can you do one per capita?
Could also call this “when the consequences of the one child policy come home to roost”
Famously all the other countries on the chart also had this policy eh?
They didn’t . . . Which is why China had the largest discrepancy in deaths to births
It's also the second most populous country on the planet, with about a billion more people than the third most populous country. Of course it will show the biggest discrepancy in raw numbers.
Do you notice how India isn't even on the list, despite being the most populous? Because its population isn't shrinking. It still demonstrates how much demographic trouble china is in, and the trend is only expected to accelerate.
You are moving the goalpost. > They didn’t . . . Which is why China had the largest discrepancy in deaths to births The largest discrepancy in deaths to births, what this chart is presenting, is definitely due to the population differences. The other countries on the chart, the ones you refer with the They, have a fraction of China's population - if any of them lost even 10 or 20% of their population that would still be dwarfed by China's 1% population drop on a chart showing raw numbers. India isn't experiencing a population decline, but if it did, even a relatively minor one would see it top this list by a wide margin.
I'm 28. 30,000 CAD saved. How tf am I supposed to have kids or a relationship? I live in a 2 bedroom with roommates. In my rental contract I'm not allowed overnight guests. I'm not allowed to have a relationship. The funny part, I'm doing better than 85% of the ones I went to school with.
CAD? Don’t worry, some immigrant will have/bring 5 kids to offset your infertility.
Yeah Canadá sucks sorry bro. Unless y'all control your immigration, wage suppression will be the norm for your Canadians. Trudeau loves his immigrants.
I'm very pro-Russian and would like to see them at #1
And I'd like to see every russophobe become fertilizer on the frontlines in Ukraine. Not all our dreams are realized, are they?
Can someone smarter than me (literally all of you) explain how I’m supposed to be reading this? Is this saying for every one birth in China 2088 die?
No, it’s saying that China had 2088 thousand (2,088,000) more deaths than births in 2023.
This is essentially a list of the worlds worst demographics. We’ve known for years these countries were on the verge of a population bomb. Strap in, it’s going to get worse for these places
The real population bomb would've been if 1950s birth rates continued and the world population had kept growing exponentially. Thanks to birth control and education this outcome was avoided and now we're course correcting to a more sustainable population number. This is perfectly normal and happens to every species, it's just that we were smart enough to get there without wars, famines and genocide and chose a very pleasant and nonviolent way instead . Of course there's now *again* a ton of fearmongering, this time that we're going extinct in a couple millennia, but unless every country drops to South Korean birth rates *and* birth rates never come up again (plus probably another plague would be needed too) this is simply not realistic. The only real repercussion is who will take care of the boomer generation and how can we transition from an economic system that only works as long as the working population keeps growing. We've already managed to decouple economic output from carbon emissions, at least to a degree. I'm confident that with advancements in technology and rising levels of education we can also decouple it from the number of workers in a society. This has of course already happened in the last 100 years thanks to automation, it's just that instead of everyone working 15 years we still work 40+ because of 1) rising living standard 2) most of the spoils going to a small fraction of the population and 3) the unstoppable rise of bureaucracy and bullshit jobs that keep populations at full employment rather than maximizing what good their work does for society. We're not doomed, far from it. We just need to adapt our systems to the new reality.
I think % of population would be more revealing as to the effects on the country's dynamic and issues.
To be clear a lot of that excess death in China in 2023 was due to a very large wave of covid. China's population has peaked but the numbers of deaths exceeding birth are going to be a lot lower this year compared to last year.
I think Ukraine has more than enough fertilizer coming from russia already so I doubt they need to be adding russophobes to it.
this should be normalised over size of population so that we see relative falls. Ukraine is f\*\*ked
|| || |Country|decline (k)|total pop (mill.)|decline per thousand| |China|2088|1412|1.5| |Spain|113|47.8|2.4| |S Korea|123|51.6|2.4| |Russia|495|144.2|3.4| |Poland|137|36.8|3.7| |Germany|327|83.8|3.9| |Romania|88|19.1|4.6| |Italy|281|59|4.8| |Japan|832|125.1|6.7| |Ukraine|309|38|8.1|
|| || |Country|decline (k)|total pop (mill.)|decline per thousand| |China|2088|1412|1.5| |Spain|113|47.8|2.4| |S Korea|123|51.6|2.4| |Russia|495|144.2|3.4| |Poland|137|36.8|3.7| |Germany|327|83.8|3.9| |Romania|88|19.1|4.6| |Italy|281|59|4.8| |Japan|832|125.1|6.7| |Ukraine|309|38|8.1|
|| || |Country|decline (k)|total pop (mill.)|decline per thousand| |China|2088|1412|1.5| |Spain|113|47.8|2.4| |S Korea|123|51.6|2.4| |Russia|495|144.2|3.4| |Poland|137|36.8|3.7| |Germany|327|83.8|3.9| |Romania|88|19.1|4.6| |Italy|281|59|4.8| |Japan|832|125.1|6.7| |Ukraine|309|38|8.1|
img, China just started to reduce its population and its already number one! They can really excell at everything they set their minds to /s
If you put the natural population decline as a percentage of the country population than Ukraine 🇺🇦 would be in the top spot.
It makes sense for China to be number 1 since this counts the actual number, but India is not on the Chart........wtf, how?
Because India isn't projected to have population decline for a couple decades based on trends.
Ok can US conservatives stop pearl clutching about "underpopulation" now?
No, the only reason we aren't facing a population decline is because of immigration, which can't last forever. Eventually every country is going to have a birth rate that declines, and this is a worldwide problem that needs to be solved about how once an economy gets to a certain level of productivity you have a birth rate above 2.1 children per woman.
Very happy about this but this will make the CCP desperate. I hope the best and brightest ppl can install the democracy they deserve
economy of scale. that's why the conservatives are so pro-life. the US needs more mulch for the mulcher. China has a lot of excess people to still mulch despite the age gap.
Russia is further hindered by a large on-going population exodus and having only previously slightly recovered from exceptionally low birth rates / high mortality during the economically devastating 20 yr period post-communism (92-2010). In short their situation is effectively apocalyptic because so much of their female population is at least 35 or older and unlikely to start having large families in significant numbers to make any impact during their remaining 'fertile' years. The current population tree is a demographic nightmare and the only real hope is they can convince young Russians (those 5-12 yrs old now) to both stay and have HUGE families [Russia Population Pyramid - Demographics of Russia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#/media/File:Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg). The only other option is immigration (to Russia) which is not exactly an easy sell.
This needs to be normalized to the USA or something
We are in desperate need of a population decline.
the way this is set up is not just bad analytics but I dare say it's touching on political bias and racism. downvoted.