Seems fairly obvious; one child per family/couple will result in the population decreasing over time (it's not even enough for replacement). Added to the cited 119 to 100 ratio of male to female children, it's a pretty major issue.
Not to say that decreasing populations are a bad thing, of course.
All are, even the traditional family is a "Ponzi Scheme" in that new investors (babies) pass money up to old investors (the elderly). Unlike most Ponzi schemes, however, the old investors are seeking modest gains, and for a very limited time.
The problem is when the pyramid goes upside down (4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child). In that case, policy doesn't enter into the equation. You're effed no matter what.
Except this is China. In general, the elderly do not have money. There is also a strong cultural ingrained into youth that it is their responsibility to support their parents and grandparents when they start earning money.
That's mainly true because we (now-a-days) treat anyone under 24 as an invalid, needing constant subsidization. In reality, the only people who need welfare are: actual cripples, young children, and the elderly.
Cutting off the gravy train to young adults would have zero systematic effect.
I think you may have misinterpreted the point the parent was making -- some of us have families where the elderly leave wealth to the next generation when they pass on.
nah, not a problem, if you only have 4 grandparents, 2 parents, 1 child, you simply have to put more pressure on the 1 child to get into Harvard. Problem solved ;)
Not to say that decreasing populations are a bad thing, of course.