8 ms·
America’s technological hegemony is under threat from China
- harlanji 9y agoIt’s because silicon valley is stuck in ego battles and fear and risk aversion, eyes on world domination or bust, while China is a scrappy underdog not worried about pixel perfect proof of concepts. I like their style, like smaller US markets as I remember them. Yet to visit, but the Chinese I’ve worked with remotely and as students/colleagues are pragmatic and dedicated.
- shadowtree 9y agoKey quote: "The most important part of the answer is to remember the reasons for America’s success in the 1950s and 1960s. Government programmes, intended to surpass the Soviet Union in space and weapons systems, galvanised investment in education, research and engineering across a broad range of technologies. This ultimately gave rise to Silicon Valley, where it was infused by a spirit of free inquiry, vigorous competition and a healthy capitalist incentive to make money. It was supercharged by an immigration system that welcomed promising minds from every corner of the planet." Even as local youth education was bungled, the flow of highly skilled immigrants and top-notch universities for wealthy and/or foreign students, helped maintain the lead. Just look at the founders, key techies and CEOs - rare to find a WASP. One key issue for China is that despite laxer immigration policies it is not an inclusive culture, it is very hard for foreigners to snap into a Chinese company. Language being the first obvious block. Environmental problems, free speech add to the mix - but, again, the US is hellbent on destroying those USPs (EPA under threat, ...).
- brabel 9y agoChina has over 1 billion inhabitants and many millions living abroad which might just have enough incentive to move back now or soon. Immigration for them is not going to make as much difference as in the US.
- qiqing 9y agoChina does have immigration-friendly policy, but the policies were mostly active in the 90's, largely targeted at Chinese-speakers. These policies included major tax breaks for Chinese speakers with advanced degrees if they established permanent residence (green card) in China, including being able to use that tax refund to buy real estate. Many who took advantage of the policies had left to study abroad in the 70's and 80's, but got jobs in their new home countries. Others were a generation removed. It looks different from US immigration, but if anything, I believe the expectations of the "sea turtles" (pun for returning ex-pat) have spurred a lot of the systemic changes that have been improving China.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago> largely targeted at Chinese-speakers. These policies included major tax breaks for Chinese speakers with advanced degrees It's not about being a Chinese speaker. It's about ethno-nationalism or racism, depending upon one's perspective. Merely speaking Chinese fluently isn't nearly enough for a racially European or African person to gain Chinese citizenship. The total number of those who have ever done so is less than the number of people the UK nationalises each week. Even the green card is nearly unobtainable. Dashan could get one but the vast majority of expats who have spent a decade in China, marred a PRC national, and started a family cannot.
- qiqing 9y agoIf you know a lot of people's personal experiences getting denied in modern day, I'd love to learn more! I don't personally know a lot of people of European or African ancestry trying in the first place, at least in modern day. However, during WW II, there were many European Jewish refugees who became my family's neighbors in Shanghai, at a time when shipfuls of them were being turned away by the U.S. (Our neighbors were denied a visa to the U.S. at that time.) There was another previous wave during Russian pogroms. Most people I've heard of getting green cards are of Chinese or mixed East Asian / Southeast Asian ancestry, and have an advanced STEM degree. I heard the scoring systems weighs Ph.D.'s and M.S.'s differently, and that computer science and EE gets you more points. I haven't heard of people getting assigned different weights depending on how Chinese their ancestry is. On the other hand, you'd probably have a hard time telling the difference between a Korean and a Chinese northerner who lives near the Korean border, as well as the difference between a Vietnamese person, and a Chinese southerner who lives near that border. We're all basically distant cousins.
- lainga 9y agoWhat did the US bungle about youth education in the 50's and 60's? My memory is limited to New Math and standardized tests of more recent decades.
- shadowtree 9y agoRight - I meant bungled since then. Public education around tech is simply not good (on average), higher education very expensive. Hence foreigner have a leg up, as they get their BAs, MSc at home, far cheaper, then move to the US for the jobs. Student debt is a very US phenomenon.
- refurb 9y agoDoes anybody do any fact checking anymore? The claim is that the 1950's and 1960's success was due to a immigration system that "welcomed promising minds from every corner of the planet". Bullshit. Look at the percentage of Americans who were immigrants in the 1950-60's - 5-6%. What is it now? 12-14%?[1] So in fact, there are more immigrants in the US than back in the utopia of the '50-60's. Once again, a nice theory, but absolutely false. [1]https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-immigrants-8-years-will-account-82-us-growth https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-immigr...
- graeme 9y agoYou actually didn’t address the theory. The claim was about welcoming “promising minds”. Presumably that means top acientists, engineers, etc The current systme in America is renowned for being very difficult to get in to on a merit basis. Was this different in the 1950s? Perhaps. Also note thatbwhen considering america in the 1950’s, you’d need to look at immigration levels in prior decades. There’s a lag time for kids to grow up. I don’t know if the theory is right or not. And you,ve certainly provided some data to show it *mayg be wrong. But it’s far from conclusive.
- refurb 9y agoI would point you towards the "Immigration Act of 1990", which created a number of ways for highly skilled workers to immigrate to the US. Before that, a lot of the US immigration was based on family reunification.
- shadowtree 9y agoPercentages work in all kinds of directions: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm... Qualified immigration vs. illegal vs. unqualified would be a very separate discussion. The claim is worded correctly though, even from your viewpoint, no? "welcomed promising minds" vs. indiscriminate immigration and its current backlash that hits "promising minds".
- imglorp 9y agoI would suggest more accurately that America has gifted it to China, through: * Systematic attack on education and knowledge at all levels, from cutting funding, bludgeoning it with standardized testing, taxing grad students and cutting financial aid, and creating a culture where superstition and idiocy is rewarded instead of knowledge for its own sake. * Cost accounting has wiped out basic research * Offshoring and outsourcing have moved core competencies to others who have improved on them and made newer products. I think there are few or no LCD panels made domestically any more. How about hard drives? Chip fabs?
- spiffage 9y agoWe've also shot ourselves in the foot with land-use policy in SF/Silicon Valley. When engineers build products at a company that succeeds, the gains end up accruing to landlords. It's been de facto illegal to build more housing units for a long time. Engineers here largely either win the stock option lottery or leave (and be put to less economically efficient use) once they start a family. Under these rules, Silicon Valley won't be Silicon Valley for much longer. Indeed, the people who speak up at city hall meetings and are the biggest activists in elections talk all the time about how much they want the tech industry to fail. My big hope has been that when Silicon Valley cedes its mantle, it's at least to a country that's relatively friendly to western values.
- polskibus 9y agoYou forgot about WTO approval.
- coredog64 9y agoPlease take a look at this list and tell me how many non US fabs you see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si... GlobalFoundries is more global, but there's only one fab in China. A previous employer was a semiconductor company, and it was pretty clear that the high-tech fabs had to run in the US, and that only the older generations could be moved offshore.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
- mozumder 9y agoI'll worry when Chinese universities surpass America's in all fields - not just STEM, but in the arts and humanities as well. Until then, America will be the leader of technological progress. Given that, it may be entirely possible for conservatives to destroy America's institutions of higher learning, if they had their way. We need to be proactive in protecting our universities in the face of constant attacks by the backwards conservatives that seek to regress society. The conservative goal is to transform our economy into mindless workers that sell things they find on the ground, instead of creating an economy of engineers, designers, artists, and other free thinkers. American universities are the central identity of America. You destroy the universities, you destroy the country.
- sqdbps 9y agoJournalists cannot keep profiling the rise of the Chinese tech industry or its supposed move from "imitation to innovation” without focusing on how Chinese companies are entirely protected from foreign competition in their domestic market and that the Chinese government is forcing foreign companies wanting to do business there to share intellectual property with Chinese competitors. The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that organization is.
- coldtea 9y ago>without focusing on how Chinese companies are entirely protected from foreign competition in their domestic market and that the Chinese government is forcing foreign companies wanting to do business there to share intellectual property with Chinese competitors. The US had the same advantages early on when it was at its own growth stage to superpower, copying European inventions to bootstrap at first, and using tariffs, subsidies and such to protect the local economy, and using their diplomatic/military might later on to ensure favorable deals for their companies (even now, countries and leaders e.g. that think of trading their oil in other currencies are not staying around for long to do it). e.g: "[protectionist] policy was most prevalent in the 19th century. It attempted to restrain imports to protect Northern industries. It was opposed by Southern states that wanted free trade to expand cotton and other agricultural exports. Protectionist measures included tariffs and quotas on imported goods, along with subsidies and other means, to ensure fair competition between imported goods and local goods. In today's age the US is still highly protectionist, according to Global Trade Alert the US has adopted over 1000 protectionist measures since the Global Economic Crisis in 2008, more than any other country since" https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ https://www.bna.com/amazon-close-breaking-n57982085432/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-dollars-subsidize-amazon-are-the-jobs-worth-it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-14/your-tax-... >The fact that none of that triggered WTO action points to just how broken that orginization is. Or that the power relations have changed, and its old masters are somewhat toothless.
- sqdbps 9y agoWhat you're refrencing is a pactice by emerging or developing nations to protect what economists call "infant industries". None of that is applicable to China. They don't even brother with tariffs they prohibit all competition and coerce rivals to hand over the fruits of their research. It's diabolical.
- codebook 9y agoBut I don't think they are going to be next Silicon Valley soon. Their wages are skyrocketing now. Average salaries of engineers in Beijing is around $50k now. (Maybe Shanghai be similar?) This might hold them back in my opinion.
- crdoconnor 9y agoOver the course of three decades, by repetitively touting the benefits of offshoring, outsourcing and reducing all trade barriers - the policies favored by its 'executive' readership, the Economist has essentially been advocating for exactly this to happen while acting like it wouldn't.
- tdb7893 9y agoThe low trade barriers seems to have led to many US tech companies becoming dominant globally in their fields. It seems like if there were more trade barriers it would've been harder for those companies to expand in the first place.
- crdoconnor 9y agoIs the economic goal of a country to create a series of very profitable corporations?
- tdb7893 9y agoNo, obviously not but this article isn't talking about overarching economic goals. It's talking about losing technical dominance to China and my point was that the dominance seemed to have been helped by the trade practices, not hurt by them.
- crdoconnor 9y agoExcept a lot of those dominant companies either A) conspicuously absent from China (e.g. Google) or B) China can sever their supply chain (e.g. Apple)
- model_m_warrior 9y agoAgain?
- urlwolf 9y agoFWIW, I don't think the US has much to fear. I'm working under the assumption that the US will keep their dominant position in tech, culture, and economy for at least the next 5 years. I have followed CN's gov dropping 340 BN into ML, robotics. Not worried. For an orthogonal set of arguments that benefit the US, check 'the accidental superpower' (Geopolitics and demography make the EU and CN not likely to outdo the US all things considered; unless the US shoots itself in the foot with say a civil war)
- tribune 9y agoThe speed at which this has happened was essentially a gift from Western companies and governments either asleep or deliberately ignorant at the wheel. It seems incredibly short-sighted to have sold a hard-earned technological edge for a quick buck. Huawei, for instance, was essentially a Chinese government program to illegally reverse-engineer tech from American companies. And now they cry foul when their smartphones are kept out of Western markets! The nerve! Still, it seems naïve to think the West's technological edge could be maintained forever, especially given China's massive population and penchant for being the global leader in scholarship from time to time throughout history. It's an interesting time in The West and hard not to be pessimistic about it. One specific concern I have about tech in China is the impunity with which they may pursue Eugenic human gene editing in the near future. Given The West's, uh, problematic, history with Eugenics, it's unlikely these pursuits would happen at scale again here. I doubt China would be constrained by the same concerns. And what if it... works?
- mavendependency 9y agoReverse engineering has never been illegal.
- bsamuels 9y agoyeah reverse engineering another company's IP so you can steal it is definitely ethical behavior
- tribune 9y agoIt went beyond just "reverse engineering", I didn't really phrase that right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Controversies
- panic 9y agoThere's more to the "hegemony" than just pure tech. Tight government control may be good for keeping the party in power, but it's not great for building trust with people outside the Great Firewall.
- nerfhammer 9y agoAlso the West has decided that cities were basically a bad idea and they should stop dead in their tracks at about 1960. Instead our productivity should be spent on artificially expensive housing costs because we can never build anything ever again.
- zekevermillion 9y agoIt is a logical fallacy to think of America as in competition with China for "technological hegemony". We are all humans, and should work to share knowledge with each other. It is true that manufacturing has become cheaper to do in China. This may or may not be a passing phase, just as manufacturing used to be done in Japan in the 80's. To think that we as a continent need to be "better" than China in some competitive respect, or worse still, "hold back" China, is utterly stupid. This view creates a notion of a zero-sum game out of something that clearly benefits everyone, has positive externalities. Who among us has not ordered a component from alibaba? And many of us hold Chinese equities in ADRs, or vice-versa.
- siruncledrew 9y agoYea, I hate the "hegemony" part of this. It seems very childish and egotistical to take a stance of "We have to be #1 or else we won't be happy or let anyone else succeed". I understand there's sentiments of politics at play, but purposely trying to hold someone back or undermine them to maintain a position of being able to look down on others is damn petty.
- 11thEarlOfMar 9y agoFrom this viewpoint, how is China in the 2010s different from Japan in the 1970s? I'm not implying that Japan executed corporate espionage to the same degree, but there was quite a bit of hand wringing, particularly when DRAM production moved almost entirely out of the US and into Japan. It is still the case, in my view, that there is an edge granted to the actual inventors. They get first crack at monetizing their invention. Both Japan in the 70s and China today are presented as threats, not through innovation, but assimilation of others' innovation. I'd be interested in seeing some indication that the US position in innovation is being credibly threatened. One area that does seem at risk is genetic research involving human genome. China does not seem to have the same queasy reaction that the US does to genomic experimentation on humans.
- nopinsight 9y agoIn addition to some areas of genomics, China has likely surpassed the US in quantum communications and some AI applications (not yet overall AI research), esp those involving NLP. It's probable that more are forthcoming.
- lainga 9y agoMuch of the technology that kickstarted the Japanese economy's recovery was freely sold to them by American companies in the 1950s-60s, who were delighted to make back R&D costs by licensing their ideas to Japan's then-puny economy. It came back to bite them a decade later, but they had no idea that would happen. This is different from (as another poster has mentioned) keeping your domestic market walled-off unless companies agree to share their technology with you for free. They (American firms) are making this choice in full knowledge of how competitive China is with the US right now.
- OhDagny 9y agoIn almost all versions of civilization, the game, techs are about the most valuable advantage and spoils from war. We gave almost all of our tech to China for some plastic kewpie dolls.
- Gys 9y agoNothing wrong with a bit of competition, right ;-)