4 ms·

People over-obsess about how China is beating us in science and technology, and not enough about how China is becoming so entrepreneurial while US citizens are

People over-obsess about how China is beating us in science and technology, and not enough about how China is becoming so entrepreneurial while US citizens are becoming extremely risk averse.

Eridrus 8y ago
Are people becoming more risk averse, or do we have more people in precarious positions where they face more serious down sides if their gamble doesn't pay off?
- tryptophan 8y ago
  I'd think that china had many more people in precarious positions than we do in the US. Perhaps it is that people are much more comfortable in the US and do not need to be entrepreneurial to have a decent life?
  - d0100 8y ago
    Betting everything you've got when you have nothing doesn't compare.
- adventured 8y ago
  The US social safety net is drastically better today than it was in the recent past (eg 1980 or 1990). It's now comparable to the OECD median. I know this is an unpopular statement, because for decades it has been a common attack point to go after the US on this front. However the US is spending a lot more per capita on its welfare policies, inflation adjusted, than it was a few decades ago. Particularly since the mid to late 1990s there has been a very large jump and it has had equally large, tangible results. It's important to point out the positive results, so that progress isn't rolled back. Poverty and homelessness are both near all-time lows (homelessness is at all-time lows). Homelessness is an area where the US has made very big strides in the last two decades, and it's not talked about enough. The poverty rate is down to 12.3% and has been declining since the great recession ended, accelerating the last few years. There are only two short periods of time in modern US history where the poverty rate was much lower (the peak of the late 1990s boom, and for about three years in the 1970s). In the last ~25 years the US has also reduced by about 50% the number of people that aren't covered by healthcare (currently 8.8% of people), mostly thanks to the ACA and Medicaid expansion. We're spending over $600 billion per year on free healthcare for the bottom quarter of people. In 2005, 42 million people (14% of the population) were covered by Medicaid, today that's 66.8 million (20.5% of the population). Cynics will claim that's a negative, it's not, it's an improvement in the US social safety net courtesy of expanding who is covered by Medicaid. CHIP and SS disability have further broadened free healthcare coverage in that time frame as well.
  - bambataa 8y ago
    Do you know how that increased welfare spending breaks down? How much of the increase is going to pensioners vs poor working age people?
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      and how much of the increase is going to juicing the bottom line of corporations like Walmart and farm conglomerates? Both parties love food stamps. Total government expenditure, by itself is not a good measure of the actual outcome
  - refurb 8y ago
    Great job actually looking at the numbers rather than just repeating “common knowledge”. It seems like a lot of debates on HN could benefit from having actual facts like this.
  - gdy 8y ago
    Why aren't those 8.8% covered?
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  It's the same difference, as far as innovation is concerned.
adventured 8y ago
Except that's no longer the case, China's private sector is moving backwards and being squeezed out. The era of an ascendant private sector is over, Xi has shifted gears out of growth desperation. The Chinese Government is pushing all resources toward state enterprises again, and depriving credit to the private sector. It makes sense that when you consolidate power into one monolith, that monolith will prefer to consolidate power into fewer levers they directly control (massive, ineffecient state enterprises). That's a shift away from what had been an increase in decentralized economic control in the prior Deng-policy era. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/china-turns-to-state-companies-to-bolster-economic-growth-again https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/china-tur... "As growth stumbles, Beijing is falling back on a tried and trusted solution: using large, government-backed companies to spur activity. That’s squeezing out private and small firms." "Higher borrowing costs, weak household spending and rising prices point to the beginnings of what could be a wider consumption downgrade. Meanwhile, fixed-asset investment growth is near record lows, and the fiscal situation is looking increasingly constrained." "Operating conditions for small companies are getting worse, they’re holding inventory for longer, and the time it takes them to convert working capital into cash is increasing" "The number of money-losing private industrial companies jumped about 40 percent as of June from a year earlier, while the number of unprofitable state-backed firms stayed flat. "
- nicodjimenez 8y ago
  That's actually sad to hear. From my limited experience in China it seems like an amazing entrepreneurial place, in spite of all the barriers. You can't even access Stackoverflow there! But the culture there is really "no excuses" which I respect a lot.
malandrew 8y ago
Regulation and government involvement is also contributing to lower entrepreneurialism in the US.
- beambot 8y ago
  Are you saying that the US government has more or less involvement compared to China when it comes to entrepreneurship...? Which do you think is "better"?

People over-obsess about how China is beating us in science and technology, and not enough about how China is becoming so entrepreneurial while US citizens are becoming extremely risk averse.

Eridrus 8y ago

Are people becoming more risk averse, or do we have more people in precarious positions where they face more serious down sides if their gamble doesn't pay off?

tryptophan 8y ago
I'd think that china had many more people in precarious positions than we do in the US. Perhaps it is that people are much more comfortable in the US and do not need to be entrepreneurial to have a decent life?
- d0100 8y ago
  Betting everything you've got when you have nothing doesn't compare.
adventured 8y ago
The US social safety net is drastically better today than it was in the recent past (eg 1980 or 1990). It's now comparable to the OECD median. I know this is an unpopular statement, because for decades it has been a common attack point to go after the US on this front. However the US is spending a lot more per capita on its welfare policies, inflation adjusted, than it was a few decades ago. Particularly since the mid to late 1990s there has been a very large jump and it has had equally large, tangible results. It's important to point out the positive results, so that progress isn't rolled back. Poverty and homelessness are both near all-time lows (homelessness is at all-time lows). Homelessness is an area where the US has made very big strides in the last two decades, and it's not talked about enough. The poverty rate is down to 12.3% and has been declining since the great recession ended, accelerating the last few years. There are only two short periods of time in modern US history where the poverty rate was much lower (the peak of the late 1990s boom, and for about three years in the 1970s). In the last ~25 years the US has also reduced by about 50% the number of people that aren't covered by healthcare (currently 8.8% of people), mostly thanks to the ACA and Medicaid expansion. We're spending over $600 billion per year on free healthcare for the bottom quarter of people. In 2005, 42 million people (14% of the population) were covered by Medicaid, today that's 66.8 million (20.5% of the population). Cynics will claim that's a negative, it's not, it's an improvement in the US social safety net courtesy of expanding who is covered by Medicaid. CHIP and SS disability have further broadened free healthcare coverage in that time frame as well.
- bambataa 8y ago
  Do you know how that increased welfare spending breaks down? How much of the increase is going to pensioners vs poor working age people?
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    and how much of the increase is going to juicing the bottom line of corporations like Walmart and farm conglomerates? Both parties love food stamps. Total government expenditure, by itself is not a good measure of the actual outcome
- refurb 8y ago
  Great job actually looking at the numbers rather than just repeating “common knowledge”. It seems like a lot of debates on HN could benefit from having actual facts like this.
- gdy 8y ago
  Why aren't those 8.8% covered?
AlexCoventry 8y ago
It's the same difference, as far as innovation is concerned.

adventured 8y ago

Except that's no longer the case, China's private sector is moving backwards and being squeezed out. The era of an ascendant private sector is over, Xi has shifted gears out of growth desperation. The Chinese Government is pushing all resources toward state enterprises again, and depriving credit to the private sector. It makes sense that when you consolidate power into one monolith, that monolith will prefer to consolidate power into fewer levers they directly control (massive, ineffecient state enterprises). That's a shift away from what had been an increase in decentralized economic control in the prior Deng-policy era. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/china-turns-to-state-companies-to-bolster-economic-growth-again https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-11/china-tur... "As growth stumbles, Beijing is falling back on a tried and trusted solution: using large, government-backed companies to spur activity. That’s squeezing out private and small firms." "Higher borrowing costs, weak household spending and rising prices point to the beginnings of what could be a wider consumption downgrade. Meanwhile, fixed-asset investment growth is near record lows, and the fiscal situation is looking increasingly constrained." "Operating conditions for small companies are getting worse, they’re holding inventory for longer, and the time it takes them to convert working capital into cash is increasing" "The number of money-losing private industrial companies jumped about 40 percent as of June from a year earlier, while the number of unprofitable state-backed firms stayed flat. "

nicodjimenez 8y ago
That's actually sad to hear. From my limited experience in China it seems like an amazing entrepreneurial place, in spite of all the barriers. You can't even access Stackoverflow there! But the culture there is really "no excuses" which I respect a lot.

malandrew 8y ago

Regulation and government involvement is also contributing to lower entrepreneurialism in the US.

beambot 8y ago
Are you saying that the US government has more or less involvement compared to China when it comes to entrepreneurship...? Which do you think is "better"?