4 ms·

> 6% growth would be the envy of many countries. For comparison, the last time the US did that was 1984 No, not exactly. It has to be contextualised. Growing 2

> 6% growth would be the envy of many countries. For comparison, the last time the US did that was 1984 No, not exactly. It has to be contextualised. Growing 2% if you're already rich is fine. It's essentially a promise they'll stay rich, and get ever so slightly richer. But 2% growth for someone who earns next to nothing, is basically a promise that they'll be poor forever. So let's compare the US in 1984 when it last had China's growth, and China today when it last had... China's growth. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us?tab=chart&time=1980..2016&country=CHN+USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-cap... In 1984, US (inflation-adjusted, 2011 dollars) had a GDP per capita of $32k. China today is at $12k. 6% might be okay for the US. But for the almost 1.4 billion Chinese (who live on an income distribution, i.e. almost 700 million people living on less than that $12k, and hundreds of millions on quite very little), 6% may not be the promise they'll accept from their government for long. Not saying it's low-growth, but you can't just compare it to rich countries. The standard is very different, and China will be anxious to crank it back up.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
If your GDP is "growing" 2%, and your population is growing 1.2%, and inflation is 1%, you're getting less productive -- not more. Your quality of life is probably declining. I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just saying -- it is possible to "grow" without improvement. See the Malthusian Trap that plagued humanity from the beginning of time until the Industrial Revolution. It's probably better to just measure productivity & quality of life directly. It isn't easy. But it's not easy to measure GDP either. Measure what matters, you know?
- mactrey 7y ago
  GDP growth rates are generally reported "real" i.e. inflation is taken out. But yes you want GDP to grow at least as fast as population to maintain a given standard of living. The US population growth rate has been below 2% since at least the mid-70s.
- the_economist 7y ago
  GDP growth rate is reported after subtracting inflation, but the GDP number itself does not subtract inflation. If you have a GDP of $1 trillion, 2% inflation and 3% GDP growth, you'll have a GDP of $1.05 trillion after 1 year.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  South Africa would love to grow at 6%. We’ve had like 2-3% growth for the last 30 years. I dare say we have bigger poverty problems than China so we really need it.
- viklove 7y ago
  Doesn't it depend on your population growth from ~20 years ago? Or more accurately, your workforce growth.
SilasX 7y ago
But isn't China's growth still mostly in the non-poor parts of it, and isn't that 12k figure pulled down by the exchange rate and the massive rural population? That 6% is concentrated in the "first world" part of China and should still be regarded as impressive.
- yorwba 7y ago
  The 6% becomes concentrated by internal migration from villages to cities and from cities to bigger cities. Without the massive rural population acting as a source of cheap unskilled labor, the richer parts of China would have a hard time maintaining the same level of growth.
- IkmoIkmo 7y ago
  > But isn't China's growth still mostly in the non-poor parts of it, No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative... Scroll to: By share of national GDP per capita It'll show you: List of Chinese provinces by share (%) of national GDP per capita 2000 - 2017 You'd expect if all provinces grew equally (e.g. doubled in size), that their relative shares would not change between 2000 and 2017. (A) If poorer provinces grew faster than richer provinces, they'd grow in relative share. (B) The same holds for if rich provinces grew faster than poorer provinces, then rich provinces would grow in share. (C) So sort on the year 2000. You see Shanghai at the top with 374% of the nation's average GDP per capita. At the bottom is Guizhou with 35% of the nation's average. Shanghai goes down to 214% while Guizhou goes down to 64%. Both grew in absolute terms, but the poorer province grew much faster. A bit more data. It tends to hold across the board with few exceptions. top 3 Shanghai 374 -> 214 Beijing 304 -> 218 Tianjin 219 -> 201 bottom 3 Tibet 58 -> 66 Gansu 52 -> 48 Guizhou 35 -> 64 > isn't that 12k figure pulled down by the exchange rate No, the measure is: GDP per capita adjusted for price changes over time (inflation) and price differences between countries. It should take this into account. > the massive rural population I'm not sure how it does... First I'd want to reiterate that, uplifting rural people from poverty, both by developing these areas and by creating jobs (causing population shifts away from rural areas) has been a huge part of the economic development in China. If you'd dismiss this growth, you'd have never reached $12k in the first place. Second, dismissing the rural population is exactly one of the biggest problems you could imagine for China. One of their biggest fears is that they leave hundreds of millions of people behind, upset, in poverty. The only reason they can keep an orderly dictatorial system is because they deliver on the promise to the vast majority of the population, many of whom poor: lots of jobs, annual wage growth, hope and optimism. Low growth prospects for a massive rural population would be disastrous. As such, even if GDP per Capita was $100k in some small areas, if that $12k (or lower) figure is not rapidly developing for China's massive rural population, that'd be seen as a huge policy issue right there. The argument that the $12k figure may be pulled down by rural poor should underline how worrisome relatively low-growth is.
writepub 7y ago
The only thing you haven't accounted for is buying power. Income comparisons have to be normalized along with buying power. $12K in China-2019 is likely greater than $32K USA-1984??
- IkmoIkmo 7y ago
  The figures are adjusted for prices and expressed in 2011 dollars. As such, any number (e.g. $12k) on the graph, whether it be in 1980, 90s, 000s, 2010, should represent the same buying power. Calculations and methodologies can be off, of course. Purchasing power is part objective, part subjective. (e.g. how to compare a computer that is 10% more expensive, can do has 500% more calculations per second, but also just runs MS Office mostly the same compared to last year's computer... you can have different methodologies, one which says prices went up by 10%, others prices went down by almost 80%). But in principle, if you believe the figures are correct, then buying power has been taken into account.
zachguo 7y ago
You are confusing yourself by using per capita GDP. Simply use PPP GDP.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

If your GDP is "growing" 2%, and your population is growing 1.2%, and inflation is 1%, you're getting less productive -- not more. Your quality of life is probably declining. I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just saying -- it is possible to "grow" without improvement. See the Malthusian Trap that plagued humanity from the beginning of time until the Industrial Revolution. It's probably better to just measure productivity & quality of life directly. It isn't easy. But it's not easy to measure GDP either. Measure what matters, you know?

mactrey 7y ago
GDP growth rates are generally reported "real" i.e. inflation is taken out. But yes you want GDP to grow at least as fast as population to maintain a given standard of living. The US population growth rate has been below 2% since at least the mid-70s.
the_economist 7y ago
GDP growth rate is reported after subtracting inflation, but the GDP number itself does not subtract inflation. If you have a GDP of $1 trillion, 2% inflation and 3% GDP growth, you'll have a GDP of $1.05 trillion after 1 year.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
South Africa would love to grow at 6%. We’ve had like 2-3% growth for the last 30 years. I dare say we have bigger poverty problems than China so we really need it.
viklove 7y ago
Doesn't it depend on your population growth from ~20 years ago? Or more accurately, your workforce growth.

SilasX 7y ago

But isn't China's growth still mostly in the non-poor parts of it, and isn't that 12k figure pulled down by the exchange rate and the massive rural population? That 6% is concentrated in the "first world" part of China and should still be regarded as impressive.

yorwba 7y ago
The 6% becomes concentrated by internal migration from villages to cities and from cities to bigger cities. Without the massive rural population acting as a source of cheap unskilled labor, the richer parts of China would have a hard time maintaining the same level of growth.
IkmoIkmo 7y ago
> But isn't China's growth still mostly in the non-poor parts of it, No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative... Scroll to: By share of national GDP per capita It'll show you: List of Chinese provinces by share (%) of national GDP per capita 2000 - 2017 You'd expect if all provinces grew equally (e.g. doubled in size), that their relative shares would not change between 2000 and 2017. (A) If poorer provinces grew faster than richer provinces, they'd grow in relative share. (B) The same holds for if rich provinces grew faster than poorer provinces, then rich provinces would grow in share. (C) So sort on the year 2000. You see Shanghai at the top with 374% of the nation's average GDP per capita. At the bottom is Guizhou with 35% of the nation's average. Shanghai goes down to 214% while Guizhou goes down to 64%. Both grew in absolute terms, but the poorer province grew much faster. A bit more data. It tends to hold across the board with few exceptions. top 3 Shanghai 374 -> 214 Beijing 304 -> 218 Tianjin 219 -> 201 bottom 3 Tibet 58 -> 66 Gansu 52 -> 48 Guizhou 35 -> 64 > isn't that 12k figure pulled down by the exchange rate No, the measure is: GDP per capita adjusted for price changes over time (inflation) and price differences between countries. It should take this into account. > the massive rural population I'm not sure how it does... First I'd want to reiterate that, uplifting rural people from poverty, both by developing these areas and by creating jobs (causing population shifts away from rural areas) has been a huge part of the economic development in China. If you'd dismiss this growth, you'd have never reached $12k in the first place. Second, dismissing the rural population is exactly one of the biggest problems you could imagine for China. One of their biggest fears is that they leave hundreds of millions of people behind, upset, in poverty. The only reason they can keep an orderly dictatorial system is because they deliver on the promise to the vast majority of the population, many of whom poor: lots of jobs, annual wage growth, hope and optimism. Low growth prospects for a massive rural population would be disastrous. As such, even if GDP per Capita was $100k in some small areas, if that $12k (or lower) figure is not rapidly developing for China's massive rural population, that'd be seen as a huge policy issue right there. The argument that the $12k figure may be pulled down by rural poor should underline how worrisome relatively low-growth is.

writepub 7y ago

The only thing you haven't accounted for is buying power. Income comparisons have to be normalized along with buying power. $12K in China-2019 is likely greater than $32K USA-1984??

IkmoIkmo 7y ago
The figures are adjusted for prices and expressed in 2011 dollars. As such, any number (e.g. $12k) on the graph, whether it be in 1980, 90s, 000s, 2010, should represent the same buying power. Calculations and methodologies can be off, of course. Purchasing power is part objective, part subjective. (e.g. how to compare a computer that is 10% more expensive, can do has 500% more calculations per second, but also just runs MS Office mostly the same compared to last year's computer... you can have different methodologies, one which says prices went up by 10%, others prices went down by almost 80%). But in principle, if you believe the figures are correct, then buying power has been taken into account.

zachguo 7y ago

You are confusing yourself by using per capita GDP. Simply use PPP GDP.