3 ms·

> In the process you lose the ability to have any of these core competencies yourself. Nonsense. The US could obtain the core competencies themselves and indee

> In the process you lose the ability to have any of these core competencies yourself. Nonsense. The US could obtain the core competencies themselves and indeed will as globalization winds down. People will never stop coming to the US for opportunity.

AYBABTME 4y ago
> People will never stop coming to the US for opportunity. Is true _as long as the US continues to understand this_ and doesn't change its stance on immigration and business and open markets. The US will win as long as it's the country where the best of this world are invited and able to come and do their best work. On the other hand, I don't see China having any chance at beating the US on that front anytime soon. Mandarin is too hard to learn for immigrants, and the racism and lack of freedom is entirely unpalatable to most immigrants. Aside from finance types moving to Shanghai, I'm not sure who would want to move to China if they have the opportunity to move to the US instead. (well, I know many do, but let's just say the quantities are incomparable)
- dirtyid 4y ago
  > beating the US on that front anytime soon Current trends suggest otherwise, see PRC rapidly catching up and leading R&D and innovation indexes controlled by citations or quality in the last few years. > quantities are incomparable If anything US is at an substantial quantity disadvantage and slight to modest quality advantage. While US does absorb _some_ of the best global talent, those are also subsect of best with resources to go to US, and capped by immigration to around 700k, not all whom are relevant STEM talent for high tech industrial competition. Meanwhile rate of PRC domestic STEM talent generation is about 4-5x (rough estimate generously assuming all US immigration is STEM) of US domestic highereducation + immigration is pulling talent even accounting for outbound PRC brain drain. Yes, US has a bigger pool to draw from but their bucket is also smaller. US was projected to have like 3+ million STEM job gap in coming years, while PRC is generating so much talent that there's record unemploment. Which is obviously not good but puts the numbers in perspective - PRC is producing roughly as much STEM grads as all OECD nations combined, while geopolitical tensions is helping PRC retain more of that talent. Other considerations is that recent trend of PRC R&D and tech catchup is result of highered reforms set decades ago. PRC is still in process of building talent and institution base compared to relative mature western R&D system. IMO trends last few years show it's entirely possible for PRC to be competitive or overtake US in strategic high tech/talent industries in medium/long term, if not the entire US aligned block who are small subsect of OECD countries. But they I think state of geoeconomics will limit their market access and each will end up leading different blocs.
  - AYBABTME 4y ago
    I don't doubt what you're saying, although I'm not sure about the validity of the data derived on count of publications, since that's easily gamed. But what I'm saying is about immigration. I really doubt that the PRC will attract much STEM immigration in the future, at least in comparison to the US. As far as I can tell, the few dedicated folks who choose to emigrate to China do so despite an uphill battle and end up with limited job opportunities. The PRC will have a large internal talent pool to draw from, but will not attract foreign and diverse talent... at least that's my hunch, and mostly because of (1) hostile policies to foreigners (2) language barrier - Mandarin is much harder to learn than English (3) cultural barrier - Chinese culture is old and more self-centered than US's young, outward facing and constantly reinventing culture, and (4) having a bad reputation for personal freedoms and judicial fairness. So sure, PRC isn't near its final state in term of STEM talent. But I think despite its domestic talent pool, it will not benefit from the diversity of talent that the US will continue to benefit from. And ultimately, 1.3B people is a large pool to draw talent from, but it's not as large as the other 6.4B people. I do find this topic fascinating. I'm reading a book interview with Lee Kuan Yew which I find is making me reevaluate my prior beliefs. I'm more bullish on China than US on the long term, but LKY's insight were convincing and making a bull case for the US.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      ON LKY and US, I feel consensus is US is geopolitically blessed and have all the institutions and instruments to preserve their primacy across many domains if they get their shit together. But also so blessed that it can coast along on current incompetence and past momentum fine for foreseeable future. > count of publications Refer to nature science index which collates from prominent western journals with contribution quality assessed by western experts. Or share of PRC science papers filtered/accepted through prestigious western academic conferences in variety of (STEM) domains. Or number of researchers in US/western R&D of PRC origin. There are many indicators that comport with dramatic increase in PRC science competence in recent years that shouldn't be dismissed as pressure to publich / gaming the system but PRC highered reforms finally paying off. >immigration ... attract talent I understand, my point is with the population denominator involved, PRC is generating more talent than US can attract. Quantity has a quality of it's own, meanwhile the proportion of quality among mass quantity is constantly being improved. I also think notion that US drawing from global talent is overstated, PRC is drawing from domestic population that accounts for 20% of global population, apart from fringe minorities, everyone in the system speaks Chinese. Meanwhile, US is realistically drawing from 13% of world that speaks English / has english fluency. One stat I recall is by 2030 PRC will have ~3.5/10 of global stem graduates, Indian ~3/10, US ~0.4/10, EU ~0.8/10. Gut guestimate is eligable pool of talent US can actually draw on is not substantially larger than PRC has domestically. That said, intuitively I do feel diversity of talent is important, but I can't really articulate why. As for hunches on PRC lack of attractiveness for immigration, imo basically true but also misses the point. PRC incentives aren't structured around golden citizenship tickets, but good compensation + access to resources. Look at PRC poaching entire teams of TW and SKR semi engineers by paying them 3x market rate, and building SKR talent churches, basically bribing them with perks knowing full well these are get rich quick limited contract schemes. Or consider PRC thousand talent program with generous perks which work(ed?) pretty well at attracting foreign academic talent, strategically drawing "sea turtles" - Chinese diasphora scientists in premiere western institutions with all the language+culture reprequisits to work in PRC. Pay them lots, give them a well funded lab, it's an easy sell. Work(ed) because it's a tap western policies is attempting to turn off (US China Initiative, TW trying to ban semi talent from working in PRC due to national security). But it's not because PRC is "unattractive", PRC has money, money is very attractive. Ergo PRC geopolitical competitors need to draft literal legistlation to undermine/outlaw strategic talent from working in PRC. In TW's case because they literally can't afford to pay their semi talent well enough to compete with PRC money firehose.

AYBABTME 4y ago

> People will never stop coming to the US for opportunity. Is true _as long as the US continues to understand this_ and doesn't change its stance on immigration and business and open markets. The US will win as long as it's the country where the best of this world are invited and able to come and do their best work. On the other hand, I don't see China having any chance at beating the US on that front anytime soon. Mandarin is too hard to learn for immigrants, and the racism and lack of freedom is entirely unpalatable to most immigrants. Aside from finance types moving to Shanghai, I'm not sure who would want to move to China if they have the opportunity to move to the US instead. (well, I know many do, but let's just say the quantities are incomparable)

dirtyid 4y ago
> beating the US on that front anytime soon Current trends suggest otherwise, see PRC rapidly catching up and leading R&D and innovation indexes controlled by citations or quality in the last few years. > quantities are incomparable If anything US is at an substantial quantity disadvantage and slight to modest quality advantage. While US does absorb _some_ of the best global talent, those are also subsect of best with resources to go to US, and capped by immigration to around 700k, not all whom are relevant STEM talent for high tech industrial competition. Meanwhile rate of PRC domestic STEM talent generation is about 4-5x (rough estimate generously assuming all US immigration is STEM) of US domestic highereducation + immigration is pulling talent even accounting for outbound PRC brain drain. Yes, US has a bigger pool to draw from but their bucket is also smaller. US was projected to have like 3+ million STEM job gap in coming years, while PRC is generating so much talent that there's record unemploment. Which is obviously not good but puts the numbers in perspective - PRC is producing roughly as much STEM grads as all OECD nations combined, while geopolitical tensions is helping PRC retain more of that talent. Other considerations is that recent trend of PRC R&D and tech catchup is result of highered reforms set decades ago. PRC is still in process of building talent and institution base compared to relative mature western R&D system. IMO trends last few years show it's entirely possible for PRC to be competitive or overtake US in strategic high tech/talent industries in medium/long term, if not the entire US aligned block who are small subsect of OECD countries. But they I think state of geoeconomics will limit their market access and each will end up leading different blocs.
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  I don't doubt what you're saying, although I'm not sure about the validity of the data derived on count of publications, since that's easily gamed. But what I'm saying is about immigration. I really doubt that the PRC will attract much STEM immigration in the future, at least in comparison to the US. As far as I can tell, the few dedicated folks who choose to emigrate to China do so despite an uphill battle and end up with limited job opportunities. The PRC will have a large internal talent pool to draw from, but will not attract foreign and diverse talent... at least that's my hunch, and mostly because of (1) hostile policies to foreigners (2) language barrier - Mandarin is much harder to learn than English (3) cultural barrier - Chinese culture is old and more self-centered than US's young, outward facing and constantly reinventing culture, and (4) having a bad reputation for personal freedoms and judicial fairness. So sure, PRC isn't near its final state in term of STEM talent. But I think despite its domestic talent pool, it will not benefit from the diversity of talent that the US will continue to benefit from. And ultimately, 1.3B people is a large pool to draw talent from, but it's not as large as the other 6.4B people. I do find this topic fascinating. I'm reading a book interview with Lee Kuan Yew which I find is making me reevaluate my prior beliefs. I'm more bullish on China than US on the long term, but LKY's insight were convincing and making a bull case for the US.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    ON LKY and US, I feel consensus is US is geopolitically blessed and have all the institutions and instruments to preserve their primacy across many domains if they get their shit together. But also so blessed that it can coast along on current incompetence and past momentum fine for foreseeable future. > count of publications Refer to nature science index which collates from prominent western journals with contribution quality assessed by western experts. Or share of PRC science papers filtered/accepted through prestigious western academic conferences in variety of (STEM) domains. Or number of researchers in US/western R&D of PRC origin. There are many indicators that comport with dramatic increase in PRC science competence in recent years that shouldn't be dismissed as pressure to publich / gaming the system but PRC highered reforms finally paying off. >immigration ... attract talent I understand, my point is with the population denominator involved, PRC is generating more talent than US can attract. Quantity has a quality of it's own, meanwhile the proportion of quality among mass quantity is constantly being improved. I also think notion that US drawing from global talent is overstated, PRC is drawing from domestic population that accounts for 20% of global population, apart from fringe minorities, everyone in the system speaks Chinese. Meanwhile, US is realistically drawing from 13% of world that speaks English / has english fluency. One stat I recall is by 2030 PRC will have ~3.5/10 of global stem graduates, Indian ~3/10, US ~0.4/10, EU ~0.8/10. Gut guestimate is eligable pool of talent US can actually draw on is not substantially larger than PRC has domestically. That said, intuitively I do feel diversity of talent is important, but I can't really articulate why. As for hunches on PRC lack of attractiveness for immigration, imo basically true but also misses the point. PRC incentives aren't structured around golden citizenship tickets, but good compensation + access to resources. Look at PRC poaching entire teams of TW and SKR semi engineers by paying them 3x market rate, and building SKR talent churches, basically bribing them with perks knowing full well these are get rich quick limited contract schemes. Or consider PRC thousand talent program with generous perks which work(ed?) pretty well at attracting foreign academic talent, strategically drawing "sea turtles" - Chinese diasphora scientists in premiere western institutions with all the language+culture reprequisits to work in PRC. Pay them lots, give them a well funded lab, it's an easy sell. Work(ed) because it's a tap western policies is attempting to turn off (US China Initiative, TW trying to ban semi talent from working in PRC due to national security). But it's not because PRC is "unattractive", PRC has money, money is very attractive. Ergo PRC geopolitical competitors need to draft literal legistlation to undermine/outlaw strategic talent from working in PRC. In TW's case because they literally can't afford to pay their semi talent well enough to compete with PRC money firehose.