4 ms·

>but if they don't do it until 2030, they might as well give up. Why? PRC is currently extracting the greatest high skill demographic divident in human history

>but if they don't do it until 2030, they might as well give up. Why? PRC is currently extracting the greatest high skill demographic divident in human history in the next 30 years, and even with shit tier TFR they're producing more bodies than any modern military needs, and will continue to under the most pessimestic demographic projections until end of century. They have decades to try and try again, because they can replicate US expeditionary military model with even less than fraction of their population and industrial output. Ultimately IMO PRC doesn't need to dominate, or take over west/really US tier of hyperdominance, which it can't. But that's also exactly why it's fine and even prudent for PRC to take over TW and bring pyrrhic disaster for everyone. In terms of cold interest calculus, the west, being at the top has more to lose, and historically, you displace regional hegemon with force. Meanwhile PRC got plenty of excess/surplus workforce past 2050s for reconstruction. The TLDR is PRC comprehensive power by herself is going to increase / close gap with west. And even if she doesn't want war, structure forces / trends won't dissuade her, and if anything incentivizes escalation.

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
Its weird to see a country refered to as "her".
berserk1010 3y ago
> PRC is currently extracting the greatest high skill demographic divident in human history in the next 30 years China is not. There is a trend in China for companies to not hire people over the age of 35. Also, their unofficial youth unemployment rate is something like 45%. In addition, 1 billion people live in poverty in China https://www.newsweek.com/china-article-censorship-1-billion-people-monthly-income-2000-yuan-poverty-1856031 https://www.newsweek.com/china-article-censorship-1-billion-.... That means those people don't have the knowledge/connection/skillset to contribute. Lastly, Chinese population is expected to shrink to 600B even faster than 2050
- maxglute 3y ago
  China is. At current PRC STEM / skilled labour production rate, they're on trend to generate 50-100M new skilled workers in the next 20 years. Those are growing bodies already born and accounted for. That's multiple times more than US is set to gain in people via all methods birth/immigration. In the next few years, PRC will have more skilled talent IN WORKFORCE than US in absolute numbers. It's exactly beause relative skill across workforce is still low, currently 20% vs developed countries for 60-80% that PRC has incredible skilled demographic divident to squeeze. It's how JP/SKR GDP doubled/tripled after TFR crash 20 years ago, by training up new generations into more skilled/productive work. Hence PRC similarly marching to advanced economy workforce composition is - objectively the greatest concentration in high skilled talent within one coordinated system in human history. Even at lower relative % of skilled workforce, due to PRC population denominator, that means PRC will have significantly more aggregate knowledge/skill/connection than any other competitor. PRC broad unemployment rate is 5%, youth find jobs within a few years. Right now you have massive cohorts of new graduates post academic expansion who don't want to settle for jobs they think are beneath them, but eventually, like all humans, they will. It's going to take a few years because PRC kids have no crippling student debt, can mooch off parents living at home, and don't need to work 2 part time jobs to make ends meet. Even if 40% of youth unemployemnt was durable, implying 40% of PRC skilled workforce end up not working, which is an idiotic hopium position to draw analysis from, the remaining 60% is still MORE aggregate skill pool than again, any other competitor, at any time in past or projected future in next 30-50 years. Which if you care about geopolitical balance/stragetic competition, is the cohort and period worth considering. There's no credible model where PRC population will dip to 600M in 2050. On poverty: there's 600M, on 1000rmb disposable household income, 900m on 2000rmb. That again, that's precisely why they don't matter for growth. That 60% of population constitutes merely 10% of GDP. Most of GDP/productivity in advanced/modern economy driven by the minority of skilled workforce. In PRC case, the minority in developed tier1/2 regions. The same cohort responsible for 90% of the GDP is set to increase by order of magnitude within the next 20 years. They're the real growth drivers. That growth will trickle down so the bottom 60% can eventually charge 10rmb for a haircut instead of 5rmb and live on 2000/4000rmb instead of 1000/2000, but ultimately their contribution to development is/was always going to be marginal. You don't need everyone to be high skilled, and with PRC population, modernization timeframe, they couldn't. But going forward they can certainly have more absolute/aggregate skilled labour than US+partners, and still have a few 100 million stuck in informal economy doing shit all. And right now that's where impactful demographic trend is heading.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
What if innovation requires a bit more then a big number of people who've studied at a university? What if it requires a culture that allows for it?
- maxglute 3y ago
  I think the answer is, it doesn't. It requires coordinating bodies, industrial base, and resources. Not ability to vote or unfettered media. See PRC recently moving up value chains, topping science and innovation indexes in western publications, controlled for quality. That's PRC goign from fraction of high skilled talent in 2010, to near parity in in last few years after boosting tertiary education. If you buy into the innovation+freedom argument and also PRC is less free argument, then innovation is negatively correlated to free thought. Regardless, whatever system PRC has in place, it's been driving innovation in last few years with less talent than west, and soon more talent, with more experience. Absurdly more. Meanwhile everyone else is adopting PRC industrial policy, or rather re-adopting indy policy that PRC copied from Asian Tigers who copied from US. And ultimately even if you presume leading edge innovation requires the "right" culture, PRC is still good at replicating and commercializing. Hence whatever lead an innovation an "innovative" culture produces, PRC can still replicate and commercialize and at scale faster and cheaper and reduce market share / R&D of those companies on global market.

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago

Its weird to see a country refered to as "her".

berserk1010 3y ago

> PRC is currently extracting the greatest high skill demographic divident in human history in the next 30 years China is not. There is a trend in China for companies to not hire people over the age of 35. Also, their unofficial youth unemployment rate is something like 45%. In addition, 1 billion people live in poverty in China https://www.newsweek.com/china-article-censorship-1-billion-people-monthly-income-2000-yuan-poverty-1856031 https://www.newsweek.com/china-article-censorship-1-billion-.... That means those people don't have the knowledge/connection/skillset to contribute. Lastly, Chinese population is expected to shrink to 600B even faster than 2050

maxglute 3y ago
China is. At current PRC STEM / skilled labour production rate, they're on trend to generate 50-100M new skilled workers in the next 20 years. Those are growing bodies already born and accounted for. That's multiple times more than US is set to gain in people via all methods birth/immigration. In the next few years, PRC will have more skilled talent IN WORKFORCE than US in absolute numbers. It's exactly beause relative skill across workforce is still low, currently 20% vs developed countries for 60-80% that PRC has incredible skilled demographic divident to squeeze. It's how JP/SKR GDP doubled/tripled after TFR crash 20 years ago, by training up new generations into more skilled/productive work. Hence PRC similarly marching to advanced economy workforce composition is - objectively the greatest concentration in high skilled talent within one coordinated system in human history. Even at lower relative % of skilled workforce, due to PRC population denominator, that means PRC will have significantly more aggregate knowledge/skill/connection than any other competitor. PRC broad unemployment rate is 5%, youth find jobs within a few years. Right now you have massive cohorts of new graduates post academic expansion who don't want to settle for jobs they think are beneath them, but eventually, like all humans, they will. It's going to take a few years because PRC kids have no crippling student debt, can mooch off parents living at home, and don't need to work 2 part time jobs to make ends meet. Even if 40% of youth unemployemnt was durable, implying 40% of PRC skilled workforce end up not working, which is an idiotic hopium position to draw analysis from, the remaining 60% is still MORE aggregate skill pool than again, any other competitor, at any time in past or projected future in next 30-50 years. Which if you care about geopolitical balance/stragetic competition, is the cohort and period worth considering. There's no credible model where PRC population will dip to 600M in 2050. On poverty: there's 600M, on 1000rmb disposable household income, 900m on 2000rmb. That again, that's precisely why they don't matter for growth. That 60% of population constitutes merely 10% of GDP. Most of GDP/productivity in advanced/modern economy driven by the minority of skilled workforce. In PRC case, the minority in developed tier1/2 regions. The same cohort responsible for 90% of the GDP is set to increase by order of magnitude within the next 20 years. They're the real growth drivers. That growth will trickle down so the bottom 60% can eventually charge 10rmb for a haircut instead of 5rmb and live on 2000/4000rmb instead of 1000/2000, but ultimately their contribution to development is/was always going to be marginal. You don't need everyone to be high skilled, and with PRC population, modernization timeframe, they couldn't. But going forward they can certainly have more absolute/aggregate skilled labour than US+partners, and still have a few 100 million stuck in informal economy doing shit all. And right now that's where impactful demographic trend is heading.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

What if innovation requires a bit more then a big number of people who've studied at a university? What if it requires a culture that allows for it?

maxglute 3y ago
I think the answer is, it doesn't. It requires coordinating bodies, industrial base, and resources. Not ability to vote or unfettered media. See PRC recently moving up value chains, topping science and innovation indexes in western publications, controlled for quality. That's PRC goign from fraction of high skilled talent in 2010, to near parity in in last few years after boosting tertiary education. If you buy into the innovation+freedom argument and also PRC is less free argument, then innovation is negatively correlated to free thought. Regardless, whatever system PRC has in place, it's been driving innovation in last few years with less talent than west, and soon more talent, with more experience. Absurdly more. Meanwhile everyone else is adopting PRC industrial policy, or rather re-adopting indy policy that PRC copied from Asian Tigers who copied from US. And ultimately even if you presume leading edge innovation requires the "right" culture, PRC is still good at replicating and commercializing. Hence whatever lead an innovation an "innovative" culture produces, PRC can still replicate and commercialize and at scale faster and cheaper and reduce market share / R&D of those companies on global market.