3 ms·

If you read nothing else from the article, read table 1. I’ll summarize it here. The US leads in the following industries: IT and Information Services, Pharmac

If you read nothing else from the article, read table 1. I’ll summarize it here. The US leads in the following industries: IT and Information Services, Pharmaceuticals, Other Transportation China leads in the following industries: Computers and Electronics, Chemicals, Machinery and Equipment, Motor Vehicles, Basic Metals, Fabricated Metals, Electrical Equipment The authors mention that although China’s workers are still less efficient than American workers, this is changing, and by the time Chinese workers are 80% as efficient as their American counterparts the Chinese economy will be 2-3x the size of America’s.

stonethrowaway 2y ago
This is the geopolitics of scale that West is playing against at the moment which easily showcases the intent behind “unrestrained” immigration that is taking place in certain parts of the world. Make no mistake, it’s all planned. Simply put: you need to throw many many bodies at the problem to even have a shot at keeping up with China. Collectively, the West is way behind in this regard.
- oezi 2y ago
  Nonsense. People don't like to leave their homes. The immigration which is troubling to the US and Europe (in contrast to skilled immigration) is almost entirely from unimaginable suffering (Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Venezuela, etc.). If the West wasn't shunning to engage these conflicts, this migration would cease.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    That’s not true at all. People will migrate for a higher quality of life, more opportunities and better financial gains even if they are not suffering. That’s essentially the bulk of legal immigration in the US and it’s mostly from India and China.
    - oezi 2y ago
      That's skilled migration which is entirely controlled by the receiving countries. It is not the "unrestrained" migration that OP talks about.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  This will only be true as long as the quality of life gradient is so heavily tilted towards the US. As developing nations improve and if the US continues to starve its social institutions (schools, infrastructure, housing) that calculation may look considerably less rosy. And to top it off, the US foolishly forces some of the smartest immigrants in the world to leave rather than give them a path to citizenship!
oezi 2y ago
> by the time China's population is rapidly aging and forecast to shrink by 1/3 by the end of the century. This is the primary reason why I think they might not overtake the US.
- maxglute 2y ago
  PRC population of skilled talent (ones driving innovation) is exploding even if net population decreasing. Last ~20 years of aggregate new births ~200m, at current rate of tertiary enrollment (60%) and talent generation which bias STEM/technical, will be adding ~120m tertiary talent, who'll be in the workforce to 2040s-80s and beyond. About ~40M STEM, around current US STEM total, and estimated US pop increase by 2040s. AKA US can keep pace if EVERY new birth and every immigrant coming to US somehow end up STEM by 2040s. Charitably US is gaining skilled talent at 25% rate of PRC (education + immigration). That's not mentioning some % of remainder 80m new PRC tertiary are still going to be doing some sort of technical work, just not STEM credentialled. It's not an exaggeration to suggest in next 20-60 years, PRC is going to benefit from the largest HIGH SKILLED demographic divident in recorded history. Meanwhile most of PRC population loss will disproportionately be low skilled, old unproductive cohorts (farmers/informal workers who never had chance for tertiary or even secondary education). One way to contexualize that ~400m loss in population by 2100 is that there are ~400m extremely unproductive low income farmers (by design as jobs program) who can be replaced by 40m skilled farmers using machinery. Of course losing 400m of consumption hurts, but buttom 40% of PRC GDP is like 700B... around 3% of total GDP. 40% (really ~60%) of PRC is EXTREMELY unproductive, and will remain so by virtue of being left behind by modernization and too old to be retrained. If 120m new skilled workers makes more than ~6000 USD per year, or ~50% of current per capita, then productivity wise, that cohort would have broken even. The transition to 2100 is present PRC with ~4x more people than US but with near parity in skilled talent to a PRC with 2x more people than US and 2x-3x more skilled talent. E: Ultimately, it's about ability for talent to innovate / capture market share / reconfigure global trade patterns for high end goods. IMO total population will be less useful indicator for predicting GDP (especially nominal) / productivity since they're down stream over big levers like FX / reserve status that's dependant on ability to control / influence critical tech.

stonethrowaway 2y ago

This is the geopolitics of scale that West is playing against at the moment which easily showcases the intent behind “unrestrained” immigration that is taking place in certain parts of the world. Make no mistake, it’s all planned. Simply put: you need to throw many many bodies at the problem to even have a shot at keeping up with China. Collectively, the West is way behind in this regard.

oezi 2y ago
Nonsense. People don't like to leave their homes. The immigration which is troubling to the US and Europe (in contrast to skilled immigration) is almost entirely from unimaginable suffering (Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Venezuela, etc.). If the West wasn't shunning to engage these conflicts, this migration would cease.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  That’s not true at all. People will migrate for a higher quality of life, more opportunities and better financial gains even if they are not suffering. That’s essentially the bulk of legal immigration in the US and it’s mostly from India and China.
  - oezi 2y ago
    That's skilled migration which is entirely controlled by the receiving countries. It is not the "unrestrained" migration that OP talks about.
janalsncm 2y ago
This will only be true as long as the quality of life gradient is so heavily tilted towards the US. As developing nations improve and if the US continues to starve its social institutions (schools, infrastructure, housing) that calculation may look considerably less rosy. And to top it off, the US foolishly forces some of the smartest immigrants in the world to leave rather than give them a path to citizenship!

oezi 2y ago

> by the time China's population is rapidly aging and forecast to shrink by 1/3 by the end of the century. This is the primary reason why I think they might not overtake the US.

maxglute 2y ago
PRC population of skilled talent (ones driving innovation) is exploding even if net population decreasing. Last ~20 years of aggregate new births ~200m, at current rate of tertiary enrollment (60%) and talent generation which bias STEM/technical, will be adding ~120m tertiary talent, who'll be in the workforce to 2040s-80s and beyond. About ~40M STEM, around current US STEM total, and estimated US pop increase by 2040s. AKA US can keep pace if EVERY new birth and every immigrant coming to US somehow end up STEM by 2040s. Charitably US is gaining skilled talent at 25% rate of PRC (education + immigration). That's not mentioning some % of remainder 80m new PRC tertiary are still going to be doing some sort of technical work, just not STEM credentialled. It's not an exaggeration to suggest in next 20-60 years, PRC is going to benefit from the largest HIGH SKILLED demographic divident in recorded history. Meanwhile most of PRC population loss will disproportionately be low skilled, old unproductive cohorts (farmers/informal workers who never had chance for tertiary or even secondary education). One way to contexualize that ~400m loss in population by 2100 is that there are ~400m extremely unproductive low income farmers (by design as jobs program) who can be replaced by 40m skilled farmers using machinery. Of course losing 400m of consumption hurts, but buttom 40% of PRC GDP is like 700B... around 3% of total GDP. 40% (really ~60%) of PRC is EXTREMELY unproductive, and will remain so by virtue of being left behind by modernization and too old to be retrained. If 120m new skilled workers makes more than ~6000 USD per year, or ~50% of current per capita, then productivity wise, that cohort would have broken even. The transition to 2100 is present PRC with ~4x more people than US but with near parity in skilled talent to a PRC with 2x more people than US and 2x-3x more skilled talent. E: Ultimately, it's about ability for talent to innovate / capture market share / reconfigure global trade patterns for high end goods. IMO total population will be less useful indicator for predicting GDP (especially nominal) / productivity since they're down stream over big levers like FX / reserve status that's dependant on ability to control / influence critical tech.