3 ms·

> 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 no

by 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.

by 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.