Why China won’t own next-generation manufacturing(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Why China won’t own next-generation manufacturing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/08/26/why-china-wont-own-next-generation-manufacturing/
118 comments
This article works even better because it plays with the fear that China will outpace the US.
But why is it wrong?
wrongtroversial. great term. great explanation of it. thanks.
But -- I don't seem to be able to find Paul Graham's creation of this word thru a google search. Any pointers?
But -- I don't seem to be able to find Paul Graham's creation of this word thru a google search. Any pointers?
If a business journalist or economist writes about robots it's usually breathlessly optimistic, technologically illiterate, wrong and usually sneaks in a whinge about unions and entitled workers.
This article isn't an exception.
This article isn't an exception.
I don't follow this line of thinking at all. What's the argument here? That Chinese can't learn how to manage certain things? That they can't improve their educational system? Does anyone seriously think this is true?
And then to end with, well even if they do, we can just import their robots. Ok.. then wouldn't they "own next-generation manufacturing" if they are the ones making the tools, pushing what machines are capable of, etc. I mean, does the writer really think we can dominate next-gen manufacturing if we don't even make the tools? What's our competitive advantage then?
And then to end with, well even if they do, we can just import their robots. Ok.. then wouldn't they "own next-generation manufacturing" if they are the ones making the tools, pushing what machines are capable of, etc. I mean, does the writer really think we can dominate next-gen manufacturing if we don't even make the tools? What's our competitive advantage then?
There are a lot of problems with the article as you say. China just bought an advanced robot making company in Germany and certainly will import all of that knowledge to China. Also Amazon is looking to make transport cheaper from China to the USA but it is already about $1k per container so it is very cheap to import to the USA. Also Alibaba is working with Chinese companies to come up with their own versions of products they make for American companies. Anyway you look at it, China will dominate the next 100 years because they are investing quickly in their own capability at all levels while also stealing/making/buying/implementing technology quickly while American's are drifting aimlessly for the most part.
I have to agree. The other thing the article fails to mention is how China has invested heavily in other resource production like rare earth metals which are needed for robots and just about all modern things.
They could price gouge us at any moment and they know it. And when they do it will take us forever to build these mines / plants.
That's the thing the article also gets wrong. It takes time and money to keep up and to even copy (robots).
I really can't agree with much in the article.
They could price gouge us at any moment and they know it. And when they do it will take us forever to build these mines / plants.
That's the thing the article also gets wrong. It takes time and money to keep up and to even copy (robots).
I really can't agree with much in the article.
"They could price gouge us at any moment and they know it. And when they do it will take us forever to build these mines / plants."
They tried. It didn't work. Molycorp got the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California going again, with pollution controls that satisfied even the Sierra Club. Another company got a mine going in Australia. Techniques were developed to reduce rare earth consumption for motors. Rare earth demand dropped. Price crashed. China gave up on restricting exports. Molycorp went bankrupt, but the Mountain Pass mine is still there, although not running.
It's for sale. Want to buy the world's most advanced rare earths mine?
They tried. It didn't work. Molycorp got the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California going again, with pollution controls that satisfied even the Sierra Club. Another company got a mine going in Australia. Techniques were developed to reduce rare earth consumption for motors. Rare earth demand dropped. Price crashed. China gave up on restricting exports. Molycorp went bankrupt, but the Mountain Pass mine is still there, although not running.
It's for sale. Want to buy the world's most advanced rare earths mine?
in addition to this, the wto also ruled that their export controls were in violation of trade rules
for laymen: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-06/china-scra...
not for the faint of heart: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds431_e...
for laymen: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-06/china-scra...
not for the faint of heart: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds431_e...
They haven't invested in rare earth production so much as they have sacrificed the environment significantly for it. The article is bunk, but I totally expect China to be a barren toxic wasteland if they don't change their export-oriented development philosophy (and they haven't, inspite of what Xi is saying these days).
Also the last straw argument "Chinese can't innovate/be bold because only Liberal arts degree holders can do that."
While conveniently forgetting that current leading company in Drones DJI is a Chinese company and they brilliantly managed to build their own Tech industry. Frankly American journalists are deluding themselves if they assume that all asians are like what they chose to show in Hollywood (where they are portrayed as lacking communication skills) and as if innovation is a western monopoly.
While conveniently forgetting that current leading company in Drones DJI is a Chinese company and they brilliantly managed to build their own Tech industry. Frankly American journalists are deluding themselves if they assume that all asians are like what they chose to show in Hollywood (where they are portrayed as lacking communication skills) and as if innovation is a western monopoly.
Also, most innovation in the US is done by engineers and scientists, people who are not versed in liberal arts.
[deleted]
China can't be innovative because they lack the cultural foundation for it. Innovation requires creativity, critical thinking, outside the box thinking, etc etc etc... All things which China's PRC sees as a threat to their power so they squash it down. They want flesh robots, not revolutions.
So they have to steal IPs to be competitive. Whether it's plans for the space shuttle or the latest iPhone, China will steal literally anything with virtually no shame. Unfortunately, they don't see the side-effect of this IP theft. That is, it reduces innovation even more. When you shortcut your way to the top (or in this case, the middle), you don't have that same foundation for innovation. A huge part of innovation is the process itself -- it lays the foundation for future innovations. A framework or path. That foundation is just as, if not more important that the innovation itself. And that's what China is missing out on.
They're being left behind while IP theft is going to get harder and harder for them as countries/businesses wise-up.
So they have to steal IPs to be competitive. Whether it's plans for the space shuttle or the latest iPhone, China will steal literally anything with virtually no shame. Unfortunately, they don't see the side-effect of this IP theft. That is, it reduces innovation even more. When you shortcut your way to the top (or in this case, the middle), you don't have that same foundation for innovation. A huge part of innovation is the process itself -- it lays the foundation for future innovations. A framework or path. That foundation is just as, if not more important that the innovation itself. And that's what China is missing out on.
They're being left behind while IP theft is going to get harder and harder for them as countries/businesses wise-up.
For most of human history China has been the most innovative country in the world. It has only been over the last several hundred years that this has not been the case. So claiming lack of cultural foundation for innovation is just wrong. "Gunpowder, the magnetic compass, and paper and printing, which Francis Bacon considered as the three most important inventions facilitating the West's transformation from the Dark Ages to the modern world, were invented in China" Joseph Needham points this out magnificently in his magnum opus, "Science and Civilization in China".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham#Science_and_Civ...
For most of history China didn't have the CCP. During the great leap forward Mao had all the sparrows killed. He then had to beg the soviet union to send him sparrows to replace the ones he killed. Then during the cultural revolution he killed all the intellectuals. They've never been replaced.
> For most of history China didn't have the CCP.
Firstly, Mao's China/CCP is completely different to the modern day China/CCP. Secondly, why is the CCP any worse than other periods in Chinese history? There have been many periods more oppressive and less democratic than the post-Mao CCP.
> Mao had all the sparrows killed.
I don't see how killing sparrows under Mao relates to the subject at hand. Yes, Mao's period was crazy, but Chinese history is full of such events.
> he killed all the intellectuals
This simply isn't true though. Yes, some intellectuals were killed and many more subject to physical and mental abuse, but to say "all" were killed is absurd.
Firstly, Mao's China/CCP is completely different to the modern day China/CCP. Secondly, why is the CCP any worse than other periods in Chinese history? There have been many periods more oppressive and less democratic than the post-Mao CCP.
> Mao had all the sparrows killed.
I don't see how killing sparrows under Mao relates to the subject at hand. Yes, Mao's period was crazy, but Chinese history is full of such events.
> he killed all the intellectuals
This simply isn't true though. Yes, some intellectuals were killed and many more subject to physical and mental abuse, but to say "all" were killed is absurd.
95% of our technological jumps and innovation throughout history have happened within the last 100 years. Coincidentally, those are the years China has been a non-factor. You say China has been the world's leading innovator throughout history, but what exactly did they accomplish within those 5000 years? Not much.
With that said, the current PRC is stifling innovation, creativity and freedom. They have 1 billion people; China should be the most innovative country on the planet with all those chances for genius. Think of all the chances for Einstein, Hawking or bill gates... But what comes out of China? What product, computer program or device is China known for? Why aren't they inventing the latest iPhone, Windows OS, Mercedes Benz or Viagra? Why aren't they writing the next Game Of Thrones (can't with all the censorship going on) or bringing us the next high capacity lithium battery? Or Carbon Nanotubes? China isn't known for innovation in virtually any industry. They always rank near the bottom when it comes to innovation.
And why is that? It's because the PRC stifles their society with all the controls and limits their creativity. Everything has to be government approved, and go through miles of bureaucracy (or straight up corruption/bribes). People forget, China ranks 100th on the corruption index released by transparency.org. There are 99 countries less corrupt than China.
> Yes, some intellectuals were killed and many more subject to physical and mental abuse, but to say "all" were killed is absurd.
Worse, he killed intellectualism itself. While he may not have killed every intellectual, their society isn't set up for individuality and creativity -- things which breed intellectualism.
With that said, the current PRC is stifling innovation, creativity and freedom. They have 1 billion people; China should be the most innovative country on the planet with all those chances for genius. Think of all the chances for Einstein, Hawking or bill gates... But what comes out of China? What product, computer program or device is China known for? Why aren't they inventing the latest iPhone, Windows OS, Mercedes Benz or Viagra? Why aren't they writing the next Game Of Thrones (can't with all the censorship going on) or bringing us the next high capacity lithium battery? Or Carbon Nanotubes? China isn't known for innovation in virtually any industry. They always rank near the bottom when it comes to innovation.
And why is that? It's because the PRC stifles their society with all the controls and limits their creativity. Everything has to be government approved, and go through miles of bureaucracy (or straight up corruption/bribes). People forget, China ranks 100th on the corruption index released by transparency.org. There are 99 countries less corrupt than China.
> Yes, some intellectuals were killed and many more subject to physical and mental abuse, but to say "all" were killed is absurd.
Worse, he killed intellectualism itself. While he may not have killed every intellectual, their society isn't set up for individuality and creativity -- things which breed intellectualism.
Regurgitated nonsense that cannot be considered anything other than dogma. From the last post alone it shows that you know absolutely nothing about China.
> but what exactly did they accomplish within those 5000 years? Not much.
Maybe they don't sound like much to you, but the invention of gunpowder, papermaking, printing, the compass, mechanical clock, iron and steel smelting, etc were major inventions at the time.
> 95% of our technological jumps and innovation throughout history have happened within the last 100 years.
Where did you get this percentage from? How do you compare technological jumps and innovation of the last 100 years to the ones that happened in the Tang dynasty or even the Roman Empire?
> They have 1 billion people
1.38 billion people. That is 1 billion people plus the US population. Not a small difference.
> Everything has to be government approved > Go through miles of bureaucracy (or straight up corruption/bribes)
It's a bit more nuanced and dynamic than that. For example, it takes 5 days to register a business online as a foreigner in Beijing now. Over a year ago it could take anywhere between 1 month to a year. Things change fast.
> China ranks 100th on the corruption index released by transparency.org
In the West we are obsessed with China's corruption, pollution, inequality, etc. However we forget that India, is more corrupt, more polluted and more unequal than China. Not that these are a huge problem in China. China is changing quicker than any country in the world, it has a long-term view and most of these, to but it bluntly, racist stereotypes, are changing rapidly. When you look at China you cannot look at it with a fixed mindset.
> their society isn't set up for individuality and creativity
To paint 1.38 billion people as the same is ridiculous. Post 80s/90s are nothing like their parents and grandparents. Post 00s are another order of magnitude different.
> But what comes out of China? What product, computer program or device is China known for?
It has only been 40 years ago since around 90% of China's population lived in poverty as peasants in the countryside. How can you expect a country to innovate and create such products when this was only 40 years ago? Give it time
> but what exactly did they accomplish within those 5000 years? Not much.
Maybe they don't sound like much to you, but the invention of gunpowder, papermaking, printing, the compass, mechanical clock, iron and steel smelting, etc were major inventions at the time.
> 95% of our technological jumps and innovation throughout history have happened within the last 100 years.
Where did you get this percentage from? How do you compare technological jumps and innovation of the last 100 years to the ones that happened in the Tang dynasty or even the Roman Empire?
> They have 1 billion people
1.38 billion people. That is 1 billion people plus the US population. Not a small difference.
> Everything has to be government approved > Go through miles of bureaucracy (or straight up corruption/bribes)
It's a bit more nuanced and dynamic than that. For example, it takes 5 days to register a business online as a foreigner in Beijing now. Over a year ago it could take anywhere between 1 month to a year. Things change fast.
> China ranks 100th on the corruption index released by transparency.org
In the West we are obsessed with China's corruption, pollution, inequality, etc. However we forget that India, is more corrupt, more polluted and more unequal than China. Not that these are a huge problem in China. China is changing quicker than any country in the world, it has a long-term view and most of these, to but it bluntly, racist stereotypes, are changing rapidly. When you look at China you cannot look at it with a fixed mindset.
> their society isn't set up for individuality and creativity
To paint 1.38 billion people as the same is ridiculous. Post 80s/90s are nothing like their parents and grandparents. Post 00s are another order of magnitude different.
> But what comes out of China? What product, computer program or device is China known for?
It has only been 40 years ago since around 90% of China's population lived in poverty as peasants in the countryside. How can you expect a country to innovate and create such products when this was only 40 years ago? Give it time
> Regurgitated nonsense that cannot be considered anything other than dogma.
It's a simple statement of fact with minimal subjective opinion on my part, as evidenced by the fact that you babble a gamut of excuses instead of answering my questions. Let's see:
> gunpowder, papermaking, printing, the compass, mechanical clock, iron and steel smelting, etc were major inventions at the time.
A drop in the ocean. I can list similar revolutionary inventions by just about any culture. Again, if after 5000+ years, that's all China can brag about, I wouldn't be bragging. A truly intellectual country, a country where people are free to pursue their own creativity/interests without fear of taboo or censorship can produce orders of magnitude more innovation. See: 1700s-1900s USA. How this is even arguable is beyond me.
> Where did you get this percentage from? How do you compare technological jumps and innovation of the last 100 years to the ones that happened in the Tang dynasty or even the Roman Empire?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/innovati...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_invention...
Another non-arguable point. No matter what objective metric you want to use, the 1900s-2000s will win out. Nobody debates it, not scientists, not historians, nobody. You're deluding yourself if you can't even concede that point, and are probably more brainwashed then I originally believed.
> In the West we are obsessed with China's corruption, pollution, inequality, etc. However we forget that India, is more corrupt, more polluted and more unequal than China.
India isn't bullying its neighbors, engaging in imperialism, building military bases outside its borders, nor is it the second largest economy which is continuing to grow. Your attempt at a deflection is exactly that; a deflection. A poor one at that. India doesn't pollute as much as China, it pollutes 4 times less in fact. And India is LESS corrupt than China. See here: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
> To paint 1.38 billion people as the same is ridiculous.
You misunderstood my point. It's the government I am painting. The government has total control. Its controls has lead to China's current culture. I'm not pointing at the people, I'm pointing at the government.
> It has only been 40 years ago since around 90% of China's population lived in poverty as peasants in the countryside. How can you expect a country to innovate and create such products when this was only 40 years ago? Give it time
What about all the other countries who have no problem with innovating despite having less than a fraction of the wealth, GDP, and people as China? S. Korea was in a WORSE position than China, but look at it now. Innovation coming out the yinyang.
I guess my overall point here is that capitalism >>> communism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not lumping socialism in with communism -- I actually prefer a social democracy. A capitalistic economy/system with extremely strong social safety nets (like universal healthcare, gauranteed income, etc). I just don't like China's absolute control it has and I believe it will eventually be their downfall. When someone has total control, they're bound to make a mistake. We are, after all, human. We're fallible creatures by nature.
It's a simple statement of fact with minimal subjective opinion on my part, as evidenced by the fact that you babble a gamut of excuses instead of answering my questions. Let's see:
> gunpowder, papermaking, printing, the compass, mechanical clock, iron and steel smelting, etc were major inventions at the time.
A drop in the ocean. I can list similar revolutionary inventions by just about any culture. Again, if after 5000+ years, that's all China can brag about, I wouldn't be bragging. A truly intellectual country, a country where people are free to pursue their own creativity/interests without fear of taboo or censorship can produce orders of magnitude more innovation. See: 1700s-1900s USA. How this is even arguable is beyond me.
> Where did you get this percentage from? How do you compare technological jumps and innovation of the last 100 years to the ones that happened in the Tang dynasty or even the Roman Empire?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/innovati...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_historic_invention...
Another non-arguable point. No matter what objective metric you want to use, the 1900s-2000s will win out. Nobody debates it, not scientists, not historians, nobody. You're deluding yourself if you can't even concede that point, and are probably more brainwashed then I originally believed.
> In the West we are obsessed with China's corruption, pollution, inequality, etc. However we forget that India, is more corrupt, more polluted and more unequal than China.
India isn't bullying its neighbors, engaging in imperialism, building military bases outside its borders, nor is it the second largest economy which is continuing to grow. Your attempt at a deflection is exactly that; a deflection. A poor one at that. India doesn't pollute as much as China, it pollutes 4 times less in fact. And India is LESS corrupt than China. See here: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
> To paint 1.38 billion people as the same is ridiculous.
You misunderstood my point. It's the government I am painting. The government has total control. Its controls has lead to China's current culture. I'm not pointing at the people, I'm pointing at the government.
> It has only been 40 years ago since around 90% of China's population lived in poverty as peasants in the countryside. How can you expect a country to innovate and create such products when this was only 40 years ago? Give it time
What about all the other countries who have no problem with innovating despite having less than a fraction of the wealth, GDP, and people as China? S. Korea was in a WORSE position than China, but look at it now. Innovation coming out the yinyang.
I guess my overall point here is that capitalism >>> communism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not lumping socialism in with communism -- I actually prefer a social democracy. A capitalistic economy/system with extremely strong social safety nets (like universal healthcare, gauranteed income, etc). I just don't like China's absolute control it has and I believe it will eventually be their downfall. When someone has total control, they're bound to make a mistake. We are, after all, human. We're fallible creatures by nature.
Weren't people saying the same thing about the Japanese 30 years ago?
I think 30 years ago such talk would have mostly targeted Koreans. By then Japanese companies were fairly well-regarded (having had their own bumpy starts in previous decades). If anything I recall the perception in the '80s being that the Japanese were too good and would take over western economies.
Yes they did.
It's true if you're behind the state of the art you copy whoever is out in front. Because there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. Once you catch up, though, you start doing your own R&D because it makes sense to do so. That's what the Japanese did, that's what the Koreans did, and that's what the Chinese will do when they feel they've learned everything they can from manufacturers in other countries.
It's going to take awhile, though. Chinese companies are having problems filling slots at the very top of the high tech skill ladder. A relative of mine works for a company that moved an optics manufacturing operation from China to Switzerland for cost reasons. The particular expertise they needed is rare in China, and people who have it can write their own ticket.
It's true if you're behind the state of the art you copy whoever is out in front. Because there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. Once you catch up, though, you start doing your own R&D because it makes sense to do so. That's what the Japanese did, that's what the Koreans did, and that's what the Chinese will do when they feel they've learned everything they can from manufacturers in other countries.
It's going to take awhile, though. Chinese companies are having problems filling slots at the very top of the high tech skill ladder. A relative of mine works for a company that moved an optics manufacturing operation from China to Switzerland for cost reasons. The particular expertise they needed is rare in China, and people who have it can write their own ticket.
This is completely nonsense. Japan did not commit mass espionage and IP theft.
Copying? Reverse-engineering? Sure, what country doesn't do that? That's the baseline. China is doing something completely different and on an entirely different level. The sheer volume and amount of IP theft and espionage they engage in is jaw-dropping. Whether they're using useful idiots/nationalists to steal the space shuttle plans, or running their hacker groups targeting corporate/governmental entities 24/7/365, it's moronic to equate that to Japan in the 70s/80s.
Again, Japan wasn't known for their espionage efforts because they engaged in so little in comparison with everyone else. Hell, Russia was the bigger threat in the 80s thanks to the cold war. Japan was a complete non-factor. Japan had a growing economy that people were scared would supplant the U.S but that's where the similarities end. I'm befuddled how this nonsense is allowed to stand here on hackernews. It's reddit level garbage.
Copying? Reverse-engineering? Sure, what country doesn't do that? That's the baseline. China is doing something completely different and on an entirely different level. The sheer volume and amount of IP theft and espionage they engage in is jaw-dropping. Whether they're using useful idiots/nationalists to steal the space shuttle plans, or running their hacker groups targeting corporate/governmental entities 24/7/365, it's moronic to equate that to Japan in the 70s/80s.
Again, Japan wasn't known for their espionage efforts because they engaged in so little in comparison with everyone else. Hell, Russia was the bigger threat in the 80s thanks to the cold war. Japan was a complete non-factor. Japan had a growing economy that people were scared would supplant the U.S but that's where the similarities end. I'm befuddled how this nonsense is allowed to stand here on hackernews. It's reddit level garbage.
>This is completely nonsense. Japan did not commit mass espionage and IP theft.
"Espionage"? I looked back through my post and didn't see that word anywhere.
>Copying? Reverse-engineering? Sure, what country doesn't do that?
Yes... and that was the point.
>I'm befuddled how this nonsense is allowed to stand here on hackernews. It's reddit level garbage.
Yes... yes it is.
"Espionage"? I looked back through my post and didn't see that word anywhere.
>Copying? Reverse-engineering? Sure, what country doesn't do that?
Yes... and that was the point.
>I'm befuddled how this nonsense is allowed to stand here on hackernews. It's reddit level garbage.
Yes... yes it is.
You compared China of today to Japan of the 80s. That is laughable garbage, my comment was to show how moronic that thought process is.
Two things: One, it's not moronic at all. Modern China and 1980s Japan are very much in a similar economic position. And two, your comment did nothing to challenge that assertion.
Not even close. You can't be serious. China and Japan are nothing alike and any comparisons would be entirely irrelevant. For starters, Japan is a capitalistic economy with a democratic government. That alone is enough complexity to make any china >> japan comparison invalid. But just for a cherry on top; Japan 30 years ago wasn't known for excessive espionage and IP theft. Sure, all countries do it but China has taken IP theft to the next level -- their entire economy is practically based on it. Tell me, when was the last time you bought a knock-off from Japan? 30 years ago, knock-offs didn't come from Japan, they came from Singapore, Indonesia, Cambodia, China, Laos and a few other poor SE asian countries. But not Japan.
Sorry as another commenter pointed out, 30 years ago was a bit too late, add another 10 years. 40 years ago Japanese TVs and cars were complete knockoffs. They did the same stuff China is doing today. "Partnerships" and then suddenly suspiciously similar designs.
> China and Japan are nothing alike and any comparisons would be entirely irrelevant
My point isn't that China will follow the same steps as Japan. My point is that you couldn't predict Japan's trajectory - first people said they made crap knockoffs and exploited American free trade deals to dump prices, then when they started innovating, everyone said they were going to take over the world, and then suddenly Japan stagnated.
My only prediction is that China's future is just as uncertain, and any predictions are completely pulled out of anyone's ass.
> China and Japan are nothing alike and any comparisons would be entirely irrelevant
My point isn't that China will follow the same steps as Japan. My point is that you couldn't predict Japan's trajectory - first people said they made crap knockoffs and exploited American free trade deals to dump prices, then when they started innovating, everyone said they were going to take over the world, and then suddenly Japan stagnated.
My only prediction is that China's future is just as uncertain, and any predictions are completely pulled out of anyone's ass.
> Innovation requires creativity, critical thinking, outside the box thinking, etc etc etc... All things which China's PRC sees as a threat to their power so they squash it down
Look up the latest thread on the American education system. You'll find a large proportion of the comments claim that the same thing has been going on in America ever since education was socialized.
I live in Japan. By any outside measure, this country has zero critical or out of the box thinking, and has a complete groupthink culture. And yet it's been a major source of progress. I wouldn't count out human nature. Their biggest threat would be brain drain, but the US hates immigrants these days, which really plays in their favor.
Look up the latest thread on the American education system. You'll find a large proportion of the comments claim that the same thing has been going on in America ever since education was socialized.
I live in Japan. By any outside measure, this country has zero critical or out of the box thinking, and has a complete groupthink culture. And yet it's been a major source of progress. I wouldn't count out human nature. Their biggest threat would be brain drain, but the US hates immigrants these days, which really plays in their favor.
I think the only strong argument in that article is that no one wants to ship the materials to China, only to have to ship them back. The only thing that China can offer is better manufacturing, which at present it does not have.
I think the argument goes that the main reason manufacturing moved overseas was because of cheaper labor. When robots take over, that advantage disappears. It's not that China can't make robots, it's that they don't have as big an advantage over other countries anymore.
They've traded one advantage for another. Now that they're doing most of the world's large-scale manufacturing, they have the manufacturing expertise. That's a huge advantage that's not accounted for in the article.
The Chinese can certainly learn how to do things but it takes time and can be a head ache for customers. If you can bare with that and the financial impact they will eventually get there.
A problem I've had dealing with Chinese Factories (last 15 years) is that you never really get to the point where your relationship becomes a partnership. They will always try to to get more out of you and you have to be careful when asking for better pricing because they might agree but quality will suffer and they will not hesitate to cut corners.
There is also the issue of financially awarding people in the factories for good cooperation ;) but I suppose that is a given to insure things run smoothly.
A problem I've had dealing with Chinese Factories (last 15 years) is that you never really get to the point where your relationship becomes a partnership. They will always try to to get more out of you and you have to be careful when asking for better pricing because they might agree but quality will suffer and they will not hesitate to cut corners.
There is also the issue of financially awarding people in the factories for good cooperation ;) but I suppose that is a given to insure things run smoothly.
But is that really surprising? Of course they don't view it as a partnership: it isn't and they know it. China provides you with cheap manufacturing/labor while you fund their development of the infrastructure necessary to take your business from you at the end of the transaction. It should be no surprise that they're taking you for as much of a ride as they can until then. It's smart business on their part, not so smart on ours.
You're not wrong but that is why the company is planning to end all relationships with China and start production in Mexico. When Mexican production is up to speed and perfect the rug will come out from under our Chinese factories.
I have a feeling they are not going to be very happy.
I have a feeling they are not going to be very happy.
> What's our competitive advantage then?
Probably selling Chinese made goods on Amazon? Or maybe Pokemon Go? Since Bezos bought Washington Post, it really went berserk in my opinion.
Probably selling Chinese made goods on Amazon? Or maybe Pokemon Go? Since Bezos bought Washington Post, it really went berserk in my opinion.
"Advanced manufacturing requires management and communication skills and the ability to operate complex information-based factories" is meaningless consultant jargon. It would have been better to explain exactly what about advanced manufacturing makes it so special that it requires 'management' and 'communication' skills that the managers and workers in non-advanced factories apparently lack. Meanwhile, "ability to operate complex information-based factories" is almost a tautology. Maybe talk about industrial IOT, or what specialized skills are necessary to efficiently operate a factory full of robots, or _something_?
MBAs pretending they're special snowflakes rather than a waste of money.
They have resources, land and an interest in local manufacturing. Chinese software engineers are good enough for Baidu (and have big names like Ng to help them get up to speed).
Even in America, we recognize that Chinese (and other asian cultures) are often better at a wide variety of academic subjects.
Their great firewall and isolationism forced them to build their own software and it appears to work well.
I'm convinced that some percentage of their enormous population can work in engineering as well or better than our engineers.
Don't underestimate China.
Even in America, we recognize that Chinese (and other asian cultures) are often better at a wide variety of academic subjects.
Their great firewall and isolationism forced them to build their own software and it appears to work well.
I'm convinced that some percentage of their enormous population can work in engineering as well or better than our engineers.
Don't underestimate China.
I would consider myself a China skeptic but it definitely doesn't help anyone to blanket say the US/West is better or China is inferior. China does certain things extremely well at scale and I have little doubt that some of the most important companies of the next decades will be fully Chinese.
There are other nuances that may give China different disadvantages - some which may turn out to be ultimately meaningless.
What are the longer term consequences of Chinese wanting to leave China vs people of all countries trying to get to the US/West?
What are the consequences of China's demographic problems, structural debt, potential ethnic strife, other geo-political problem? Will this inhibit long term capital creation in China?
Japan's growth miracle put it at the front of global innovation for a while, but it came to an end. For a while Americans were really concerned about Japan taking over the world. It is possible that the incredible things China does will, at the end of the day, help them tolerate some of the negatives yet fail to thrive. What 2040+ looks like I think no one can predict, because much of the outcome will be divided between central government choices and random external global events.
There are other nuances that may give China different disadvantages - some which may turn out to be ultimately meaningless.
What are the longer term consequences of Chinese wanting to leave China vs people of all countries trying to get to the US/West?
What are the consequences of China's demographic problems, structural debt, potential ethnic strife, other geo-political problem? Will this inhibit long term capital creation in China?
Japan's growth miracle put it at the front of global innovation for a while, but it came to an end. For a while Americans were really concerned about Japan taking over the world. It is possible that the incredible things China does will, at the end of the day, help them tolerate some of the negatives yet fail to thrive. What 2040+ looks like I think no one can predict, because much of the outcome will be divided between central government choices and random external global events.
Japan is especially apt comparison. All Asian countries have huge cultural problems. The Japanese were very good at mass producing supply lines. A few people do the important job and a million drones watch blinking lights on a machine. When their economy had to shift services (which was accelerated by software) they failed miserably.
I won't go into too much detail but there are fundamental differences in how people in the west and people in Asia communicate information. In the west, it is the speaker's responsibility to make himself understood. In China, it is the other way around. It might seem like a very minute detail or inconsequential but things like these are what shape societies.
I won't go into too much detail but there are fundamental differences in how people in the west and people in Asia communicate information. In the west, it is the speaker's responsibility to make himself understood. In China, it is the other way around. It might seem like a very minute detail or inconsequential but things like these are what shape societies.
> I won't go into too much detail but there are fundamental differences in how people in the west and people in Asia communicate information. In the west, it is the speaker's responsibility to make himself understood. In China, it is the other way around.
Do you know where I can find some details on these differences in communication style?
Do you know where I can find some details on these differences in communication style?
Japan is also very different from China (yes really). It has a tiny population, no history of anti-intellectualism and a distinct culture.
Many Nobel prize winners have been Chinese, only one was a citizen of the PRC when they did the work/received the award. China's problem isn't it's people, but it's crazily dysfunctional government that wastes it's tremendous human capital.
> Many Nobel prize winners have been Chinese, only one was a citizen of the PRC when they did the work/received the award
Is that statement supposed to inform me about the shortcomings of the PRC, or those of the Nobel prize? I can't tell.
Is that statement supposed to inform me about the shortcomings of the PRC, or those of the Nobel prize? I can't tell.
It is supposed to inform you of the achievement of the Chinese people, and not to conflate them with the Chinese government.
> Even in America, we recognize that Chinese (and other asian cultures) are often better at a wide variety of academic subjects.
That sounds a lot like that Asian stereotype. Excelling in school and excelling in research are two different things.
That sounds a lot like that Asian stereotype. Excelling in school and excelling in research are two different things.
Only if we apply the stereotype to all Asian individuals. In general Asians comprise a larger portion of American academics than the Asian American population indicates and Asian students perform highly across the world.
The obvious problem with China is that it oppressed or threw out it's previous generations of academics, but they have the means and will to recover after several generations.
The obvious problem with China is that it oppressed or threw out it's previous generations of academics, but they have the means and will to recover after several generations.
Wadwha is not denigrating China's potential or the top 1% of their engineers (like those hired by Baidu). His point is that the average BS in engineering from China is significantly inferior to the average BS in engineering from a developed country. This has been widely reported by others, and it reflects and presages continuing problems inherent in the ability of China's central planning approach (quantity >> quality) in building a future economy that can compete after its wage advantages fade and its (real) GDP slows to resemble that of other mature / developed economies.
The article's main point is valid. When you automate manufacturing, you no longer compete on wages. Advantage devolves to cost of raw materials, power, and transportation. No single nation can win that game, not even if China's ruling party spends a trillion yuan building out their infrastructure. An automated factory can be built anywhere and operated there at the same cost as anywhere else. The final remaining advantage then is location. Thus future manufacturing will migrate and become increasingly local, placed as close to the consumer as possible. Inevitably, any attempt to evolve China's manufacturing by employing automation is destined to end in the same commodification that automation always produces.
The article's main point is valid. When you automate manufacturing, you no longer compete on wages. Advantage devolves to cost of raw materials, power, and transportation. No single nation can win that game, not even if China's ruling party spends a trillion yuan building out their infrastructure. An automated factory can be built anywhere and operated there at the same cost as anywhere else. The final remaining advantage then is location. Thus future manufacturing will migrate and become increasingly local, placed as close to the consumer as possible. Inevitably, any attempt to evolve China's manufacturing by employing automation is destined to end in the same commodification that automation always produces.
The conclusion may be somewhat of a logical fallacy; distribution will be local to cheap materials and depend heavily on tax codes. Shipping the end product isn't a huge cost.
A main point in his argument was that they couldn't engineer robotics as well as the US due to poor education. I very sincerely doubt this. With the size of the Chinese population, we can afford to look at their top engineers and compare them to ours. Averages mean very little in this case.
A main point in his argument was that they couldn't engineer robotics as well as the US due to poor education. I very sincerely doubt this. With the size of the Chinese population, we can afford to look at their top engineers and compare them to ours. Averages mean very little in this case.
OK, so let's say that a Chinese company moves its stuff to the US.
As a former toolmaker, (you can guess why) I have to say "why would they do that?" They would have to invest in training for people to be toolmakers, millwrights, etc. - the trades closely related to engineering (toolmakers do both design and machining, for example) that have gone stale in this country because there are no jobs and no apprenticeships for people to learn them. These are the skills needed to make tools for the assembly lines. And we don't have them any more. You need someone on the shop floor to debug the tooling and that person is still in China.
All the skill is now in China. It's not coming back. So neither is the manufacturing.
If you have a A.T. Cross pen, please chuck it in the ocean.
Yes, I'm pessimistic and angry. Because I saw an entire industry get gutted just so a few at the top can have more.
As a former toolmaker, (you can guess why) I have to say "why would they do that?" They would have to invest in training for people to be toolmakers, millwrights, etc. - the trades closely related to engineering (toolmakers do both design and machining, for example) that have gone stale in this country because there are no jobs and no apprenticeships for people to learn them. These are the skills needed to make tools for the assembly lines. And we don't have them any more. You need someone on the shop floor to debug the tooling and that person is still in China.
All the skill is now in China. It's not coming back. So neither is the manufacturing.
If you have a A.T. Cross pen, please chuck it in the ocean.
Yes, I'm pessimistic and angry. Because I saw an entire industry get gutted just so a few at the top can have more.
Isn't this article just another sign of western/US based interests feeling like they might have already lost the race ?
It feels far more like a 'feelgood' article to prevent panic and to reinforce propaganda of western superiority for the masses, I just can't view it as a structured argument...
The article is by Vivek Wadhwa [1]. One quote, which doesn't quite make sense to me:
"Even though China is graduating far more than 1 million engineers every year, the quality of their education is so poor that they are not employable in technical professions."
Not even one of them is employable?
The author is clearly knowledgeable, so I wonder if this is an editing error.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Wadhwa
"Even though China is graduating far more than 1 million engineers every year, the quality of their education is so poor that they are not employable in technical professions."
Not even one of them is employable?
The author is clearly knowledgeable, so I wonder if this is an editing error.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Wadhwa
The only accurate prediction he's ever made is that Groupon would collapse
It would be reasonable to say a small percentage is employable or are globally competitive. Many tier 3 schools have CS programs that are completely bogus.
That statement is clearly not true.
And what is worse is it is apparently from one of his own studies!
And what is worse is it is apparently from one of his own studies!
America doesn't need to ship electronics components over to China for manufacturing (into larger products). Those components are already made in Asia, and they have raw materials too.
I believe it really boils down to having a large enough middle class to afford advanced manufactured products. If those products don't require labor to manufacture, then who will earn enough to buy them?
I believe it really boils down to having a large enough middle class to afford advanced manufactured products. If those products don't require labor to manufacture, then who will earn enough to buy them?
Keep Dreaming.
China has made it a national priority to provide better standard of living to their people then the West.
..With rising salaries, labor unrest, environmental devastation and intellectual property theft, China is no longer an attractive place..
How are these things bad ? China has their own class of capitalists now - they no longer need wall street to finance their projects.
China may have bumpy roadblocks - but at the scale they operate - financially, manpower and political will. It sort of doesn't matter. Its like a elephant worrying about what an ant thinks.
Any issue that china faces - they seem to figure out how to overcome it. In the EU we cannot even figure out how to get our currency right - even though modern finance started here. China made all the right decisions when it comes to Keynesian economics.
And sure they have a lot of debt - but the losers are the banks who are lending them money. Who is going to knock on China's door to ask for their money back ?
China can afford to waste 1 million of their own engineers to just beat Airbus. That is the scale at which they operate. Just like how Stalin was able to screw up so many times.
I have meet a lot of Chinese students - and if they were good at English and didn't grew up with the great firewall. Silicon Valley wouldn't prolly exist. Software is the only industry where I have seen American and Indian be better than the Chinese - but its a very anecdotal observation.
You do not have to do a lot of analysis - just listen to a few episodes of Dan Carlin's hardcore history.
For most of history China dominated economically and technologically. Just because Europeans had better war technology ( due to the fact that europeans were do divided ) were we able to dominate for a few hundred years.
We are going back to what normal looks like.
Edit:
I am not some chinese shill, my personal opinion is china should be punished for crushing other countries through unfair trade practices.
The free market doesn't work if there are companies that have the backing of a state with 1.3 billion people !
China would probably dominate even without the massive financial backing of their state banks. But the aggressive nature of their expansion is worrying.
American's are still protected - you should ask the peripheral countries about the effect of the rise of China to their economies ( Vietnam, etc ) why do you think Obama is trying to push the TPP ?
China also worries me because they are showing that democracy doesn't matter, when it comes to wealth creation.
China has made it a national priority to provide better standard of living to their people then the West.
..With rising salaries, labor unrest, environmental devastation and intellectual property theft, China is no longer an attractive place..
How are these things bad ? China has their own class of capitalists now - they no longer need wall street to finance their projects.
China may have bumpy roadblocks - but at the scale they operate - financially, manpower and political will. It sort of doesn't matter. Its like a elephant worrying about what an ant thinks.
Any issue that china faces - they seem to figure out how to overcome it. In the EU we cannot even figure out how to get our currency right - even though modern finance started here. China made all the right decisions when it comes to Keynesian economics.
And sure they have a lot of debt - but the losers are the banks who are lending them money. Who is going to knock on China's door to ask for their money back ?
China can afford to waste 1 million of their own engineers to just beat Airbus. That is the scale at which they operate. Just like how Stalin was able to screw up so many times.
I have meet a lot of Chinese students - and if they were good at English and didn't grew up with the great firewall. Silicon Valley wouldn't prolly exist. Software is the only industry where I have seen American and Indian be better than the Chinese - but its a very anecdotal observation.
You do not have to do a lot of analysis - just listen to a few episodes of Dan Carlin's hardcore history.
For most of history China dominated economically and technologically. Just because Europeans had better war technology ( due to the fact that europeans were do divided ) were we able to dominate for a few hundred years.
We are going back to what normal looks like.
Edit:
I am not some chinese shill, my personal opinion is china should be punished for crushing other countries through unfair trade practices.
The free market doesn't work if there are companies that have the backing of a state with 1.3 billion people !
China would probably dominate even without the massive financial backing of their state banks. But the aggressive nature of their expansion is worrying.
American's are still protected - you should ask the peripheral countries about the effect of the rise of China to their economies ( Vietnam, etc ) why do you think Obama is trying to push the TPP ?
China also worries me because they are showing that democracy doesn't matter, when it comes to wealth creation.
Well, if they made it their priority, it surely will happen.
"Any issue that china faces - they seem to figure out how to overcome it."
Apart from running a democratic and open society.
Apart from running a democratic and open society.
It does not seem like an issue to them. At least, not for their industry. Englandof 1700s was not an open and democratic society either, but it lead the industrial revolution.
Very true, but you're overlooking the fact that England of the 1700s was in the 1700s.
History is a pretty local thing. The ideas of democracy and freedom (these are two different, often contradictory things) seem ti be pervasive in Western Europe or North America. This does not mean they are pervasive, or desired, or even understood everywhere in the world, despite the "civilized West"'s attempts at propagating these ideas.
Chinese government has a pretty tight grip on the nation's information sources, and has a very significant political and military power. Democracy has no chance to be exported there, as it was exported e.g. to Iraq and Afghanistan (rather unsuccessfully).
Chinese government makes a lot of efforts to keep the political system of China under control, without Western-style democracy (and probably any other). It also makes a lot of efforts to keep China producing and selling a lot of stuff, and becoming better and better at it. It's rather successful on both accounts.
There are a few examples of countries becoming wild economic successes under quite undemocratic regimes: South Korea and Singapore spring to mind. But both are not Communist (or former Communist, since the Chinese seem to have abolished much of their previous communism). Maybe this is why the didn't look so suspicious to the Western public.
Chinese government has a pretty tight grip on the nation's information sources, and has a very significant political and military power. Democracy has no chance to be exported there, as it was exported e.g. to Iraq and Afghanistan (rather unsuccessfully).
Chinese government makes a lot of efforts to keep the political system of China under control, without Western-style democracy (and probably any other). It also makes a lot of efforts to keep China producing and selling a lot of stuff, and becoming better and better at it. It's rather successful on both accounts.
There are a few examples of countries becoming wild economic successes under quite undemocratic regimes: South Korea and Singapore spring to mind. But both are not Communist (or former Communist, since the Chinese seem to have abolished much of their previous communism). Maybe this is why the didn't look so suspicious to the Western public.
A funny thing is when I was talking to a lot of friends in China recently, while they like america in general, they believe the Chinese system is superior to the western "democracy". Do not get me wrong, they blame the Chinese government for many things rather fiercely at the same time.
I somehow feel like they are overly optimistic but could not find any proof to refute their point (talking about the current US election clearly did not help...). They are mostly upper middle class who worth more than me. So I guess they may be biased? However the taxi drivers seem to have the same view.
An anecdote: none of them want to immigrate (at least to US) and their only major concern seems to be the air quality. Since they can buy everything else from overseas anyway.
I somehow feel like they are overly optimistic but could not find any proof to refute their point (talking about the current US election clearly did not help...). They are mostly upper middle class who worth more than me. So I guess they may be biased? However the taxi drivers seem to have the same view.
An anecdote: none of them want to immigrate (at least to US) and their only major concern seems to be the air quality. Since they can buy everything else from overseas anyway.
>An anecdote: none of them want to immigrate (at least to US)
I think your sample is skewed. Chinese people from all social classes are immigrating to the US at record rates. The US gets about 25% of all Chinese emigrants each year, a number that's been growing not decreasing. China recently overtook Mexico as the top source for new immigrants in the US.
Look at the number of Chinese students, the number of H-1Bs, and the number of Chinese green card applications for evidence of middle class highly educated immigration.
For less educated immigration, visit any Chinese restaurant in any backwater town in the country. You'll find that the front of house is staffed by an endless supply of new immigrants.
I think your sample is skewed. Chinese people from all social classes are immigrating to the US at record rates. The US gets about 25% of all Chinese emigrants each year, a number that's been growing not decreasing. China recently overtook Mexico as the top source for new immigrants in the US.
Look at the number of Chinese students, the number of H-1Bs, and the number of Chinese green card applications for evidence of middle class highly educated immigration.
For less educated immigration, visit any Chinese restaurant in any backwater town in the country. You'll find that the front of house is staffed by an endless supply of new immigrants.
My sample is definitely skewed, since it is just like a dozen of upper middle class friends. However, your argument may be flawed as well :)
It is possible that Chinese immigrants are on the rise, but it is not like a Chinese person can easily immigrate to US, legally or not. Comparing the number of Chinese and Mexican is a bit silly, because of the "undocumented".
The number of Chinese students is meaningless as not every student wants or can stay. The number of H-1b may mean something but my feeling is that Chinese are getting less in recent years. Do you have actual data? The green card applications is more direct evidence, but some real data showing the trend would be useful.
Anyway, I think if there is no pacific in the middle and there is no wall at the border. At least 100 million Chinese people would love to move to US...
It is possible that Chinese immigrants are on the rise, but it is not like a Chinese person can easily immigrate to US, legally or not. Comparing the number of Chinese and Mexican is a bit silly, because of the "undocumented".
The number of Chinese students is meaningless as not every student wants or can stay. The number of H-1b may mean something but my feeling is that Chinese are getting less in recent years. Do you have actual data? The green card applications is more direct evidence, but some real data showing the trend would be useful.
Anyway, I think if there is no pacific in the middle and there is no wall at the border. At least 100 million Chinese people would love to move to US...
That only goes to show that for people with money, citizenship becomes a choice and you get a market of countries that are in competition.
Countries compete in many ways and form of government is just one and might not even be the deciding factor.
This might become a problem for China in the long term but I don't think it's certain.
Countries compete in many ways and form of government is just one and might not even be the deciding factor.
This might become a problem for China in the long term but I don't think it's certain.
In the end every form of government is democractic, simply because it's not possible to maintain a stable government over a population that is not satisfied to some degree, you get revolutions otherwise and this is how democracy or at least regime changes happen.
Democracy makes sense because governments make mistakes and those need to be dealt with. Democracy is able to deal with that very nicely.
At the moment the Chinese government does a very good job and have the benefit of pretty much everyone else in the world who matters being highly interested in seeing China succeed. As longs that doesn't change - and I find it very hard to imagine a scenario where it does - China won't become democratic.
Democracy makes sense because governments make mistakes and those need to be dealt with. Democracy is able to deal with that very nicely.
At the moment the Chinese government does a very good job and have the benefit of pretty much everyone else in the world who matters being highly interested in seeing China succeed. As longs that doesn't change - and I find it very hard to imagine a scenario where it does - China won't become democratic.
You have it backwards - they see "a democratic and open society" as a problem they have overcome.
USSR was destroyed by stupid government. I'm not sure about western countries, but democracy might have some tools to prevent stupid presidents to do heavy damage (I'm not sure how exactly, but whatever). So the question is, whether Chinese society was able to build a tools to prevent stupid government to ruin everything. After all, Chinese was terrible poor country not so long ago and for many years. How are they going not to repeat the same mistakes?
Western world believes in democracy (at least some people do), but it's not generally accepted truth. I think that democracy is stupid, though I don't have anything better to offer.
Western world believes in democracy (at least some people do), but it's not generally accepted truth. I think that democracy is stupid, though I don't have anything better to offer.
> I'm not sure about western countries, but democracy might have some tools to prevent stupid presidents to do heavy damage
Democracy also self-contains the tools to undo itself, as long as someone can convince the majority that it's not only a good idea, but prudent to do so. That is why the transition from democracy to fascism and outright dictatorship can happen quickly.
Democracy also self-contains the tools to undo itself, as long as someone can convince the majority that it's not only a good idea, but prudent to do so. That is why the transition from democracy to fascism and outright dictatorship can happen quickly.
That's why militant democracy[1] exists.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie
I think that democracy is stupid, though I don't have anything better to offer
It was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst system of government, apart from every other system that has ever been tried.
It was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst system of government, apart from every other system that has ever been tried.
I think Culture-style benign dictatorship is a better system than democracy, but hadn't been practised yet. As currently practised, democracy tends towards bureaucracy and short-term thinking (projects small enough to fit in a term).
> As currently practised, democracy tends towards bureaucracy and short-term thinking (projects small enough to fit in a term).
Not to mention that it can devolve into something that's more of a democracy in name only.
Take the upcoming US elections where the choices are, on one hand, a blowhard who wants to build a massive wall to keep out Mexican immigrants, and on the other a corrupt-to-the-core corporate puppet.
This isn't much of a real democracy when parties become so big that more competent people have no chance of running for office without the support of said parties.
Not to mention that it can devolve into something that's more of a democracy in name only.
Take the upcoming US elections where the choices are, on one hand, a blowhard who wants to build a massive wall to keep out Mexican immigrants, and on the other a corrupt-to-the-core corporate puppet.
This isn't much of a real democracy when parties become so big that more competent people have no chance of running for office without the support of said parties.
That's just the US's voting system in action. Unfortunately, changing a voting system is almost impossible Because the people with the power to change it are the ones that benefit from the status quo. Britain came really close recently with the Liberals though, but I think that was an exceptional situation and the incumbents managed to convince the populace that a more proportional voting system was a waste of money.
And we have yet to see how they plan to: deal with an aging population(due to the 1 kid rule), deal with the health effects of all the air pollution, and clean up their environment.
And as their population becomes more tech savvy, and presumably figures out how to bypass the firewall and thus the censorship and propaganda, they might very well have to figure out a democratic and open society.
deal with an aging population(due to the 1 kid rule)
First they gotta deal with the gender imbalance problem - literally 10s of millions of young men for whom there is no possibility of finding a partner, because the one child policy led to many female babies being discarded. Take a bunch of angry young men who see no future for themselves and you get what's happening now in Afghanistan...
First they gotta deal with the gender imbalance problem - literally 10s of millions of young men for whom there is no possibility of finding a partner, because the one child policy led to many female babies being discarded. Take a bunch of angry young men who see no future for themselves and you get what's happening now in Afghanistan...
good point, tongue in cheek response here:
easy, that's a propaganda problem. tell them the enemy stole our women or something like that :P
easy, that's a propaganda problem. tell them the enemy stole our women or something like that :P
They are working on that too, albeit much slower, but they recently started opening up all the historical archives from previously censored eras.
>China has made it a national priority to provide better standard of living to their people then the West.
this is patently false. the official Chinese government line is that the current western standard of living is not scalable. their reasons include that it is ecologically unsustainable to generate the kind of consumption and waste that the west does. this is not due to their strong sense of ecological stewardship but because they know it will be difficult for them to reach the US' GDP per capita, and they are trying to manage the expectations of their citizens.
this is patently false. the official Chinese government line is that the current western standard of living is not scalable. their reasons include that it is ecologically unsustainable to generate the kind of consumption and waste that the west does. this is not due to their strong sense of ecological stewardship but because they know it will be difficult for them to reach the US' GDP per capita, and they are trying to manage the expectations of their citizens.
The CCP's mandate is completely based on constant improvement of living standard
In Europe and US - if living standard decrease from one generation to the next - the worst thing that can happen is we vote in Donald Trump for 4 years.
In china the situation is much more scary as there are no system in place to channel that anger and frustration in a controlled way. The only direction to move is up.
the CCP of-course realizes that they need to invest heavily in renewable, and that is exactly what they are doing. The expectation will be there - and their govt is dedicated to meeting them - with renewable energy is preferable.
In Europe and US - if living standard decrease from one generation to the next - the worst thing that can happen is we vote in Donald Trump for 4 years.
In china the situation is much more scary as there are no system in place to channel that anger and frustration in a controlled way. The only direction to move is up.
the CCP of-course realizes that they need to invest heavily in renewable, and that is exactly what they are doing. The expectation will be there - and their govt is dedicated to meeting them - with renewable energy is preferable.
Well they aren't wrong.
This is important because ethical, sustainable manufacturing is foundational to a sustainable economy. I don't think any single entity - country, company, person should "own" manufacturing. Some of the other comments touch on this, but manufacturing has far broader implications for the domestic middle class (whatever country you're in) as well as for the environment.
Manufacturing jobs as we remember them - Roseanne at the plastic utensil factory, nor as they are - assembling iPhones, are not next-gen manufacturing jobs. Those jobs will be designing, building and maintaining automated industrial productivity.
I think manufacturing gets overlooked because it is not relatable and not sexy. However, it is incredibly cool. There is a significant opportunity for innovation with tremendous social and environmental impact.
Manufacturing jobs as we remember them - Roseanne at the plastic utensil factory, nor as they are - assembling iPhones, are not next-gen manufacturing jobs. Those jobs will be designing, building and maintaining automated industrial productivity.
I think manufacturing gets overlooked because it is not relatable and not sexy. However, it is incredibly cool. There is a significant opportunity for innovation with tremendous social and environmental impact.
For many years additive manufacturing printers have been getting better, but slowly. In most cases, the printing process has leaned heavily on people and software for addition of part supports and other part modifications, and a good 3D manufacturing team will include experienced personnel; it's not easy to replicate.
While large companies typically mass produce, there are certain parts that cannot be made via traditional manufacturing processes. They've been using additive manufacturing typically for tooling and higher-end products in these cases.
Also, there is a trend towards customization, faster iterations of part design, and using a variety of part materials within each additive manufactured part that each have their own qualities.
But, printer manufacturers have seen opportunity in making the printing process faster and easier to use, which over time will reduce the need for all of the people involved in the process. Already some of the latest printers are autogenerating supports and making it simple to remove those supports. That's just a small part of the process, but it is a significant step.
So, while traditional mass manufacturing companies will be hurting in a decade or two, eventually printers will no longer require humans to be involved at all. Then, any company with enough money to buy a large number of printers could manufacture 3D parts at mass scale.
I think it is premature to say that China won't eventually own next-generation manufacturing eventually, but it won't in the next few decades unless they drop everything and get on it.
While large companies typically mass produce, there are certain parts that cannot be made via traditional manufacturing processes. They've been using additive manufacturing typically for tooling and higher-end products in these cases.
Also, there is a trend towards customization, faster iterations of part design, and using a variety of part materials within each additive manufactured part that each have their own qualities.
But, printer manufacturers have seen opportunity in making the printing process faster and easier to use, which over time will reduce the need for all of the people involved in the process. Already some of the latest printers are autogenerating supports and making it simple to remove those supports. That's just a small part of the process, but it is a significant step.
So, while traditional mass manufacturing companies will be hurting in a decade or two, eventually printers will no longer require humans to be involved at all. Then, any company with enough money to buy a large number of printers could manufacture 3D parts at mass scale.
I think it is premature to say that China won't eventually own next-generation manufacturing eventually, but it won't in the next few decades unless they drop everything and get on it.
Sounds like this article is bunk from the comments, but I have simple answer for why they won't own it, or at least why it won't even matter: Automation. With automation eating labor to the core, the supply chain (cheap as it is, though time in the supply chain costs money too) will be the next thing to be eaten. I think we're going to see a much more distributed model of manufacturing in the future and it will involve precious little labor.
This is actually precisely the point of the article
The US offshored so much of its manufacturing, I have to wonder if there is sufficient critical mass of knowledge, people, infrastructure, etc. left to effectively automate. Or if American firms will instead buy solutions from Chinese automation companies, and the US ends up ceding the large-scale (or even decentralized distributed-scale) automated manufacturing future to China as well. This could leave the US performing very high-end manufacturing requiring lots of labor input, but what happens when what the Chinese firms learned with automation in the lower-end manufacturing is used to encroach on this high-end?
Bunnie Huang pointed out the very ecosystem of lots of manufacturers in close physical proximity to each in China other enables them to try different ideas, failing fast and cheaply (the dual SIM feature came out of such freewheeling experimentation). Can the US automate if it has gaps in its own manufacturing capabilities having let it atrophy for so many decades, or are US business leaders assuming a future where they are always purchasing "lower-end" manufactured parts from the next China (and if they are, how are they ensuring those "lower-end" manufacturers don't climb up the value ladder and take their market from them)?
Bunnie Huang pointed out the very ecosystem of lots of manufacturers in close physical proximity to each in China other enables them to try different ideas, failing fast and cheaply (the dual SIM feature came out of such freewheeling experimentation). Can the US automate if it has gaps in its own manufacturing capabilities having let it atrophy for so many decades, or are US business leaders assuming a future where they are always purchasing "lower-end" manufactured parts from the next China (and if they are, how are they ensuring those "lower-end" manufacturers don't climb up the value ladder and take their market from them)?
It's an interesting hypothesis, but it presumes all engineering for manufacturing is done in China, which is usually not the case. It was my impression most manufacturing in China is "offshored" by American firms. I have no idea what the actual stats are though, so it'd be tough to say one way or another.
I'm not sure you can compare an existing factory in China with a non-existing factory in upstate New York. The two have very different environments to contend with. In China, they already have supply chains, investors, and customers. Whereas an non-existent or proposed factory has to set each of these up and still contend with competition with the existing factories. The only real advantage a factory that's local (like one in upstate New York) is they'll be closest to the demand for that region. So, they can attenuate their output when demand rises/lowers. But as a whole this is only a potential benefit in terms of the ecological impact (reduced over production for some products). And I say potential because some areas are better manufacturing certain products like it's cheaper to extract aluminium British Columbia where they have cheap power due to hydroelectric power than say S. America where you find the aluminium ore rich soils. Getting around infrastructure limitations won't be as easy as simply pouring more concrete. Some places just will never be able to compete and I think this is something some folks need to address in such articles.
Yes, robots do the same in China as they do in the U.S.A., BUT you still have to pay a human to turn on the lights and start or stop the robots. In the U.S.A. it will cost you 4x more I am guessing for this person.
They are not just sticking to manufacturing. China holds the number one spot in Supercomputers as of June 2016 with Sunway TaihuLight, which displaced another Chinese supercomputer Tianhe-2. The Sunway also uses no U.S.A. hardware. [1]
China also just announced a 64-core Arm processor Phytium that if confirmed "will be the most powerful Arm server chip on the planet." [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer
[2] https://www.top500.org/news/chinese-chipmaker-unveils-speedy...
They are not just sticking to manufacturing. China holds the number one spot in Supercomputers as of June 2016 with Sunway TaihuLight, which displaced another Chinese supercomputer Tianhe-2. The Sunway also uses no U.S.A. hardware. [1]
China also just announced a 64-core Arm processor Phytium that if confirmed "will be the most powerful Arm server chip on the planet." [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer
[2] https://www.top500.org/news/chinese-chipmaker-unveils-speedy...
I agree with the headline, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning. Manufacturing is increasingly robotic, however it's also increasingly mobile, and scalable. In the not so distant future I think various forms of 3D printing will take over manufacturing. You'll have your small home units and large almost entirely automated industrial units building more complex objects. Why would this happen? Labor costs are beginning to rise in China. As are costs in other parts of the world. As costs rise, seems like the distance becomes a huge factor. Manufacture locally, distribute locally. Now the question becomes how to employ the worlds populace....
Also related/interesting: https://www.ted.com/talks/olivier_scalabre_the_next_manufact...
Also related/interesting: https://www.ted.com/talks/olivier_scalabre_the_next_manufact...
This is a rather poorly written article. The main premise seems to be that manufacturing is being automated, China is automating manufacturing by buying robots not made in China, and since robots have the same productivity everywhere, it doesn't make sense to manufacture in China since it can be done back in the US.
While saving labor costs is an important reason for moving manufacturing to China, there are other equally important factors as well. Access to a labor pool of workers that do higher level designing that cannot be automated, much lower local taxes (and even subsidies), proximity to other manufacturing centers already in China are just some of the other important reasons.
I wish journalists would do a little more research before writing inane articles with sensationalist headlines.
While saving labor costs is an important reason for moving manufacturing to China, there are other equally important factors as well. Access to a labor pool of workers that do higher level designing that cannot be automated, much lower local taxes (and even subsidies), proximity to other manufacturing centers already in China are just some of the other important reasons.
I wish journalists would do a little more research before writing inane articles with sensationalist headlines.
The question really boils down to: will people be buying goods from Chinese companies or US companies. If the former, then manufacturing will likely be in China. If the US, then it doesn't make sense to outsource automated labor to China just to ship it all back to the US while simultaneously risking IP theft. Chinese consumers will likely buy Chinese made goods or foreign luxury brands. In the US people are more likely to buy US branded goods.
[deleted]
No mention if China's other headache, the fractious legal system. Things like land title, equity rights or non-expropriation (government's taking/buying private assets) are centuries old doctrine in the west. Those looking to invest billions into 'next-gen' manufacturing facilities want legal stability, stability measurable in decades. China isn't there yet.
"Things like land title, equity rights or non-expropriation (government's taking/buying private assets) are centuries old doctrine in the west. Those looking to invest billions into 'next-gen' manufacturing facilities want legal stability, stability measurable in decades. China isn't there yet."
There are stories in the news from time to time about situations where you have an old woman who's been living in the same place for decades (see the movie "Up" for a fictional example), and she's the last person on the land to accept payment for the land and move. The builders - either a company or the government, wind up having to build around. The way they do it is very passive-aggressive, but there /is/ law over there when it comes to land ownership. It's not all state property.
Further, do you really "own" your land here in the US? Nobody I know does. You either pay rent (taxes) to the government on the land or the land is taken from you.
There is no such thing as totally private land ownership.
WRT manufacturing plants:
Every new company in China has to be majority Chinese-owned. The government has smartened up over the decades and left behind the "everything is owned by the state, even your toothbrush" to something in between total private ownership and public ownership. So they have rules like the above which anger US investors, but are geared to the interests of the Chinese public.
They take care of their own. We used to do that here in the US, but it's all become "fuck you, the free market fixes everything!!!" wharrgarble.
There are stories in the news from time to time about situations where you have an old woman who's been living in the same place for decades (see the movie "Up" for a fictional example), and she's the last person on the land to accept payment for the land and move. The builders - either a company or the government, wind up having to build around. The way they do it is very passive-aggressive, but there /is/ law over there when it comes to land ownership. It's not all state property.
Further, do you really "own" your land here in the US? Nobody I know does. You either pay rent (taxes) to the government on the land or the land is taken from you.
There is no such thing as totally private land ownership.
WRT manufacturing plants:
Every new company in China has to be majority Chinese-owned. The government has smartened up over the decades and left behind the "everything is owned by the state, even your toothbrush" to something in between total private ownership and public ownership. So they have rules like the above which anger US investors, but are geared to the interests of the Chinese public.
They take care of their own. We used to do that here in the US, but it's all become "fuck you, the free market fixes everything!!!" wharrgarble.
>> Further, do you really "own" your land here in the US? Nobody I know does. You either pay rent (taxes) to the government on the land or the land is taken from you.
Don't get legal theories from fringe websites. That line of thinking is a stone's throw from "US citizens don't have to pay taxes" and "Driver's licences are unconstitutional". Such websites are what got Wesley Snipes in so much trouble. Read some actual legal texts at your local law library
Property ownership is a thing in the US (and canada, france, the UK and the rest of the western world). The government cannot take your land without full value compensation, even if you don't pay your taxes. They can condemn your land and sell it to pay your debt, giving you all that is left, but that is a long legal process where the rights of the landowner are given much consideration and ample opportunity. They are not a landlord reclaiming property.
Don't get legal theories from fringe websites. That line of thinking is a stone's throw from "US citizens don't have to pay taxes" and "Driver's licences are unconstitutional". Such websites are what got Wesley Snipes in so much trouble. Read some actual legal texts at your local law library
Property ownership is a thing in the US (and canada, france, the UK and the rest of the western world). The government cannot take your land without full value compensation, even if you don't pay your taxes. They can condemn your land and sell it to pay your debt, giving you all that is left, but that is a long legal process where the rights of the landowner are given much consideration and ample opportunity. They are not a landlord reclaiming property.
Big question is if the manufacturing moves back to US...will China allow US imports. This will be interesting, every country might start their manufacturing operations and I believe the big winner will be the one manufacturing robots :)
I agree that with automation production will become more and more local but the article assumes most consumption will happen in the US.
the author has completely ignored the fact that Chinese skill improves over the years, Americans grow, but Chinese grow faster.
"China is now low-cost, high-quality" --Jack Ma
[deleted]
Same old American rhetoric. "Oh, the chinese are only good at copying. They can never create". Yawn.
I've seen the same stupid crap said about the japanese, koreans, etc., over the past 40 years. The story remains the same: Corporate US management sits on its hands and watches the rest of the world innovate. Because thinking is too hard and investing in R&D and capital equipment is too expensive.
Have to enter email to read? Forget it.
Works fine here with no email, no login - not a subscriber.
When I click to read it redirects me to subscribe.washingtonpost.com. Probably because I've read to many WaPo articles recently... Opening the link in incognito mode works.
With rising salaries, labor unrest, environmental devastation and intellectual property theft, China is no longer an attractive place;
This article, like many by the same author, might be dubbed 'wrongtroversial'. That is, it creates controversy by saying something wrong.
Wrongtroversy is far more scalable. It's very hard to discover something that is: (a) true (b) not widely accepted (c) not recently mentioned by other journalists. But if you drop condition (a), you'll never run out of ideas.
The most effective wrongtroversial articles assert something that's wrong for several different reasons. People will then proceed to argue with each other about which reason is more important, generating follow-on controversy.
Credit to @pg for coining this term.