Chinese Economics Thread

[manqiangrexue]

How a visa is worded and how it's implemented are two very different things, and countries all have many unwritten rules over their implementation. If the K-visa ends up letting in mostly mid-skilled, young, good-looking single women, would anyone here complain about it? (Not that I think this is a good idea.)

I think it's silly to debate how the visa is categorically right or wrong. Instead, focus on how to implement it to be great for China.

And I agree that we should act with confidence in welcoming some young professional foreigners living and working in China. We are in the Tang dynasty, not Qing after the opium wars.

This is exactly my point and I think you put it even clearer. All the visa does is present a pool of choice before China for us to decide whom we want to approve to enter our country. What education, skill, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, even particular looks, is all 100% up to us to choose from to better our nation. We can decide we didn't like any applicants and reject all applications if we want to. Why do people keep thinking that meeting the minimum stated requirements mean automatic acceptance and stampede of unwelcome people into China?

One of the funnest parts of looking for a tenant to rent a room to is the process of selecting the person whom you like the most. You don't write in the ad, "Looking for patriotic Chinese straight male, at least decent-looking with an affinity to drinking and singing to act as effective wingman at karaoke parties, must be chill to get along with the jive of the house. Show me your WeChat full of girls who like to party and your rent is negotiable. No pets unless in a glass tank in your room. People who are falun gong, libtards, Trump supporters, Hong Kong riot roaches, Chinese but think you're American, etc... need not apply." You'd be an idiot to write an ad like that but if that's what I'm looking for, I say, "Looking for a tenant/roommate for a house currently inhabited young professionals, owner is fluent in Mandarin so language is not a barrier," and let the applications flow in. If they're not what I'm looking for, I say, "Thanks for inquiring, Laquandra! I appreciate your interest and of course welcome your 3 pomeranians and 4 kids because we are a diverse and inclusive group! However, as much as I think you'd be a great fit, to be fair to all, I do have several other applicants ahead of you I need to interview in the order in which they applied. So I will keep you in mind and get right back to you when their interviews are concluded if the room is still available." Keep the ad up for weeks/months if necessary until the right person applies and take him with a bro handshake on the spot. 100% my choice, 100% impeccable ad. That's the difference between how a visa is written and how it's implemented.

 

[victoon]

In addition to what has been discussed. Two background articles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do think talent is a bit of a zero-sum. Even if we consider the K-visa on China is net neutral (pro because they bring fresh ideas and con because they take some jobs), it's a net negative for exporting countries. Yes, China's seaturles helped build China's initial tech industries. But I don't think other countries have the environment that someone working in China for a few years can go home to establish their own.

 

[manqiangrexue]

In addition to what has been discussed. Two background articles:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I do think talent is a bit of a zero-sum. Even if we consider the K-visa on China is net neutral (pro because they bring fresh ideas and con because they take some jobs), it's a net negative for exporting countries. Yes, China's seaturles helped build China's initial tech industries. But I don't think other countries have the environment that someone working in China for a few years can go home to establish their own.

Yes but it's a double-edged sword. Draining these talents is a pro for China in the sense that they deplete the pool for America and the EU, our competitors, but really only accept a small cream of the crop because we really don't need a large foreign diaspora in China nor do we want them to take jobs that we have actual local alternatives for, shooting up our youth unemployment. Just take the few we actually need without going so hard to spite others that we inflict serious self-injury with this blade. Self-preservation always before aggression.

 

[styx]

Fewer westerner young people fewer westerner expats in china, it's so simple.

 

[proelite]

2) In demand low-skilled workers and semi-skilled workers (ie caretakers for elderly, construction worker). These type of workers should only be allowed to stay on temporary basis, and be prohibited from bringing family or marrying a Chinese citizen.

Idk, healthy 7+/10 woman with BMI below 30 and at least 5'1" are welcome to marry Chinese men.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

1. Was China's poverty alleviation so absolute that we don't have enough rural workers to do these jobs anymore? I haven't been back for a while but that's just shocking, in some ways a victim of our own success.

While the rural areas may still have excess labor supply at the current time, we have to keep a few things in mind. Education levels have improved drastically over the past generation in rural areas, and the quality of life has also improved by leaps and bounds, even if income levels may still appear low. The number rural youth willing to work labor-intensive and physically exhausting jobs for a few extra yuan in urban areas (where there actual quality of life will markedly deteriorate, despite the increased nominal income) is bound to decline in the future. Additionally, there are many non-white collar jobs that both require some degree of skill and training and happen to be unpopular among the local populace, resulting in labor shortages (think plumbers earning 150k+/yr in the US). The most pressing example that comes to mind is elder care. In first tier cities in China, the cost of hiring a caretaker (not even full time) exceeds 10k RMB/month.

2. Absolutely, using machines to replace unskilled/semiskilled work while everyone is white collar or above is an ideal future.

Investment should be directed towards adopting and driving down the costs of automation as much as economically feasible. However, the feasibility and costs of automation varies greatly by type of job. Going back to the earlier example: a robot capable of caring for a 90-yr old is going to be a very expensive. Automation also is subject to diminishing returns: the costs of going from 0-80% automation is often cheaper than going from 80%-100%, so some humans (ideally in a higher-skilled higher-value capacity) are still required. For example, highway building is highly automated now in China, but workers are still required (albeit in much reduced numbers).

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

3. "prohibited from bringing family or marrying a Chinese citizen" That's gonna be a nasty one. That reminds me of when Israel was hiring Chinese workers and stipulated they could not marry a local. Not that I'd ever want to but it's pretty offensive, isn't it? And that was decades ago when the world was way less PC. Then some couple's gonna elope, take their wealth abroad and become the hero tale of the West LOL

It does sound bad indeed, but how else to address the residency issue? If residency is prohibited for temporary workers while marriage is allowed: temporary workers will become highly incentivized to marry locals.

Idk, healthy 7+/10 woman with BMI below 30 and at least 5'1" are welcome to marry Chinese men.

In theory that makes sense, but making exceptions for certain demographics (by gender, or even worse by race/ethnicity) is going to result in much condemnation and bad publicity. As discussed in the previous block: restricting marriage universally is already going to raise some eyebrows. Granting exceptions to certain demographics is just going to cause uproar.

 

[proelite]

In theory that makes sense, but making exceptions for certain demographics (by gender, or even worse by race/ethnicity) is going to result in much condemnation and bad publicity. As discussed in the previous block: restricting marriage universally is already going to raise some eyebrows. Granting exceptions to certain demographics is just going to cause uproar.

Just approve more visas for women. Simple.

 

[manqiangrexue]

It does sound bad indeed, but how else to address the residency issue? If residency is prohibited for temporary workers while marriage is allowed: temporary workers will become highly incentivized to marry locals.


In theory that makes sense, but making exceptions for certain demographics (by gender, or even worse by race/ethnicity) is going to result in much condemnation and bad publicity. As discussed in the previous block: restricting marriage universally is already going to raise some eyebrows. Granting exceptions to certain demographics is just going to cause uproar.

First of all, nothing is automatic; this is all approved or rejected on a case-by-case basis so marriage does not equate to residency. You can be married but your spouse may have to move out with you to your country or you may have to go long distance because an expired visa means you gotta go regardless of your marital status. However, if you apply, the government has the power to grant you residency if they see fit. This will also greatly reduce fake marriage scams.

Secondly, the intent has to be baked into the approval process. The type of people you let in will largely determine where they end up. Single poor men hired to do construction or pick up trash are going to end up going home at the end of their visas because they not going to be able to find anyone to marry. What woman wants to marry such a person? Same if you let in, say a fat older woman with a husband and kids in her own country who wants to work as a caretaker for the elderly for 2 years. She's taking her pay and going home to her family. BUT if you let in a 23 year old unmarried beautiful woman who wants to work as a waitress or maid, then the chances of her marrying her boss or some other dude who can take care of her are very high. You have to be aware of the likely outcomes when determining who gets what type of visa.

 

[victoon]

Yes but it's a double-edged sword. Draining these talents is a pro for China in the sense that they deplete the pool for America and the EU, our competitors, but really only accept a small cream of the crop because we really don't need a large foreign diaspora in China nor do we want them to take jobs that we have actual local alternatives for, shooting up our youth unemployment. Just take the few we actually need without going so hard to spite others that we inflict serious self-injury with this blade. Self-preservation always before aggression.

kind of a response to you, but also some random thoughts.

While I do think China can have a lot of control over who/how many to let in, making a decision on who/how many is much harder. Running a country means dealing with many factors with complex interactions with each other, and it's hard to predict the exact outcomes. I think we will need to rely a bit on faith and value judgment.

Both Elon Musk and Jensen Huang's parents are immigrants would have fit only the k-visa but not the R-visa. But they created companies that gave the US an enduring edge over China. The US let in a lot of people to have these two to change the world.

From our side, can a Chinese person do the work that Katherine (Katherine's journey to the east, BS from the US, and MS from China) was employed for? Certainly! But I think she has made and continues to make tremendous contributions to China (likely more than anyone on this forum!).

I can think of two reasons immigrants tend to be more successful, given the same degree and even GPA. 1) Self-selection on risk-taking and 2) being bi-cultural from immigration.

I think we can all agree that a degree is not a good predictor of how much a k-visa candidate will benefit China. It's also hard to measure some of the benefits of having foreign workers on the Chinese society in general. I think using rigid measures of GDP and birth rate in the past was a lesson that we shouldn't repeat. The only suggestion I can come up with here is using an interview process that doesn't give an immediate answer and having multiple interviewers to reduce bias (like a job interview).

A crossing the river by feeling the stone approach is probably the right approach again on this issue. Start small and expand over time as we see fit. It will take a while for all the parties (visa applicants, the Gov, employers, and the Chinese people) to iron it out. I don't think people on this forum have fundamental disagreements, mostly just on where the threshold should be.

Also, there is the issue of Permanent Residency, which currently has sky-high merit requirements. I have no doubt China would want to keep some of the k holders even if they don't meet that requirement. It will be a thorny issue as well.