The technology sector only represents 9% of US GDP.
biotech less than 1.5%
, aerospace less than 2%
. In total, software/IT, biotech, aerospace constitutes less than 13% of US GDP, so you are wrong that is why US GDP per capita is high for a sectors that is not representative of broader US economy.
In contrast, private consumption as defined by private spending on goods/services/equipment constitute 70% of the US GDP
.
So 13% vs 70% of GDP, the numbers don't lie.
GDP is a collaborative measure of economic activity, encompassing all economic activities within a country. Every economy will have basic needs for things like transportation, housing, and shopping for groceries and other items. These are the activities all people will need, regardless of where they live. So, of course, sectors like retail, transportation, real estate will have a much bigger share of the economy. This is true for every country, whether it's a poor country like India or a rich country like the US.
But what makes a country a rich country and what makes a country poor? The difference comes from the primary industries each country has and the main products and services they export to the outside world. What do they do to make money from exporting to the outside world? That's what gives a country the money needed to import products and maintain the standard of living. The people involved in these industries form the main breadwinner of the country, so to speak.
For a country like the US, the main breadwinner of their economy is the high-tech sector. The main breadwinners are the engineers and scientists. So, what happens if they lose their jobs? They don't consume as much as before. They don't buy goods and houses. Which then also reduces other dependent sectors such as retail, real estate, and so on. Then, people working in those sectors also start to lose their jobs or get a cut in salaries. Then, these second group of people consume less. This becomes a cycle that reduces GDP per capita for the whole economy.
So, as a percentage, the high-tech sector may seem like a small contributor to the US economy. But they are the source of US prosperity; all the consumption comes from the money earned from it.
Similarly, if China can develop its own primary sector from low-end manufacturing to the high-tech sector, it will automatically raise people's income and subsequently their ability to consume more goods and services. Thus, those other dependent sectors such as retail, real estate, and others will also expand, boosting GDP growth even further.
There is no way 1.4 billion Chinese can emulate the wasteful private consumption habits of US consumers. There is no way 2 cars per household can exist in China, and the environment impact would be unsustainable in terms of CO2 emissions.
I think you did not understand my previous post. I mentioned how every resource will become more expensive in the future due to Chinese competition, and the US will not be able to sustain its current level of consumption. That means being forced to keep only one car instead of two, driving less due to high oil or energy prices.
In terms of CO2 emissions, there is no way China will consume less just to save the environment, even if they have more money, while rich countries maintain their level of emissions. There will be equality in this aspect as well.
You need to understand what the rise of China means; it means equality between the West and China in every way, whether it's money, consumption, CO2 emissions, how much traveling they do, or how much they consume. There will be equality in every aspect.
That equality can be achieved in two ways: China will take a larger share of the resources, and the West will have to reduce its consumption due to higher prices or lower income.
