I remember it wrong
China wants them, the 14th FYP mentions talent migration
Yeah, but you also lose the investment on some of the lower skilled people (with BA/BS). Talent outflow is still bad and thus you still need policy measures to limit outflow and increase inflows
You sound like you're terrible with numbers. Yesterday you rounded China's 7.9% growth to 7% and today, you did 100%-86%=25%.
Is that talent migration of true foreigners or sea turtles? I have a feeling that it is the latter.
Yeah, talent outflow is bad, and to lose some low level talent is a small evil you trade of for the inflow of foreign expertise. You give 100 pieces of wood to a carpenter and you get 86 wooden sculptures back; the other 14 broke apart in the process; yeah it's bad you lost 14 pieces of wood but the 86 sculptures you got back are worth far more than the 100 peices of wood you gave up. Chinese students and scientists power the world; if they literally all went back home after their studies, they wouldn't be welcome anywhere anymore. It's a trade-off that's got to have something in it for the other side; you can't have everything and leave the other side with nothing or this simply won't last.
Doesn't matter. True foreigners and sea turtles are both beneficial and both should be encouraged.
Except no, it's you make an almost working wood sculpture and then give it to someone else and then maybe 10 years later, they give it back. You can take global talent without giving it out, the US does this and it pays good economic dividends. Whether Chinese students study is between them and their foreign university and is an exchange of services for capital
Not really. The expected loyalty is different. There is a very high probability that a foreigner from a country that is hostile to China can act to benefit his own country in terms of trade secrets and technologies when given the chance.
Except no to you. A BS or undergrad is hardly any scultpure; it's the base minimal expectation. When they come back in 10 years they are Masters and PhDs with a few years of working experience. Your sentence makes it sound like they went, got nothing out of it, then got returned. I don't know if you really don't understand or you are trying to sneak that bias here.
The US takes global talent, then pays for it in other ways. One, it loses tech back to the countries of origin of these students because they were in a transactional relationship with the US with no loyalty. (By the way, Chinese PhD students are paid to study in the US just like Americans.) Secondly, it loses talent back that it spent resources training. Lastly, these talents outcompete American talents for those educational spots, reducing home-grown upper level professionals who are much more likley to be patriotic to the US.
Okay? Corporates have internal loss prevention and access controls for this reason.
The brain circulation effects are obviously hard to quantify but are small given the various research done on new graduate contributions to technological development - they are large.
You seem to think employment and technology are zero-sum games. They aren't. Everyone benefits but the gains are asymmetric for the United States. It's not a political topic either. It's an exchange of labor for capital. That's it. The US has grown faster than the rest of the developed world for a while: there is no tech loss (it would inevitably diffuse no matter what) and there is no talent loss (corporates are voluntarily paying for training) but there is an increase in aggregate output.
Just because they are for that reason does not make them perfect or anywhere near. I would much rather use someone in my company whom I trust instead of putting 15 layers of digital eyes on a person who has access to tremendous amounts of sensitive data and conflicts of interest built into his DNA.
Are they small or are they large? Sentence doesn't make sense.
Normally they are not, but in this case where China and the US vie for the strongest nations, they are in a direct competition and everything is a zero sum game.
How did you calculate that? And if you believe that, why are you talking about net talent loss? It shouldn't matter if they are symmetrical.
You are forgetting the most critical part: in this exchange, education and knowledge flows to the Chinese side. What they create in their research is a small addition to human knowledge, which they understand and can bring back to China, but the most drastic effect is that a person who just graduated college came back as a person capable of doing pioneering research with real working experience and he was paid the whole time!
That's fine but irrelevent. China grows faster than the US.
This is not a logical conclusion from what you just said. Tech loss is what the US constantly complains about as China flies up the ladder and talent loss is the loss of students when you spent resources training into professionals. In terms of Chinese students, China may have a net loss of in terms of low level beginner talent with the US but it has a major surplus developed talent return with the US.
Yeah, but as long as it benefits China more, that's what we're looking for in a competition.
Most ENG projects don't involve nearly anything that sensitive and deemed export controls exist a topic.
Okay, great, that's not a problem.
Brain circulation effects are small. Immigration effects to the receiving country are large.
What if I told you there are more countries than China & the United States and thus China accepting migrants from not the United States is possible?
There's tons of micro-level data on migration.
Your seriously overestimating the value that "experience" brings vs. how much of engineering is just throwing the same set of techniques and slightly modifying parameters until shit works.
China grows faster because of capital formation, not because of TFP growth. Immigration targets TFP, not capital formation.
Tech loss is a post hoc cry of the United States. There's no empirical support for it and you see the immigration SMEs push against it
Yeah, so China should accept migrants & students from other countries
I don't know what ENG is but I'm not limiting this to any specific field. In all fields, foreigners are in general less trustworthy than Chinese people to China. If there are roles where this is little to no risk and the local Chinese talent is limited, foreigners can be used but in general, if nothing is sensitive and controlled, then it's not a critical area. We're talking more labor than education and China has the labor.
I need to see studies for that claim. Immigration effects should be great but much more linear. Having people receive top education and come back to inject the local industry with ideas is a force multiplier.
Then I would reply that I never specifically said that migrants from only the US were unacceptable. I said migrants from countries that are hostile to China, such as Canada, Australia, India, etc... Then there are countries that are neutral and migrants from those countries are better but still not ideal because their loyalties can still be bought more easily than Chinese.
That's not an answer. You claimed that the benefits are asymmetrical in favor of the US. How did you quantify it and what data are you using? And I know it's a gain for the US, but this means that you need to show that the gains for the US in labor are greater than the gains for China in training and information. And we know that China has used this method to leapfrog in technology.
I don't believe you. You sound like you are dumbing down an incredibly intelligent field because you don't understand it. The whole tech world vies for top experts; countries fear their semiconductor/lithography experts going to China. By your reasoning, it's just a numbers game of people trying different stuff. Experts shouldn't matter (much).
Chinese tech gets major boosters from foreign tech being integrated and foreign-educated engineers adding what they know to start China on a higher point. China doesn't reinvent the wheel on everything. This leapfrogging is critical for fast rising.
No tech loss is an unsupported cry by you on this forum.
There are concrete examples of it happening with some Chinese being caught and many not as they return to China with US data and illegal tech exports. SMEs push for it because they want short term benefit of hard intelligent workers. The US government is trying to stop Chinese students from coming to the US for STEM because they see the trends and the long term benefits favor China and have favored China, causing US tech to lose dominance and several areas. The problem is the immediate short term unwinding that would be caused by their shortage.
Yeah, no. If there are cases where security is not an issue, but I don't really see any. Either it requires a lot of training and knowledge, so security should be an issue, or if it doesn't and it's just about labor, then local Chinese can do it. Maybe there are niche examples but from what I see, this is the major rule, not the exception.
Engineering. I think we are in agreement here though. You still have security controls and deemed exports but even if its just labor, you still have allocative effects. Does a thermal engineer at a toaster company hold any national security relevant information? Obviously not but by them being their, you clear a spot for the limited amount of Chinese engineers to fill aerospace spots.
Brain circulation is highly, highly limited.
For most engineering work, national identity doesn't matter outside of getting the work done. Migrants from the US should be acceptable except for on technologies related to export controls.
It's fairly easily proxied just through TFP growth at around ~1% p.a. in the United States. Is capital formation of a few thousand returning migrants going to lead to that much TFP growth? Doubtful.
The tail-end people matter but yes, most engineering is monkeys throwing tried parameters at the wall and seeing what fits. It's why start-ups are galore in Silicon Valley.
Agreed, that is known as economic convergence but diaspora returnees are nowhere near the primary mechanisms of convergence.
Most Chinese migrants stay in the United States so even there, the gains are not symmetric.
LOL, the DOJ China Initiative could only bring a hot total of 3 espionage cases with the entire DOJ NSD working on it.
There are productivity and competition benefits as well as the fiscal/demographic benefits of immigration, even outside of the technology sectors.
Agreed, I never said China needs to be 16% foreign born.