News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
Total Factor Productivity, it's a fairly common abbreviation
For some reasons, jai hind crowd sure loves that shit, huh? You must have loved how it rolls off your tongue.
Silly as fuck, smh.
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
National accounting is "silly as fuck"?
Well, no, but really, yes. It may be a concept that has some merit when used properly by trained economists, but the pop versions are just empty rhetorical devices used to advance agendas.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
No we don't agree. Your premise is that China needs to attract foreign talent, as a general statement. I said that maybe in niche roles, but in general, roles in China will fall into 2 categories: education/skill intensive and labor intensive. The former has security concerns and the latter can easily be filled be local Chinese people who need jobs. Your example, it only works if China is in need of low level toaster engineers and needs to divert aeronautical engineers to make toasters. But actually, China graduates almost more STEM majors than it can use and many find it challenging to find a satisfactory job. In this situation, foreigners just add to the burden.
From your paper:
"This paper argues that the same individuals who left their home countries for better lifestyles abroad are now reversing the brain drain, transforming it into "brain circulation" as they return home to establish business relationships or to start new companies while maintaining their social and professional ties to the United States. When foreign-educated venture capitalists invest in their home countries, they transfer first-hand knowledge of the financial institutions of the new economy to peripheral regions. These individuals, often among the earliest returnees, also typically serve as advisers to domestic policymakers who are anxious to promote technology growth. As experienced engineers and managers return home, either temporarily or permanently, they bring the worldviews and identities that grow out of their shared professional and educational experiences. These cross-regional technical communities have the potential to j ump-start local entrepreneurship, and they succeed over the long term to the extent that they build alliances with technical professionals, businesses, and policymakers in their home countries."
"For both, brain circulation with an overseas community in Silicon Valley has been an important factor in attracting foreign investment."
"The circulation of world-class engineering and entrepreneurial talent between the United States, Taiwan, and China is altering the economic trajectories of all three."
You just cited a paper that says exactly what I'm saying and opposite of what you're saying. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't even read a paper?
For those non-sensitive medium-low tier roles, China can easily call on its legions of fresh grads who need jobs.
The paper you cited says they are making a major impact transforming local businesses and infusing cutting edge ideas.
Well, at the higher level, we need Chinese because we need to trust them and at these levels, we need Chinese because those Chinese grads need work. China has a surplus, not a deficit of people who can fill this role.
I don't know which force is primary; probably Western nations spilling their guts in China trying to earn money is a big factor too, but forces of convergence wrought by sea turtles in high tech industries returning to China is doubtlessly something that Washington wants to impede.
Most (86%) students and people who go to the US for education return. Those other people you mention have very low end labor jobs in China and really make no impact. On the other hand, for this Chinese labor deficit that the US can take up, it must pay with a knowledge and education deficit back to China. And in the modern world, we all know that knowledge/education is the transforming factor, not grunt work. So it's not symmetric and it favors China.
LOL Don't make me dig up a ton of articles about the US nabbing some Chinese fella at the airport with some protected info/data. You don't need me to do that, right? You know how pointless your 3 cases claim is, right?
LOL Do you know Qian Xuesen? He studied in the US.
Yeah, that weaselly sentence is a no cheddar. Like I said, in most cases, the position is either too sensitive to entrust a foreigner or too simple to require a foreigner. There could be niche examples, but the general picture is NOT that China needs to attract foreign talent migration en masse as you suggest.
100%-86%=14%. That's the second time on this one number. Can't read an article, can't do math. There's very little left for you to demonstrate competence on.
Point is, you said the China needs to attract foreign talent as a general driving force and you cannot substantiate it. You also claimed that brain circulation is both negligible and asymmetrical in favor to the US; your own source proves that it is a very substantial transforming force and I showed that it is asymmetrical in favor of China instead.
Can you guys not entertain the guy who has already been exposed for typical 1 dimensional thinking?
Indians are bitter because 50% or so of their population shit on streets and China has hundreds of high tech companies these days. They can't even develop a Midea level company or make a simple quadcopter toy. Leave them alone. They've nothing better to do than make big statements online and lie about things like J-11 is "ripped" apart by Gripen in exercises even though the exact opposite is true for all realistic purposes (BVR and WVR compared with J-10C BVR performance against Gripen in subsequent exercises).
These Jai Hinds have had enough of being real world losers and had enough of shitting around where they eat they are shitting all over the internet. Just let them be. This thread has had two pages of entertaining a troll who is obviously wrong and insists on viewing one snapshot of a relatively trivial issue (brain drain) that has long been in reverse.
Indians are bitter because 50% or so of their population shit on streets and China has hundreds of high tech companies these days. They can't even develop a Midea level company or make a simple quadcopter toy. Leave them alone. They've nothing better to do than make big statements online and lie about things like J-11 is "ripped" apart by Gripen in exercises even though the exact opposite is true for all realistic purposes (BVR and WVR compared with J-10C BVR performance against Gripen in subsequent exercises).
These Jai Hinds have had enough of being real world losers and had enough of shitting around where they eat they are shitting all over the internet. Just let them be. This thread has had two pages of entertaining a troll who is obviously wrong and insists on viewing one snapshot of a relatively trivial issue (brain drain) that has long been in reverse.
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
I never said "need". My premise is that attracting foreign talent is beneficial for China and that attracting immigration is a policy that should be pursued.
Stop confusing technical level as being one-to-one with difficulty. We know that there's a talent mismatch in China given the insanely high wages that many engineers in China earn. There's a clear allocative inefficiency and adding more immigrants would help solve visible labor shortages in specific sectors. Not to mention that increasing migration and technology adaption increases aggregate supply and from there, that increases employment. Increasing supply-side factors in high-tech industries has significant employment multipliers for local communities, including in nontech sectors. Foreigners, depending on sector can either help or hurt. If the foreigners are contributing tech, in a pure macro sense, they are benefiting.
You read the rest of the paper. It's a bunch of quantifications about "oh wait, maybe it's not that large" where it mentions effect sizes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That's...not large.
Again, there's a clear mismatch when some salaries for freshly-minted graduates are multiples times higher than the median wage and you also have frictional unemployment. This suggests allocation and supply-side issues, not demand-side/labor market side and thus immigration would be beneficial. And a clear market signal that there are talent shortages in China? Chinese corporates have substantial foreign R&D operations and Chinese SMEs have talent attraction problems.
There wasn't much migration to China from 1978-201X and the value of FDI itself is also not even statistically strong. It's beneficial for sure but the magnitude isn't well known. If in-migration was in fact bad, why would Washington want to impede migrant flow to China? Shouldn't Washington be celebrating for all the dis-employment effects and national security risks? Oh wait, it isn't because migration is good.
Meh, no. All the information they learn in the US, they could learn back in China. You still have ~100K (600K total Chinese students) students that end up staying in foreign countries, most of which stay and work in a said foreign country. So yeah, the flows benefit the student's host country. You get market services that can also be received in China (for cash) and the receiving country either keeps the cash and/or the cash and the talent.
Actually, no. The DOJ was absolutely insane about the China Initiative and they brought every case to trial they thought they could win. They got a hot total of 3 cases in a year. How much technology are 3 people going to get? The 4th amendment functionally doesn't apply at national airports, ofc they are going to try as hard as they can get to find something which is even more remarkable. Even with the 4th amendment functionally waived, the DOJ could only get a hot total of 3 cases they thought they could litigate. Wow. Even cops that follow Terry can get more than 3 gun cases a day.
Okay? The US & Europe is already at the technological frontier and thus it's not particularly relevant. Not to mention that the student flow of OSINT isn't comparable to trade secrets. And in any case, China isn't at the tech frontier in most areas and even if China was a net migration recipient, it would naturally be from other EMs that aren't at the frontier, and developing Africa or Indonesia is beneficial to China.
Correct, en masse is ridiculous. Something like 100K foreign tech visas a year? That's reasonable
Never said it was necessary. I said it was beneficial. It has demographic benefits, it has macroeconomic through allocation and competition benefits, it has benefits for tech development
I claimed brain circulation is negligible and the rest of the article ends up quantifying that it is in fact, small. I said brain drain is favorable to the United States. You haven't shown anything that falsifies the point. There's plenty of research on foreigners starting businesses in the United States, having higher college attainment rates, etc. Immigration for example, keeps the US workforce growing as a simple mechanical measure and you have the metrics where immigration contributes an additional ~0.3% to growth p.a.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Nothing special except it costs $1500. Unitree's lowest model cost $2700. Boston Dynamic's dog cost as much as a Tesla and I believe it's only a lease. You don't get to own it but I guess it'll do more complicated dances.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
That's semantics. It's not different.
There is no large category for foreigners to fill. They can benefit but only in niche roles, such as getting an expert at this to bring up a company's efforts in one area. They certainly don't go make toasters and other household appliances to free up Chinese talent for aerospace as you suggested. They are put in niche specialty roles in parallel with preparing a Chinese guy to take over his role at the end of his contract. He's not a migrant or an immigrant to China; he's contracted to do a job, get paid, and leave.
Cite what you want me to read.
Of course some fresh grads will get paid more than the median wage; kids from GA Tech, Cal Tech, MIT, all come out of college with huge salaries. More skilled people get more pay; it doesn't mean anything in terms of immigration. And like I said, niche roles can be temporarily filled with foreign contractors but they are not immigrants.
Washington wants to stop the immigration of highly skilled sea turtles back to China for obvious reasons. Non-Chinese going to China for these roles are trusted by no one; China doesn't trust them but will contract them to complete a job while watching them and Washington doesn't trust them either because they could give everything they've got to China.
That's definitely not true; for example, in my field of biological sciences, each lab has its own specialty, not to mention each country. What you learn in this lab is unique and you could not learn it from most other labs even studying the same thing in the same country much less in a different country. What you said here is just ignorance with a stubborn imagination.
Yeah, but the 500K who go home go home with critical information to boost Chinese tech while those 100K stay in their host countries to use what they learned in that host country to work. The effect is much smaller for the host country. Everyone benefits but in a zero sum game, China benefits.