Yes, what you are describing is productivity. Is it anywhere near 6.7x, especially for China as it exists in 2021? Doubt it though I'm willing to accept contradictory evidence on this.
It doesn't have to be 6.7x in 2021; it can be in 2005 when that ratio made sense. Now, the data skews towards China. And you are, once again, confusing scientific output with economic output.
Qian Xuesen's value can be calculated with the NPV of China's NIPA tables.
Don't try that bullcrap. Calculate the value of going from a non-nuclear to a nuclear power?
But I think you are proving my point. High-tech migration is good, actually.
No, that's
my point, that sea turtle return immigration is good. Qian is not a foreigner.
The contention is that Chinese students that study abroad, most of the PhD/MS stay abroad, and thus the benefits are asymmetric for the host country. If it's 6.7x to break even in the 2005-2015 cohort, it was probably even a higher requisite productivity return in the past (not to mention the money China spend on their undergraduate education).
They lifted Chinese science to quickly catch up with Western counterparts. You can't put a dollar sign on it.
Also, doubtful that Qian Xuesen isn't replaceable given that other materiel programs apart in the 1950s/1960s in China with some churning level of development.
Sure, no one is unreplaceable but it would take longer and possibly result in something less. I just showed you the benefit of this returning sea turtle and you tried to argue that he wasn't absolutely needed. You're slapping your own argument on want vs need that no one else was confused by except you.
Yes, tell me about this exquisite information that is only uniquely available in the United States but is widely taught at US state flagship universities.
Well, Mr. Know Nothing, every major university, be it in the US, UK, France, China, has its own experts as professors. These professors are one of a kind and each person can be the tip of the spear in his own right. MIT, GA Tech, CalTech, Tsinghua, Oxford, Peking University, etc... they all have certain distinguished professors that are generally good but specialize in some minute detail that makes the difference between good enough and best in the world. Just because your simple mind can't imagine such a degree of detail and specialization doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Nope. Two different series. *All Chinese students* and *PhD students* are not the same.
At least they overlap. 2005-2015 doesn't even overlap with a modern dataset and the lumping makes trend identification impossible.
2.5x was because I know China isn't the United States and thus the per capta level of migration needs to be smaller.
Ok so you just made it up based on nothing but your imagination.
China being for Chinese people isn't contradictory with immigration since immigration improves per capita income and productivity and thus makes life better for Chinese people.
Statement not accepted. Immigration can move these things either way and it can also dilute Chinese dominance in high tech sectors within China and present security risks.
Yes? Thank you for the definitions.
Then learn them and stop committing errors. No immigration of non-ethnic Chinese is encouraged, but contracting them for short term work can be done based on need.
Legally, they can cancel all the passports and refuse to renew them or the US can abuse the no-fly list or get some crackpot DA somewhere to issue an indictment. There are enough legal instruments to prevent someone from leaving if they want to The US is still receiving substantial migration from China. Harassment and racial profiling by government agents isn't new, lol. It's not evidence of anything.
eah, they can't legally do anything without either being destroyed by the Supreme Court for racism or looking to the whole world like the US lost its mind all over again under Biden.
Which is why visa issuance is still very high and the US naturalizes people from China? Most of the immigration backlog is administrative processing bullshit.
This is still happening because the US veneer of anti-racism and being immigrant friendly would collapse if the US just said all Chinese people aren't welcome. It would tear apart their own fabric and show the whole world that the US has lost it against China. The US is limiting Chinese STEM students, which shows you that this exchange is not in their favor.
Again, why not? It's beneficial for the economy and for the population structure and all security risks can be mitigated.
Again, because China is homogenous and wants to remain so.
No. It isn't. I'm excluding undergraduate students from this calculation because nothing unique is learned in undergraduate. It's still ~85% for all PhD students from China so each PhD that returns to China would need to be 6.7x as productive/valuable as those that stay for the zero-sum to break even.
It's still 85%? It's still the average of 2005 and 2015? What is it, 2010 now? You're never getting away with this so if you were even of average intellect, you should know to stop trying.
You seem to be fighting a few strawmen that
If I'm fighting strawmen, it's because your arguments are as empty as strawmen.
- Immigration is ipso facto bad (no)
Yes, reread this:
China is highly/densely populated, homogenous, would like to remain so, and has people who are intelligent enough to learn anything. Therefore, the use of contracted foreign instructors and specialists in temporary niche roles are fine, but their immigration is not beneficial to any of China's goals.
- There are no benefits from Chinese students overseas (my argument is that there are benefits to China but substantial costs as well and those don't always net out favorably towards China)
Your reading comprehension is to blame. I said they benefit the US but the ones that go home benefit Chinese science and tech development more.
