How much uranium China has within the borders?
News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
Well at least we've discovered why you won't be getting a high salary increase anytime soon.
To go off a data point that is.. .first off... wrong. Lol
Plus its a measure of the entire population but we're now talking about a very specific population, so you cannot pull conclusions on something specific when your data (which is wrong, anyways) is a measure of a superset. On average the entire human population has one testicle. Are you going to claim that the male population has on average one testicle? After all, they're human!
Secondly, 29% of millenials quit their first job before the first year
and Gen Z is even more flighty.
"As for their decisions to quit before one year, 60 percent of the respondents said that they left for reasons regarding professional growth — there were elsewhere. Meanwhile, 16 percent felt like they could have been . That’s why reported in 2017 that millennials aren’t “job hopping;” rather, they’re “.” "
This was in 2017... well before covid caused a labor shortage.
The salary increase is probably a bit high, but again, covid labor shortage. You shouldn't jump ship for an increase of less than 25% anyways, on a regular year. Covid's been pushing number very, very high.
I'd talk about the Alabama thing too, but quite frankly you've already proved you literally know nothing about what you're talking about so uh, whatever. Keep it up, champ!
"Also, GDP per capita (nominal) doesn't lie." Lol. I like how you had to include nominal, because of course GDP (PPP) is higher in China. And of course nominal GDP per capita doesn't lie? Sure. Its just a number. What are you trying to get it to say? "Nominal wages follow closely." [Citation needed] Also why the focus on nominal values? When we've got like 5 different modifications (at least) just due to how bad nominal GDP is. You could've used GDP PPP per capita, the US is still higher for that value. But trying to use nominal values to make your point look good?
What a load of pseudo-economic bullshit.
Back to my point, for everyone else:
You cannot pull conclusions on something specific when your data is a measure of a superset.
You also cannot pull conclusions when the range and standard deviation of your data is high.
This was the point to my anecdotes and everything else, as a response to siegecrossbow. You especially cannot use bulk and generalized data for something that is so susceptible to manipulation, as you yourself has said " For strategic sectors where the Chinese government funnels in tons of cash..."
I have no problem believing that Chinese engineers and scientists make less than American counterparts on average, but the pay range and spread for US salaries is so large that I would never use it for comparison data anymore. If you want real, usable data you need to start digging down into specific populations for which you're interested in.
Last edited:
US gdp might even be fake/fudged:
I posted it before, and haven't really found anyone countering the claims in it.
And well, I would NOT be surprised if much of what was written in that article is real.
@mossen
The author's premise is correct, not because US intentionally goes out of its way to fudge GDP statistics, but because the same good or service costs more in the US than in China. If what you are after is a measure of the pure 'goods and services' produced by an economy in a year, nominal GDP is inaccurate for this very reason.
A simple way around this is to use PPP instead of nominal GDP. PPP accounts for inflation (something costing more in the US than in China) and currency exchange rates (China reports its GDP in yuan, which is then converted to USD for comparison - China also intentionally devalues the yuan, so once converted its nominal GDP in USD is accordingly deflated).
A good way to visualize it:
US produces one shirt in a year and sells it for $50. China produces two of the exact same shirts in a year and sells both for $20. US has the higher nominal GDP ($50>$40). China has the higher PPP (2 shirts>1 shirt). Which do you think is the more meaningful measure of the size and productivity of an economy? Hint: professional economists almost always work in PPP, not nominal terms.
Last edited:
As I've posted before, the CIA (in its World Factbook) expressly states that PPP is the only proper way to measure China's GDP as the RMB's value is set by fiat, not market forces.
the PPP multiplier is politically motivated IMO. Going by nominal, Taiwan is a typical high income but not very high income Asian country on par with South Korea, a little better than China or Malaysia. They have a PPP multiplier of about 2.1 while mainland China has multiplier of merely 1.5.
What are the indicators? Is Taiwan closer to South Korea or closer to Iceland, Sweden, etc? Is the GDP PPP multiplier closer to 1.5 or 2.1?
1.
2. claimed (lowest )
3.
This is why PPP is somewhat political. Turkey is even more egregious in its PPP calculations with an even higher PPP multiplier. I believe I've posted about that before.
Last edited:
broadsword
Brigadier
Worthy of a mention from me, not sure if worthy of a rebuttal from others. China, after all, has been the victim of massive propaganda. Why do their bidding even if unintentionally? If their comments are the Jai hind types like "China will colonize Mars by 2025", that's not so damaging, compared with something like "China will colonize SEA" or "China has the right to take all the fish in international waters", and nobody sqeaks a retort. Don't normalize arrogance among the Chinese.
Turkey is an excellent example of why PPP is a useless metric, but I wouldn't say it is politically motivated. Turkey has hardly been in the good graces of the US lately and besides the organisation responsible for releasing new PPP data is the World Bank, which is controlled by America. So their very rosy PPP metrics is just a function of the fact that PPP is flawed at the core.
Caplan wrote about it some years ago:
The Chinese themselves don't use the useless PPP metric. Look at the speeches of Xi Jinping or Li Keqiang. They all reference GDP per capita in nominal terms. China is still far behind the US in terms of how rich it is, and will likely remain that for many decades to come.
Of course, quality of life cannot only be measured in GDP per capita, but this discussion is not about such broader metrics. It was about wages specifically.
Sounds like a cope. Go to China's national statistics bureau's website and look at the average disposable income for China and then convert it into dollars. It's very low. Are you telling me that the Chinese themselves are manipulating their data? This conversation is silly.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
According to statistics the average Chinese household can't afford to buy a car yet China is the largest car market in the world. In China people can become billionaires without the government ever knowing of them but when they make too much money that they can't hide, that's when the government sees them and they get charged for tax evasion.