Joined: Sep 2015
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread
Part (1) of 3.
(04-22-2017 11:35 PM)Enigma Wrote: Most of the arguments for China revolved around "wow, look how big their population and gross GDP is!"
The core thrust of my main argument was actually aiming at a much more long term
and fundamental prospect, based on the persistence and sturdiness of the Han's racial substance and ethnic identity, its racial-evolutionary health and propagating-assimilating power, its high average IQ combined with the energy of its current national spirit. I haven't expounded these points sufficiently, since I figured it's a bit outside of the scope of thread (but if this is to be considered as The Master China Thread, then sure, I'll expound it at length). And while I have much to say on the subjects of its recent/current political-economic performances and prospects, such things are in the end only surface and ephemeral compared to its true fundamental, underlying strength. But since the topic at hand is whether China can attain superpower status within the foreseeable future, I'll address those subjects altogether.
1. There is much to agree with the points that Enigma has made. However my confidence in China's future remains high. My stance is that China, more likely than not, will attain superpower status. The specific time point is uncertain. My guess is that it would be somewhere within this century, and perhaps within my lifespan (if I live for another 50+ years).
One thing to keep in mind is that high GDP per capita is more of an indication of the quality of life of a country’s citizen, than the power and influence of the country itself. America have lower GDP per capita than a lot of country, but wield more power than them ever will.
Quote:In short, you have the second largest economy in the world hanging its hat on Lenovo and two mid-level smartphone manufacturers. That is not at all impressive.
Can you tell me at which stages of development that South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan had 300+ million people living on $2 a day?
I get your point, although I can't help pointing out that the population of all those countries combined wouldn't muster up to 300 million. 25% of their population would be more exact.
In some measures China has indeed underperformed compared to the economic miracles of Japan and South Korea. This was in part due to some strategical missteps of China's leadership, but also in part due to the fact that the difficulties that its leadership faced is much larger than that which Japan's and Korea's leaderships had to face. My argument is such underperformance does not mean China's potential is lower than that of those countries, but that it's actually higher, just not yet - and nowhere near- optimally realized.
2.2. Japan modernized way before China did. And although it was 'devastated' in WW2 and the two nuclear bombs, the damage was in comparison much smaller than what China suffered. Japan still has a highly developed framework and high-skilled human resources, whereas China's population was still predominantly peasants and its intellectual class was crushed by Mao and the Gang of Four's Cultural Revolution.
South Korea also opened its market before China did. Japan and SK's technological tradition is longer, more developed.
2.3. And because America 'took care' of Japan’s security, it could focus on developing its economy. Such is the upside of being America's ally (but that also has consequences, as we shall see). SK also heavily depended on America for protection, freeing its hand to engineer economic growth. Another benefit of being ally of the most economically and technologically developed superpower on Earth is that Japan and SK both enjoyed is enhanced economic and technological exchanges. Japan and SK wouldn't have achieved what they did, as fast as they did, without tremendous help from America (be proud, Americans!)
Meanwhile the CPC had to guard against the US and other possibly hostile forces attempting to overthrow it. It has had to guard the territory of China by itself. China also went sour with the USSR - it didn't have a powerful ally to rely on for economic and technological exchanges when it opened the market.
2.4. Also, when China entered the world market, the high-end market was occupied by Japan, SK, the US and other developed countries. It’s nigh impossible for an inexperienced, unprepared newcomer to compete in that market, so China had to go the route of competing in low- and mid-end market, producing cheap commodities. Even late into the game, entering that high-end market is still a challenge, due to things like brand recognition, brand familiarity, brand loyalty, and market saturation, etc. To successfully compete internationally, it's not enough for China's products to be on par with Japan's and SK's products; they had to be superior, and better marketed! Even if some China's luxury goods are just as good, they would mostly and firstly be consumed in their homeland for patriotic reason. Which is one of the reasons why China has targeted fresh markets like Africa.
2.5. Also, as you yourself have said:
Quote:And China is almost 30x times larger than South Korea. Large countries do not grow in the same way that small countries do, hence the reason that Taiwan, Singapore, etc. were able to grow so quickly.
Looking at the difficulties China has had to face, I think we could be a bit more lenient on scolding China for not being as 'impressive' as Japan and SK.
In 1950, China’s urban population was only 13%. Japan’s was 63%. In 2015 China’s was 56% and Japan’s was 93%. China’s urban population increased by 43% whereas Japan’s increased by 30% (there is not much less for Japan to urbanize anyway, but that also mean, Japan has nearly reached the limit of its economic potential, whereas China still has tremendous potential left to realize). South Korea’s urban population went from 18% to 82% within that same span, which made sense considering its size.
Urbanizing 40% of population as massive as that of China is a tremendous task. Consider that within the same time span, India’s urban population has gone from 18% to only 33%. India has a relatively more developed high-tech IT industry than that of China, but still it does not truly have strong IT industry of its own. Focusing on high-end goods while the country still has not developed its urban condition and industrial base is not a good strategy. You do not produce high-tech by yourself in an industrial vacuum, it needs a co-ordination of numerous inter-related industries.
In the primary stage of development, China did what was most suited for its situation: moving people from farm to city and putting them to work in factories – and through doing so gradually urbanizing and upgrading the country conditions of production, preparing for higher stages – a process that is bound to be longer for large countries than for small countries. China has stayed on low-end manufacturing for as long as it could, longer than any developed nation at a similar stage of development, so as to suck out as much juice from this market as it could. It's a double-edged sword. While it has harvested much more from this market than Japan and Korea or any other country ever could, this strategy also make a much needed transition into high-end manufacturing more difficult. This has its downside for sure, and it is certainly true that optimally China could have done much better, could have moved to high-end manufacturing sooner, but let's not pretend that this means China is stupid for staying on low-end manufacturing for this long, or that the mainland Chinese people are inherently lower in their engineering and innovating capacity than Japan and SK, incapable of moving forwards and doomed to stuck on churning out cheap shit for eternity, or even that its "communist" government system is incompatible with a transition into high-end manufacturing.
Quote:Yes, they haven't needed brands, which is exactly my point. Their economy has to undergo a massive shift in focus in order to accomplish the level of growth that's being predicted...
Again, if China is going to accomplish the type of growth people are predicting, they're going to have to reinvent their economy. They're not going to quadruple their GDP paying wage slaves $1 an hour to churn out products all day.
I can't agree more. China's leadership would wholeheartedly agree. They're keenly aware of the problem. Despite what Samseau said in his currency manipulation
thread, wages in China are going up faster than currency depreciation. There is no evil conspiracy to keep the poor Chinese forever in poverty and wage slavery. The quality of life in China has been improving for most of its workers.
Quote:These days, China's labor costs are only 4% cheaper than those in the U.S. when productivity is factored in, according to Oxford Economics.
So manufacturers have been trying to relocate their factories and find cheap labor else
That's because wages in China have risen much faster than increases in productivity. Coupled with a strengthening yuan, Chinese labor costs have grown dramatically. Meanwhile, huge productivity improvements in the U.S. have helped keep labor costs down.
The bottom line: Manufacturing in China is no longer a surefire way to save on the cost of labor.
, like in SEA, eg. Vietnam.
Quote:China doesn’t release data on factory closings or relocations. But according to an analysis by researcher Justina Yung of Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the Federation of Hong Kong Industries trade group, the number of factories owned by Hong Kong companies in the Pearl River Delta near Hong Kong fell by a third to 32,000 in 2013 from a 2006 peak. Many of those that left moved to lower-wage countries.
Labor costs in China have grown faster than consumer inflation for years, according to consultancy BMI Research, and are currently nearly four times those in Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.
Some textile and clothing manufacturers see advantages in Vietnam as well. “Moving to Vietnam is a trend,” says Wang Wei, general manager of Guangzhou Weihong Footwear Industrial Co., which established its first factory in 2013 in the southeast Vietnamese town of Thuan An to supply shoe makers Nike Inc., Adidas AG and Puma SE. Weihong now plans to build a second footwear factory and shift several textile factories to Vietnam from China.
China's leadership knows that it cannot simply continue with the strategy of putting farmers into factory and depreciating its currency - it's trying to contain its currency from falling in fact (and this means: Trump likely won't ever label China a currency manipulator or put a tariff on its exports)
3.1. The Xi administration's next economic strategy to solve this problem is called "Made in China 2025"
. This is China's attempt towards a homegrown knowledge economy with high-end/intelligent manufacturing.
From the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Quote:Q1: What is "Made in China 2025"?
A1: "Made in China 2025" is an initiative to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry. The initiative draws direct inspiration from Germany's "Industry 4.0" plan, which was first discussed in 2011 and later adopted in 2013. The heart of the "Industry 4.0" idea is intelligent manufacturing, i.e., applying the tools of information technology to production. In the German context, this primarily means using the Internet of Things to connect small and medium-sized companies more efficiently in global production and innovation networks so that they could not only more efficiently engage in mass production but just as easily and efficiently customize products.
The Chinese effort is far broader, as the efficiency and quality of Chinese producers are highly uneven, and multiple challenges need to be overcome in a short amount of time if China is to avoid being squeezed by both newly emerging low-cost producers and more effectively cooperate and compete with advanced industrialized economies. The English translation of "中国制造2025" -- "Made in China 2025" -- does capture the goal of localization, but it misses the focus on the manufacturing qua manufacturing. The plan was drafted by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) over two and a half years, with input from 150 experts from the China Academy of Engineering.
Q2: What are its key contents?
A2: Based on the State Council document summarizing the plan released last week, "Made in China 2025" has clear principles, goals, tools, and sector focus.
Its guiding principles are to have manufacturing be innovation-driven, emphasize quality over quantity, achieve green development, optimize the structure of Chinese industry, and nurture human talent.
The goal is to comprehensively upgrade Chinese industry, making it more efficient and integrated so that it can occupy the highest parts of global production chains. The plan identifies the goal of raising domestic content of core components and materials to 40% by 2020 and 70% by 2025.
Although there is a significant role for the state in providing an overall framework, utilizing financial and fiscal tools, and supporting the creation of manufacturing innovation centers (15 by 2020 and 40 by 2025), the plan also calls for relying on market institutions, strengthening intellectual property rights protection for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the more effective use of intellectual property (IP) in business strategy, and allowing firms to self-declare their own technology standards and help them better participate in international standards setting.
Although the goal is to upgrade industry writ large, the plan highlights 10 priority sectors: 1) New advanced information technology; 2) Automated machine tools & robotics; 3) Aerospace and aeronautical equipment; 4) Maritime equipment and high-tech shipping; 5) Modern rail transport equipment; 6) New-energy vehicles and equipment; 7) Power equipment; 8) Agricultural equipment; 9) New materials; and 10) Biopharma and advanced medical products.
Q3: Is "Made in China 2025" an extension of the 2010 plan to support "Strategic Emerging Industries"?
A3: The unveiling of "Made in China 2025" suggests a major departure from the Hu-Wen administration's approach to innovation and technology upgrading. The heart of their approach was the Medium- and Long-Term Plan on the Development of Science & Technology. A 15-year plan issued in 2006, the plan's key concept was "indigenous innovation" (自主创新) and focused entirely on advanced technologies. The culmination of the plan was the identification in October 2010 of seven "strategic emerging industries" (战略性新兴产业) that were seen as vital for China to achieve mastery in if it was to become an advanced economy. The core of the plan focused on developed leading-edge advanced technologies through investment in R&D from state and industry sources, accumulation of intellectual property, setting of distinct technical standards, and leveraging access to the Chinese market in exchange for foreign technologies. The plan set a target of SEI-related industries to account for 8% of the economy by 2015 and 15% by 2020. The plan was developed jointly by National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST), with supplemental input from MIIT and other ministries.
"Made in China 2025" is different in multiple respects: 1) It focuses on the entire manufacturing process and not just innovation; 2) It promotes the development of not only advanced industries, but traditional industries and modern services; 3) There is still a focus on state involvement, but market mechanisms are more prominent than in SEI. For example, instead of focusing on top-down, unique domestic technical standards, the attention is on self-declared standards and the international standards system; and 4) There are clear and specific measures for innovation, quality, intelligent manufacturing, and green production, with benchmarks identified for 2013 and 2015 and goals set for 2020 and 2025. In this regard, the proposal reads much more like a five-year plan (which I believe is intentional), even though laid out over 10 years.
The plan's language is also very different than under Hu-Wen. The term "indigenous innovation" appears only twice and "SEI" only once. There is no obvious effort to paint this as the successor to or extension of SEI, but in fact, to show that an SEI-oriented focus was too narrow and built on a misunderstanding of China's core needs and comparative advantage. In addition, the original focus on innovation took inspiration from similar innovation programs developed in the United States, Japan, and the EU during the 2000's in the wake of the information technology revolution and a common concern about technological competitiveness. As mentioned above, "Made in China 2025" is more consistent with how Germany and Japan approach their economies than the United States.
Although there will no doubt be problems with implementation and perhaps create new market-access challenges for multi-national companies (MNCs), from a Chinese national-interest perspective, this plan is much better conceived and more appropriate for China's situation than the "indigenous innovation" approach and SEIs. It will be more coordinated and utilize a wider array of policy tools. If a "Made in China 2025" leading group has not already been created, I expect there to be one soon.
Q4: What are the implications for MNCs?
A4: MNCs face new challenges and opportunities with this plan. In terms of challenges, a clear goal is to make Chinese companies more competitive across the board, to localize production of components and final products, and to have Chinese firms move up the value-added chain in production and innovation networks, and to achieve much greater international brand recognition. In addition, the plan calls for Chinese firms to ramp up their efforts to invest abroad, and to do so by becoming more familiar with overseas cultures and markets, and to strengthen investment and operation risk management. (The drafters are clearly sensitive to the high proportion of failed overseas investments.) It specifies focus on the countries that together make up the Silk Road initiative, but it is meant to apply everywhere. Government measures and market incentives will be used to pursue these goals. In some ways, this represents a frontal challenge to advanced manufacturing in the US, Europe, and East Asia.
At the same time, MNCs and other countries can benefit in three ways. First, there will be greater investment and attention to the ten industries, and MNCs that align themselves with these sectors and the general goals of this plan can benefit from its focus. In some ways, there will be greater competition from Chinese companies and a buy-local push, but it's a guarantee that MNCs will be needed to provide critical components, technology, and management for this plan is to work. Second, to the extent China genuinely embraces intelligent manufacturing, it will be much easier for Chinese companies and MNCs to collaborate, both in China and elsewhere. This is a big 'if', but it is potentially a way to reduce the zero-sum elements of the business relationship. And third, most broadly, if China successfully upgrades its manufacturing capacity, that will have meant it has also likely improved its overall economic governance, including its financial and fiscal systems, strengthened the education system, and increased access to varied sources of information. These should all be of general benefit to the global economy and MNCs.
Q5: How is Premier Li Keqiang's recent tour of Latin America related to this plan?
A5: Strengthening relations with Latin America has been a priority for China's leadership. In early 2014 Beijing announced the creation of the China-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum, which met for the first time this January. Xi Jinping has made two trips to the region, and Li Keqiang just completed a 9-day tour of Brazil, Columbia, Peru, and Chile. Li signed dozens of agreements promoting economic cooperation, worth over $100 billion. Although Premier Li didn't specifically tout "Made in China 2025," he emphasized that China's renewed focus on advanced manufacturing would be beneficial to Latin America's economy, moving the commercial relationship's focus away from natural resources toward basic infrastructure, industry, and information technology. Li stressed that expanded Chinese investment in everything from high-speed rail to telecom should also help Latin America upgrade its manufacturing capacity and industrial structure as well. We can expect that the Chinese leadership will continue to carry a similar message wherever their travels take them.
3.2. At the same time, China wants to maintain its advantage in low-end manufacturing at least to some extent, in order to maintain the high growth rate and upward mobility that has served to keep the CPC in power, and to continue to urbanize the country. To do this, it is trying to move its low-end factories to its poorer provinces:
Quote:The central government is concerned about losses of low-end manufacturers to other countries and so is giving them incentives to move to lower-cost parts of China. But at the same time, it wants to raise wages and spur consumer demand by developing more high-tech manufacturing, such as semiconductors and robotics.
Policy makers thus walk a fine line as they try to keep wages from rising so fast they undermine competitiveness for one type of factory work, while seeking to promote other types of factory work to boost incomes to create a more consumer-driven economy.
... China’s share of total global manufacturing output was 25% last year, up from 7% in 2000, according to HSBC Ltd. To contain the loss of industries to lower-wage countries, it has offered subsidies and a range of incentives for manufacturers to relocate to cities in western and central China, where wages are as much as 30% lower than in eastern provinces.
Far western Xinjiang province, a major cotton-growing region, has budgeted 20 billion yuan ($3 billion) in tax benefits, rent and power subsidies to attract textile and apparel companies. “The country is doing crazy things to support Xinjiang and the textile industry,” says Hu Yiteng, deputy general manager of Flying Eagle Textile Co., which is considering a move to Xinjiang. “It’s near-guaranteed profit.”
At the same, moving its low-end and polluting factories to developing SEA countries such as Vietnam:
Quote:... China's plan is to replace cheap energy-consuming industries that pollute the environment. They expect to have high-tech content accounting for at least 70 percent in products by 2025.
As such, China's low technologies will be transferred to other countries. Vietnam may be among them. "That is a very high risk," said Luong Van Khoi, deputy director of the National Center for Socio-Economic Information and Forecast.
China is also trying to cut the number of coal thermopower plants.
“It is possible that they would relocate the plants to Vietnam,” Khoi warned, adding that some Chinese investment projects have entered the country already.
“We need to keep a close watch over the situation, or Vietnam will be a dumping ground for other countries,” he said.
An MPI report showed that China has surpassed Japan, the US and other countries to become the third largest foreign investor in Vietnam, just after South Korea and Singapore.
In the first three months of the year, China registered $823 million worth of investments in 58 projects.
(Making a dumpground out of developing countries is not a practice unique to China, and other Western nations have done far worse: https://www.theguardian.com/global-devel...-countries
3.3. China's also aggressively pressuring European companies to hand over technologies in exchange for access to market, which has received quite a bit of complain from those companies:
Quote:China's plan to boost domestic manufacturing by 2025 is "highly problematic" and could be used to discriminate against foreign firms in favour of Chinese competitors, a top European business lobby has said.
Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan calls for a dramatic increase in domestically-made products in 10 sectors - from robotics to biopharmaceuticals - that the government hopes will accelerate an industrial upgrade as economic growth slows.
But foreign business groups have grown more vociferous in criticising Beijing's lacklustre market reforms, and worry the plan will force members to give up key technology in order to access the market or bypass them altogether.
"Made in China 2025" amounts to a "large-scale import substitution plan aimed at nationalising key industries" or "severely curtailing the position of foreign business", the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China said in a report.
Chinese policies, including hundreds of billions of euros in subsidies, were already harming European business, the chamber said.
"Under recently passed legislation in the new energy vehicle industry, for example, European business is facing intense pressure to turn over advanced technology in exchange for near-term market access," the group said.
Read more at: http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/...66fe5763af
Dick moves, right? China is handling this like the thug state that it is. Some calls it protectionist - inspired by Trump with a thuggy twist? But since we are not discussing morality, it matters not whether they are dicks - what matters is whether they are effective.
3.4. Let’s look at a few key industries in the “Made in China 2025”. Bloomberg has an article on China's growing robot industry:
Quote:Standing in the way are established robotics superpowers like Japan, South Korea, Germany and the U.S. Yet China has three big advantages--scale, growth momentum and money. It’s home to the world’s fastest-growing robotics market and vast manufacturing sector where companies are under pressure to automate. China overtook Japan in 2013 in unit sales domestically. Guangdong province, for example, announced in 2015 plans to offer 943 billion yuan ($137 billion) in subsidies to about 2,000 local companies, including both robot makers and those making autos, home appliances, and construction materials, that are looking to automate their plants.
That creates a big opening for Chinese start-ups. “The mantle of leadership is wide open,” said Justin Rose, a partner and manufacturing expert with Boston Consulting Group in Chicago. “China has the ability to rise to prominence.”
To get there, China has a two-pronged strategy. President Xi Jinping’s government wants local industrial robotics makers like E-Deodar Robot Equipment Co., Anhui Efort Intelligent Equipment Co., and Siasun Robot & Automation Co. to take on foreign players including Japan’s Fanuc Corp. or California-based Adept Technology Inc. for leadership in the $11 billion market. Chinese corporate demand is expected to power double-digit demand for factory bots, according to Gudrun Litzenberger, General Secretary of the International Federation of Robotics. In 2016, China installed 90,000 new robots. That’s one-third of the world total and 30 percent more than the year before.
Yet China’s ambitions go beyond factory robots that bolt and weld. Earlier this year, officials deployed a pollution-monitoring robot in the Zhengzhou East Railway Station, one of China’s busiest, and a Chinese deep-sea robot broke a new record, descending to 6,329 meters (21,000 feet) in the Mariana Trench in March. Xi, who in 2014 called for a “robot revolution,” was greeted by a droid when he visited a top science academy in Anhui province last year. “I’m very happy to see you, dear President. I wish you happiness every day,” said Jia Jia, who is also known as "robot goddess" for her good looks, the China Daily reported.
Right now, China lags rival nations when it comes to robot adoption. China had only 49 robots per 10,000 workers in 2015, versus 176 for the U.S., Germany’s 301 and South Korea’s world-leading 531. Yet if China’s robot build-out succeeds, it may be able to stanch the flow of factories moving overseas.
Under a sweeping proposal called “Made in China 2025,” as well as a five-year robot plan launched last April, Beijing plans to focus on automating key sectors of the economy including car manufacturing, electronics, home appliances, logistics, and food production. At the same time, the government wants to increase the share of indigenous-branded robots in China to more than 50 percent of total sales volume by 2020 from 31 percent last year.
Robot makers and the companies that automate will be eligible for subsidies, low-interest loans, tax waivers, and rent-free land. “Fair or unfair, you can expect Chinese companies will get a lot of preferential treatment and funding,” said Rose with Boston Consulting. “They actually have a comprehensive plan to get there. And their track record isn’t terrible either.”
The Chinese productivity push is being watched with trepidation by global competitors. “They’re putting a lot of money and a lot of effort into automation and robotics in China. There’s nothing keeping them from coming after our market,” said John Roemisch, vice-president of sales and marketing for Fanuc America Corp.
There are obstacles for China to overcome, as well:
Quote:Demand for robots in China is clear enough. Less certain is whether Chinese robotics companies have the tech savvy to compete globally. Lured by tax breaks and cheap land, some 800 Chinese robotics companies have set up shop. Trouble is, some startups buy key components from Siemens or Fanuc, put them in a robot shell with an arm, and then slap on a Chinese brand name, says Chai Yueting, director of the National Engineering Laboratory for E-Commerce Technologies at Tsinghua University.
“China has lots of robot companies. But their technology often is from the Japan or U.S.,” said Chai. “China’s own specific robot technology is still very limited.”
Chai predicts that at least half of China’s robot makers will eventually shut their operations. An overcrowded field is a challenge the government has also acknowledged. China risks being inundated with low-end robotics, Xin Guobin, the vice minister of industry and information technology, was quoted as saying in state media in March.
Still, with China’s huge demand, its financial heft, and the government’s clear desire to develop, Chai predicts a handful of globally competitive Chinese robot makers are likely to emerge.
The technology gap that must be overcome by Chinese robot-makers is still substantial, and it’s hard to imagine so many startup companies surviving long-term. However, foreign executives see China producing some globally competitive robotic companies eventually.
“As they learn how to compete, they’ll be a force to be reckoned with,” said Stuart Shepherd, CEO of Gudel Inc., the U.S. unit of the eponymous Swiss robot manufacturer.
4. China is not only making a change in what it produces, but also the people that produce them. Remember that in China STEM majors have much higher salaries than they do in the US:
Quote:NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Low-wage, unskilled labor was once its competitive edge, but now China is quickly rising as the world's largest supplier of college-educated workers.
By 2030, China alone will account for 30% of the world's new college-educated workers, predicts a study by the McKinsey Global Institute.
In comparison, the United States will account for only 5%, and collectively, advanced countries including the U.S., Japan and much of Europe will account for only 14% of new highly educated workers.
"Investments in education that China made much earlier are now paying off," said Anu Madgavkar, a senior fellow for the McKinsey Global Institute. "China invested in opening a lot of schools and they ramped up college enrollment."
China is also churning out far more science, technology, engineering and mathematics grads, giving it a leg up in some of the world's fastest growing sectors.
In 2008, only 14% of U.S. grads earned degrees in those specialties, whereas 42% of China's college grads did so.
Overall, the results of the study point to a global need for more college grads. It predicts employers around the world will be faced with a shortage of 38 million college-educated workers and a surplus of 90 million unskilled workers in 2030.
"An unprecedented level of response is required to raise education rates and then on the other hand, we also need a concerted effort to create more jobs for low-skilled workers," Madgavkar said.
In advanced countries, the imbalance is worrisome because it could lead to more income inequality and long-term joblessness, the report said.
4.1. It's trying to improve the quality of its workforce, by co-operating with educationally advanced foreign institutions.
China: Improving Technical and Vocational Education to Meet the Demand for High-Skilled Workers
In response to the growing demand for higher level technical and professional skills, Guangdong Province in China worked with the World Bank to improve the quality and relevance of its vocational and technical education by promoting competency-based training and strengthening the delivery system, directly benefiting more than 9,000 students, as well as school teachers and administrators. The lessons learned from implementing the project was disseminated and used to inform policy development.
The Guangdong Technical and Vocational Education and Training Project was designed as a pilot to explore innovative approaches to reform of the technical and vocational education and training system in China. The following approaches were adopted to address the challenges identified:
-promoting and rolling out competence-based and demand-driven school reform;
-capturing lessons by closely monitoring and evaluating the project progress and subsequently disseminate them to other provinces and countries; and
-conducting surveys and data analysis for evidence-based management and policy development.
Implemented between 2009 and 2015, the project help upgraded three project schools and achieve the following specific results:
The percentage of students that passed the skill certification exams increased to 90.37 percent by 2014, up from 70 percent in 2009 when the project started.
The percentage of graduates finding employment within six months increased from 86 percent in 2009 to over 98 percent by 2014. The relevance between jobs and majors in 2013 was 59 percent for technical college graduates and 46 percent for secondary technical school graduates, up from 48 percent and 45 percent respectively in 2010.
The average starting monthly salary showed an increase from RMB1,744 (about US$282) in 2009 to RMB2,625 (about US$424) in 2014.
At the national level, three policy studies themed, respectively, on financing of vocational education, quality improvement in curriculum development and school-industry collaboration, and long-term governance structure were produced, providing input for the preparation work for the 13th Five-Year-Plan. Moreover, results and lessons from the project were used to inform the development of two national-level guidelines related to technical education and training, and are expected to also inform the revision of China’s Vocational Education Law.
At the provincial level, the government’s directives on promoting technical education in Guangdong that drew on the project schools’ experience in competency-based curriculum development and implementation.
In addition, operational school-industry advisory bodies were put in place, with established guidelines and standard forms of contract for school-industry partnerships; teachers and administrators benefited from a variety of training activities; competency-based training syllabus, curriculum standards and textbooks were developed, tested and rolled out; training space was expanded for students to practice their newly acquired skills; and school management information system was enhanced.
Bank Group Contribution
The World Bank provided an IBRD loan of US$20 million in 2009, complemented by US$25.52 million in counterpart funding from the Guangdong Provincial Government, and US$0.4 +8million from the “Trust Fund for Bank-Korea Partnership on Poverty Reduction and Socio-Economic Development” to support the policy studies and impact evaluation. The Bank also brought its knowledge and experience in developing technical and vocational education and training projects in China and worldwide. This was the third such project supported by the World Bank in China, after the Vocational and Technical Education Project (1990-1996) and the Vocational Education Reform Project (1996-2002).
Competency-based and demand-driven technical and vocational education and training continues to be promoted through exchanges and workshops, the two provincial policy documents, the three national policy studies and different provincial directives, providing a strong foundation for expansion.
The ongoing World Bank-funded Guangdong Social Security Integration and Rural Worker Training Project and Xinjiang Vocational and Technical Education and Training Project both continue a number of activities that were piloted under this project, including the development and roll-out of competency-based training, and strengthening school-industry linkages.
Wei Bincheng, Student at Guangdong Urban Construction Secondary and Tertiary School:
“In the past, teachers were leaders in class, and students were just listening to lectures. Now a new mode of learning has been introduced - teachers and students discuss and learn the subject together. Performance assessments used to be based on exam results alone. Now school puts more emphasis on our practical skills.”
He Xiaowen, Student at Guangdong Light Industry Secondary and Tertiary School:
“We are now encouraged to ‘learn by doing’ and ‘learn through trial and error’. We focus more on how to complete an assignment rather than just memorizing what teachers say in class.”
4.2. According to the Job Market Monitor, there is no acute gap in hard/technical skills, the problem is soft skills.
China – No acute skills gap, but a lack of soft skills report says
As China moves towards a services- and knowledge-driven economy, one of the main constraints will lie in the ability of its workforce to gain the requisite skills and knowledge to make the transition to a high-income country.
There is little evidence to suggest that China suffers from an acute skills gap across wide occupational areas. A surge in tertiary education graduates over the past decade has provided employers with a large pool of workers to recruit from.
All the companies interviewed said that a lack of soft skills posed a much greater challenge than the absence of hard skills. Notable soft skills mentioned as posing the greatest business and organisational challenges in China include leadership, communication and self-motivation.
The soft skills gap is still seen as being most prominent in middle management roles, with wages for these positions continuing to see rapid increases. However, there is a broader and rising demand for soft skills training at all levels, with companies generally dissatisfied with current training options available.
In manufacturing/engineering sectors, finding the requisite hard skills in the open labour market is a challenge. However, these skills tend to be specific to the technologies and processes deployed by individual employers. New recruits at these firms typically tend to undergo extensive in-house training, sometimes in co-operation with third-party training providers. In comparison, interviewees in high value-added services sectors, such as banking and finance, indicated a greater demand for training, which is likely due to the faster pace of development in this sector of China’s economy.
As China’s domestic firms become increasingly intertwined with the global economy, they are under pressure to bring business practices closer to international standards. Training in project management processes will be a notable area of growth in the coming years, as will training on overseas business regulation and cross-cultural management.
There is scope for international education and training providers to participate in China’s rapidly growing market for skills training and there remains a high degree of interest in learning from foreign institutions. The main area of unmet demand, according to interviewees, is currently the soft side of personal development, but skills associated with sectors that remain underdeveloped in China are also likely to be areas where international education providers can gain more traction in preparation for growth in the near future.
I think it's only a matter of time until the Chinese college-graduates get the soft skills they need, at least in managerial areas and the likes, unless they genetically disposed to be spergy dweebs - which I don't think they are. The Chinese have a knack for being cunning after all. They are going to be force to be reckoned with in the future:
CHINA, a seven-year-old member of the WorldSkills International, wants to host the 46th WorldSkills Competition in Shanghai in 2021 — and the message from the government is clear – the country is ready.
Shanghai is up against Basel, Switzerland, and the decision on who will host the 2021 competition will be announced in October.
China, the world’s most populous country and its second largest economy, is striving to upgrade its manufacturing sector and is very much aware of the importance of preparing a more skilled workforce.
An estimated 800 million of the country’s population are “economically active” and two years ago the State Council published “Made in China 2025,” a strategy document calling for more technologically driven, innovative and environmentally friendly industrial development.
Furthermore, several documents have been issued since 2010 about improving vocational education and specific mid and long-term plans to build a highly skilled workforce.
Currently there are 165 million skilled workers in China and 45 million highly skilled workers. About 27 million students are studying at more than 12,000 vocational schools and colleges, spanning all skill categories.
From 2010 to 2015, the government’s financial contribution to vocational education doubled.
China was accepted as a WorldSkills International (WSI) member in 2010 and the WorldSkills Competition has played a major role in the development of the country’s vocational education, which integrates standards of the competition into education programs and various domestic skill competitions.
China’s successes in the competition has seen its participants receive much media attention.
Already 86 training centers that use pedagogical methods generated from the competition that put practice first have been set up around the country. It is planned to open more of them in less developed areas, as young participants from China make a growing impression at the competition.
China made its debut at the competition in 2011, when six participants competed in London 2011 in six skill sectors.
In 2015, 32 participants traveled to San Paolo, Brazil, to compete at 29 skills.
China’s representatives won five gold medals in Brazil, six silver and four bronze — its best year so far. For this year’s competition, which will be held in Abu Dhabi in October, China will send 47 participants.
Through its participation in the past three editions of the competition, China has also built up a growing team of competent technical experts, translators and juries. As a result China is now capable of hosting the competition on its own.
Zhang Lixin, director of the Professional Capacity Building Department, which comes under China’s Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, said at a press conference in Shanghai on March 29 that bringing the competition to China would created a win-win scenario.
“Hundreds of thousands of Chinese audiences, especially teenagers among them, will be inspired by the excellence of the participants of the competition, while the competition itself will for the first time have a big exposure to this part of the world,” he said.
4.4. There will be a lot of obstacles and problems for sure. But with an workforce increasingly high-skilled and numerous, it is more likely than not that China will transition into a high-end manufacturing country that can compete globally by 2030, capable of innovation and clearing its path to superpower status in the further future.
5. China is also learning from the US and developing its own Military-Industrial Complex with Chinese characteristics. It’s called Civil-Military Integration.
Quote:China's Answer to the US Military-Industrial Complex
The Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development represents a new trend in civil-military relations.
On January 22, China’s Xi Jinping added a new title to his long list of state and party functions: the chairman of the Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development (CCIMCD). The aim of this commission is to cut costs and integrate existing civilian technologies and services into the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Two months later, China announced its smallest military budget increase in a near decade. Improving efficiency and tapping into China’s existing economic power has become the new trend in China’s civil-military relations.
Background on the Commission and Chinese Civil-Military Integration
The CCIMCD is a coordination body for the integration of civilian and military sectors and is staffed by members of the Politburo and the Standing Committee. The aim of the commission is to promote innovation for dual-use technologies and integrate civilian sector services into the PLA. In practice, the CCIMCD is the latest of Xi’s efforts to reform the PLA and create efficiency for the largest standing army in the world. To understand the CCIMCD, one should first look at the developments leading up to China’s proposed civil-military integration.
Over the years, China made its own efforts to “catch up” (at all costs) to the United States. The latest attempt is to build a domestic version of the defense military-industrial complex. Xi noted as early as March 13, 2016 that “military innovations should take a central role in producing indigenous military wares; and that the governments from the state to the local levels should promote integration between the civilian and the military sectors.” This announcement was followed up by a report released from the PLA Daily on March 27 on reducing compensated services to the civilian sectors and drawing service directly from the civilian sector.
On July 21, the Recommendation on Integrating Economic and Defense Developments was issued by the Central Military Committee. In the recommendation, the term “civil-military integration” was first mentioned as a reform to provide the military with better services while at the same time helping advance the Chinese economy. The broad Keynesian statement should not be unfamiliar to China watchers, but the recommendations also laid out a military strategic goal for China. The recommendation stated that by 2020, collaborations between civilian and military sectors should provide better dual-use technologies, direct civilian participation, and services for the PLA. The recommendation also called for a loosening of the barriers between military technologies and services that had been long withheld from the private sector, a new training and promotion program for civilian experts, and a co-development scheme for the Chinese military installations by civilian contractors. Especially on the last point, the recommendation emphasized that maritime installations should be a key priority.
The July recommendation was endorsed by Xi and officially adopted on January 22, 2017, after a series of high-profile conferences and expositions demonstrating existing dual-use technologies and services. Branding civil-military relation as a new policy agenda, the CCIMCD was established to coordinate the July recommendation to create efficiency and political support for China’s national security strategies.
Xi’s chairmanship on the committee raises speculations for the private sector. To many, the CCIMCD may create an opportunity to set a low bar for private sector businesses to gain entrance into the lucrative defense market. From January, civil-military integration has since risen to one of the most frequently used terms in Chinese mainstream media, and many are speculating about the economic incentives for the Chinese private sector to be engaged with the patriotic duty of providing service and technology to the PLA. However, what may seem to be a boon for private sectors may also cause trouble in the long run.
Read more at: http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/chinas-an...l-complex/
6. To get to its power status China needs a long peace to develop. It cannot afford a war with a major power, especially with the US. It was smart of China to quickly populate the South China Sea island chains with its people during a temporary alliance with the US against North Korea so as to avoid a war with the US and its ally while at the same time expanding its power.
For its own interest, China wants peace (as do I for my interest). The longer the peace, the more time for China to develop, and the more the US destroy itself with political correctness, multiculturalism and ethnic replacement. A war may end up reviving the US’s culture of masculinity.
Ironically enough, a big war or a tremendously threatening enemy country is precisely what the US needs in order to regain its vitality. War and war pressure accelerate technological development and forge masculinity.
Let’s not forget that it’s WWII and the Cold War that propelled the US to superpower status. China does not have the US’s geographical advantage which enabled to the US to stay outside of damages inflicted on its own land, so it cannot benefit from war the same way the US did. The US also has to thank the USSR for propelling its military-industrial complex to its current size:
Quote:China’s quest for superpower status is undermined by something else, too: weak incentives to make the sacrifices required. The United States owes its far-reaching military capabilities to the existential imperatives of the Cold War. The country would never have borne the burden it did had policymakers not faced the challenge of balancing the Soviet Union, a superpower with the potential to dominate Eurasia. (Indeed, it is no surprise that two and a half decades after the Soviet Union collapsed, it is Russia that possesses the second-greatest military capability in the world.) Today, China faces nothing like the Cold War pressures that led the United States to invest so much in its military. The United States is a far less threatening superpower than the Soviet Union was: however aggravating Chinese policymakers find U.S. foreign policy, it is unlikely to engender the level of fear that motivated Washington during the Cold War.
I’d say that China is driven by something else (something quite similar to what propelled Japan into an imperial power), and currently it is far more driven than the US to strengthen itself, but that is for another time. On the other hand, China is nowhere near threatening to the US as the USSR was. Trump is not enough to stop femininization of the US (ironically enough, Trump has inspired and emboldened many in China, causing a surge in masculine spirit there - he may end up making China great again more than he would make America great again). Also, China has time. Time works in China’s favor and against the US. China has been biding its time and it can afford to bide for longer – there is no need for China to rush and act rashly, like Japan and Germany did when they get strong, a lesson that Deng Xiaoping has learned well and put into practice. Meanwhile, as time peacefully passes, the US slips further into ethnic replacement and cultural deterioration.
So yeah, it’s in China’s best interest not to become a superpower in 20 years, but in 50 years or more.
8. It should be noted that while China has a lot regionally dialects and ethnic minorities, unlike India, the Chinese government has been trying to enforce the Mandarin on other populations, in an attempt to enhance the country’s unity, with relative success. Kids in Guangdong began to speak Mandarin and can’t communicate with their grandparent.
Only some monks in Tibet are allowed to learn Tibetan. Their culture is fading:
Tibetans Fight to Salvage Fading Culture in China
China is not cracking down on, say, Protestantism. However it has been enforcing de-islamization in Xinjiang Uyghurs.
It’s banning the last name Mohammed. It’s banning muslim beard and burqa.
For some reason I’m not cheering for the Muslims in this case.
Whether you consider this an ominous violation of human rights or not, if things keep going the way they are, China is becoming more and more unified and homogeneous, which enhances the ability of the CPC to manage the country and mobilize resources and power, and any other party that is going to govern China in the future, if there be any, would have to thank it for that.
Also, Christianity is growing fast in China, especially Protestantism.
This could in the future improve China's work ethics and accordingly the quality of their products. Protestantism has been associated with the capitalist spirit by sociologists of the caliber of Weber, so we may see a rise in China's entrepreneurial spirit and creativity. And also more ethical treatment. This may be optimistic, but I don't see why not.
9. To double the response on the concern about China's aging population issue, I think we are going to see the advantage of an authoritarian government over all-too-nice democracies such as Japan and the US. Let me quote Ron Unz here:
Meanwhile, The Economist argues that China may find it almost impossible to eventually raise fertility rates back to a stable 2.1 target after decades of much lower numbers, and a vicious spiral of permanently shrinking numbers caused by “ultra-low fertility” may result. But does this make any sense? After all, if the Chinese government eliminated its restrictive one child policy, births would presumably increase. If the centralized Communist government began a mass propaganda campaign about the glories of two or three or four children, births would presumably increase even more. And if worst came to worst, the Chinese government could easily afford to pay a bonus of $5,000 or more for every second or third child, which would surely boost the birth rate enormously for low total cost.
I find it difficult to believe that a determined national government commanding vast financial resources could not speedily revive a five thousand year tradition of large families if it somehow felt the need to do so. Perhaps the writer was confusing China with America, whose dysfunctional government can never seem to get anything done.
10. Lastly, let’s evaluate the prospects of various other competitors for superpower status.
While China and the US both have problems, but the problems in the US are much more serious and damaging in long term than that of China. Much of Europe have the same problems. In much more serious degree than America.
Japan is and has been killing their drive with porns, video games and manga-anime, producing more and more hikkinomori and herbivore men, lower birth-rate and higher suicide rate. Meanwhile the bad-ass old generation is dying. The nationalist faction in Japan consists mostly of dying old men. Japanese cultural products are also becoming more and more politically correct, which reflect a current in larger culture.
Akihiro Suzuki, a member of the Tokyo metropolitan assembly, bows to Ayaka Shiomura, a fellow assembly member, to apologize for his sexist jeer during a recent event, at Tokyo city hall on June 23, 2014.
The US chopped Japan’s dick with its military nannying and political meddling. [If you’re right that Japan flipped its shit when the US suggested removing their military nannying, then it poses a question of whether Japan is capable of holding itself isn’t it? In technology the Japanese is certainly not inferior to China, but the men who man them are up to further investigation.] Japanese youths also do not care about disputes such as the Diaoyu Island as much as Chinese youths does.
Japan’s problems are nowhere as bad as that of the US or Europe, and they are still a considerable potential threat to China. China should do its best to let them sleep and not wake them up. With its move on the South China Sea, I think China has managed to avoid imminent conflicts with Japan. Seems like it doesn’t intend to meddle with Japan any time soon.
South Korea has even lower birth-rate and higher suicide rate than Japan. And I heard from this forum that their military is pathetic. Their youths are increasingly destroying themselves with video game addiction. K-pop with its effeminate male idols is destroying the masculinity of its male youths and other nations consuming its product (Chinese leadership has been aware of the negative impact of K-pop and is going to do something about it).
It seems to me that Japanese and SK youths have serious issues concerning personal goal in life. You can detect a different drive and energy in China, but that is for later.
India is too ethnically, regionally, linguistically, religiously and socioeconomically diverse. Their unity and manageability is much lower than the mostly homogeneous Han population of China.
We are going to see an increasingly unified and homogeneous China, whether you like it or not. The Chinese leadership is aggressively pushing in that direction.The same thing is not being done in India.
India is also held back by its caste system. Not to mention low average IQ over all, and the wealth and iq gaps between the rural areas and the urban areas are massive. Muslim birth rate is currently higher than that of Hindu and this is going to pose serious problems in the future. Not that India cannot become a powerhouse, but it is going to face much more challenge and difficulty in its path than China does. I’m not saying this because I love China and hate India or any other country – I’m just putting down my observations.
Russia’s economy is not dynamic enough, and relies to much on natural resources. It’s going to be a hegemon in the region as it has been. But it is eventually going to be surpassed by China.
That leaves us with Israel. Well, Israel is stuck in the Middle East with a lot of hostile Muslim nations. It has its hand busy. The larger strength of Israel come from its diaspora, who are increasingly intermarry, and whose performance in Ivy League School have been declining in comparison with Asians. I’ve no ideas what the Jewish elites are up to, and how they are going to deal with changing population in America, with more and more Muslims immigrants and converts who are hostile to them. They are a variable, but for the time being I don’t see them posing a real threat to China’s growth and advance to superpower status.
I’m certainly not wishing for the Chinese economy to crash. In our globalized age, an economic crash in China would ensue an economic disaster all over the globe like what we see in 2008 or even more severe. Those who want (as opposed to merely forecasting with disinterested mind) to see an economic collapse in China perhaps want to watch the world burn –and I’m not one of them. With my personal interest in mind I wish China do well economically.
... to be continued.
Harmony of Logos and Pathos. Unsentimental sensitivity. Rigorous creativity. Critical appreciation. Disillusioned Positivity. Alert enthusiasm. Disciplined tenacity
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2017 08:52 PM by Liberty Sea.)