Why aren't the Chinese inventing up a storm as they industrialize?

I don’t know why you are so fixated on an industrial base as being the be all end all of a modern economy, but there is a pretty good reason they focus on manufacturing and we don’t. Put simply, our labor is to costly to compete. If companies can pay $3.00/hour for labor they are going to have a competitive advantage over companies who’s only base labor costs are $30.00/hour. It’s really as simple as that.

It doesn’t mean that countries with an ‘industrial base’ are innate going to do better than countries without them. In fact, I think China has several very large hurdles they would need to jump over, and their own future is no where near as rosy as you like to think. Nor is our own future anywhere near as grim.

American companies aren’t part of the US government. They ‘owe’ the US government nothing more than their taxes and their duty to follow the laws of the land. They have ‘abandoned the US.’ only in some sectors…and as is pretty much obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it, they did/do so because our labor market makes them unable to compete in the traditional manufacturing sectors (though with the falling price of the US dollar there has been somewhat of a resurgence of US manufacturing products).

-XT

Uhuh. Do you have any evidence that the US uses different metrics for calculating gross unemployment than any other nation? Or that the ‘adims’ use different metrics than were used in the past?

Even most of the off the wall ‘true’ rates I’ve seen fall well short of most other nations. So…why do you suppose that with out all that wonderful laboring manufacturing our economy is still so strong? Why with all those good workers and peasants is China’s economy less than that of the state of California (from memory…it’s certainly less than the over all US economy…it’s not even in the same league)? Why do you suppose the US economy is greater than any other single nation on earth, if things are so bad?

Do you know what an average is? Do you know how to calculate one? To put it another way, when you look at the average unemployment rate in, say, France, do you suppose that it’s uniform throughout the country?

You are aware that there are other factors that also tend to inflate unemployment rate, and that even factoring in people who drop out of the system the actual rate is pretty close to the projected rate?

Since someone may be interested, here is a wiki article on unemployment:

Not that I expect you to read any of this, but this part sort of addresses your, um, point:

Why don’t you provide a cite for what the ‘real’ rate is, and show it ‘climbing rapidly’. It’s certainly climbing…but then we are sort of in a psudo-recession atm so that’s to be expected. It will be interesting though to see this rapid climb…and what it’s based on since you don’t believe the governments figures or methodology.

Well, you know, if the LA Times said it, it MUST be true, ehe? Do you have any other corroborating evidence to show that the figures are off by 50%? BTW, even if they ARE off by 50% (which I seriously doubt), we would STILL have one of the lower unemployment rates world wide. Just sayin…

This makes no sense. How can they claim (supposedly…according to you, so I’ll take it with a very large mountain of salt) that the unemployment rate is off by ‘50%’ if they haven’t even taken a representative sample. Do you have a link to this article (I’m too lazy to look for it FOR you atm)?

-XT

BTW, just as an aside and since the OP is about China and not the US, while I’ve seen figures for around a 4% unemployment rate in urban areas for China, I’ve also seen figures as high as (IIRC) something like 20% overall…and much of the rural labor force (who would be considered ‘employed’) are basically peasant farmers. Just as a point of reference for the side discussion.

-XT

I agree with that. I come from a culture that interacts with the Chinese a lot, and that also does a poor job of encouraging creativity and innovation.

IMO, part of the problem is that their culture simply does not tend to value intellectual property – hence the rampant piracy and copyright violations. Why invest in innovation when it’s simpler and quicker to rip off someone else’s work?

I’m sure that this is all an oversimplification. Still, I do strongly believe that there tends to be an inverse correlation between innovation and respect for intellectual property.

Yes, that’s a major issue as the labor force is readily replaceable.

The Chinese are still way behind most of the west. Yes, you see shiny cities but you rarely see the poor part of China. Yes, they will overtake us in GDP only because of sheer numbers of people.
I don’t get the angst. Great Britain and France and Germany have seemed to have gotten over it just fine. We’ll be number one for another decade or so, big deal. Does it really matter anymore?

Well the communist revolution was very antagonistic to expressions of individuality and encouraged young intellectuals to go to the country-side to be re-educated by the common worker. Schooling has been based around conformity. Individual creativity comes with being allowed to ask questions. They are discouraged from that.

So today they have applied this conformity to their industrialization, but I expect China to liberalize and I do think we’ll see a lot more creativity over the next few decades.

They publish a lot of research in their own journals, like the French, though the French are usually good enough to provide an English translation. I used to live with an analyst (mathematician) for a while. He complained about it—nobody can understand what they’ve published, nor can they assess the quality of their publications.

Apparently, it’s a big concern in analysis—why spend months working on something, only to find out a Chinese mathematician has beaten you to it?

And who says their university system “has to catch up with the West”? All but one of my Chinese classmates in American graduate school kicked the pants off American graduates without breaking a sweat.

Only because you (generic you) haven’t heard of the University of Shanghai, that doesn’t mean it isn’t kickass. I can’t name a single Japanese University, can you? (Sage Rat, TokyoPlayer, Hokkaido Brit et a few al excluded from this second generic you ;))

Let’s be a little more willing to shift cultural perspectives here- most Chinese people would probably say “build off each other’s work.”

What possible benefit could there be in such a “shift of cultural perspectives”?

Sure, The University of Tokyo.

That’s been my experience with chemistry. Lots and lots of hits these days in the CAS database from Chinese-only journals. But there’s no translation, there’s no good way to get a translation short of asking a colleague to read it for you, and the best you can usually do is maybe an abstract in English and looking at the pictures. It can be hard to even get a copy through interlibrary loan. And it’s very frustrating to be able to see what looks like an important reaction and not be able to figure out any of the conditions or what happened.

You run the chance of having some idea what is going on? And with that understanding of why people do the things they do you might be able to make meaningful predictions and useful comments.

I don’t want to start a hijack here, but I think it’s a little simplistic to paint China as a country of one-billion rip-off artists. It’s true that many Chinese people hold a pretty different view of intellectual property. That stems not from a raving desire to rip people off, but from a collective culture where people are expected to work together to improve their family, friends, and society. One thing I’ve been told before walking into a Chinese classroom is that often the slower people will cheat, and the brighter people will play down their skills. Why? Because one person’s grade is taken as a reflection of the class as a whole, and people feel a responsibility towards their classmates. One kid with a bad grade reflects badly even on the kid with an A+. Kind of a hard thing for an American to make sense of.

Anyway, I’ve found modern Chinese students are perfectly comfortable asking questions and are very capable of making creative leaps of logic- at least a lot more creative than the African students I was working with previously. I think you all would be surprised at familiar and not-freaky-robot-people-land China is.

Innovation already builds off the work of other people. What the Chinese do is entirely different. Constructing an entire fake Disney theme park, for example, is hardly as innocent as building off the work of others.

As I said, the Chinese attitude toward intellectual property is bound to hinder true innovation. Why innovate when you can copy someone else’s work? Conversely, where is the strong incentive for people to innovate when they know that others can simply duplicate the fruits of their labors without the R&D investment?

I’m not saying that every single Chinese person is like this. I’m not saying that they are a nation of “one-billion rip-off artists.” What I am suggesting is that when a nation does not adequately promote and protect intellectual property rights, people will have less incentive to innovate. There will also be less of a cultural push to break off from the crowd and do something different.

Heh. Pretty brazen!

I agree immensely. My company refuses to do any high end manufacturing in China for fear of it getting ripped off. For my area of the business, we only have manufacturing in highly commoditized wires, cable, switches, etc. We had local counsel specifically tell us that the government takes a blind eye to the rampant, and I mean rampant, piracy over there.

Time magazine had an article about how the film industry is getting crushed over there because at the same time a new release hits the theater, there is already a DVD out on the street. If you ask these people why they pay for the DVD or why they are pirating, they all say that it’s much easier, or that they’re just trying to make a buck or some other nonsense. When I was over there, I tried looking out for it, but my lack of Chinese language skills and guide made it very difficult.

WOOOOOOO! I’m inventing like a mother frunk!

Every month the the Labor Statistics Bureau releases 6 unemployment metrics. (cfalled U1,U2,U3 etc. )he news media releases U3 which is the narrowest def of who is eligible. Years ago the U6 was also reported. It no longer hits the news, A few years ago when 4.5 was reported the U6 indicated 8.3. In the last 10 years U6 has ranged from 6,3 to !0.4 . 10,4 is most recent.

Chinese chemistry is improving almost exponentionally - the highest quality research is being done in the elite universities over there. This innovation at the fundamental level of science is certain to feed into invention of technologies eventually.

I get the impression that they run quite a brutally competitive elite model of research, where the top 10-20 universities are outstanding, but the next 100 could be mediocre. I have a Chinese PhD student in my group from one of these top 20 and he’s just in a different street to most young European scientists. Frightening what you could achieve with 20 such people.

China’s technology / science power may be spread disproportionally across disciplines. As exciting as Chinese chemistry is, Indian chemisty is really staid and classical. I can’t really think of anyone doing exciting stuff there in my area - plenty of worthy work from big, well-resourced research groups, but nothing really special. I am sure this situation may be reversed in other sciences.

Not surprising that you should fixate on U6 (From Wiki: ‘U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but can not due to economic reasons.’) as the ‘real’ rate, but here is the actual U6 according to BLS (seasonally adjusted):

 Data extracted on: July 30, 2008 (2:35:44 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total
                     employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor
                     force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus
                     marg attached

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1998	8.4	8.4	8.4	7.9	7.9	8.0	8.1	7.9	7.9	7.8	7.6	7.6	 
1999	7.7	7.7	7.6	7.6	7.4	7.5	7.5	7.3	7.4	7.2	7.1	7.1	 
2000	7.1	7.2	7.1	6.9	7.1	7.0	7.0	7.1	7.0	6.8	7.1	6.9	 
2001	7.3	7.4	7.3	7.4	7.5	7.9	7.8	8.1	8.7	9.3	9.4	9.6	 
2002	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.7	9.8	 
2003	10.0	10.2	10.0	10.2	10.1	10.3	10.3	10.1	10.4	10.2	10.0	9.8	 
2004	9.9	9.7	10.0	9.6	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.4	9.7	9.4	9.3	 
2005	9.3	9.3	9.2	9.0	8.9	9.0	8.8	8.8	9.0	8.7	8.7	8.6	 
2006	8.4	8.4	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.4	8.5	8.4	8.0	8.2	8.0	7.9	 
2007	8.3	8.1	8.0	8.2	8.3	8.3	8.3	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.8	 
2008	9.0	8.9	9.1	9.2	9.7	9.9	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

As far as I know no country uses U6 to determine their ‘real’ unemployment rate (I THINK they all pretty much use U3), however I could be wrong about that. If anyone knows it might be interesting, though it has little to do with the OP.

-XT