Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Workers Abandon Silicon Valley for Riches Back Home (bloomberg.com)

From a report on Bloomberg: U.S.-trained Chinese-born talent is becoming a key force in driving Chinese companies' global expansion and the country's efforts to dominate next-generation technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning. Where college graduates once coveted a prestigious overseas job and foreign citizenship, many today gravitate toward career opportunities at home, where venture capital is now plentiful and the government dangles financial incentives for cutting-edge research. "More and more talent is moving over because China is really getting momentum in the innovation area," said Ken Qi, a headhunter for Spencer Stuart and leader of its technology practice. "This is only the beginning."

Chinese have worked or studied abroad and then returned home long enough that there's a term for them -- "sea turtles." But while a job at a U.S. tech giant once conferred near-unparalleled status, homegrown companies -- from giants like Tencent to up-and-comers like news giant Toutiao -- are now often just as prestigious. Baidu Inc. -- a search giant little-known outside of China -- convinced ex-Microsoft standout Qi Lu to helm its efforts in AI, making him one of the highest-profile returnees of recent years.

134 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. And yet.. by Sqreater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Universities will not re-think allowing so many foreign students to take the seats of Americans.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:And yet.. by zlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you can blame the feds/states taking funding away and making them a business first. hey enjoy that tax break.

    2. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They want the best and the brightest, which unfortunately rules out many Americans. That's hardly the fault of universities, unless you think there should be some kind of quota

    3. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1, Troll

      Federal and state funding has not decreased, tuition has increased.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:And yet.. by zlives · · Score: 1

      student grants and supports are part of funding.

    5. Re:And yet.. by mi · · Score: 1

      So, you propose we counter the ascent of the increasingly-Capitalist rival by becoming more Socialist ourselves?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      In that case, include tax benefits as well. Those have increased by $25-30 billion since the early 90s.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:And yet.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Universities will not re-think allowing so many foreign students to take the seats of Americans.

      The limiting factor for universities is not the number of chairs in the classroom. It is money. Since foreign students pay full tuition, they are helping to fund all the Americans paying in-state tuition or getting scholarships.

      By "exporting" education, America earns billions of dollars and generates jobs for hundreds of thousands of university employees. Portraying this as a "bad thing" is idiotic. We should be working to make it far easier for foreign students to study in America.

    8. Re:And yet.. by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      I don't think foreign students, particularly graduate students, in STEM disciplines are taking seats away from foreign students. My experience with American students is they are not qualified for undergraduate educations because of the horrible quality of K-12 education in the US. The other thing that's happening and will accelerate is that some Chinese universities are becoming world class and will increase the production of world class STEM workers. US colleges will suffer from the lack of tuition from foreign students as a result.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    9. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or eschew the fascination with the nonsense we've been bogged down by.. We have no governance, aside from the last piece that only seeks re-election, social division and pushing 2 lists of priorities that divide americans in half. We are sitting ducks for others to play us like the way some play the stock market. First pull all the mfg, then pull all the IT work, pull all the infrastructure then.. whats left?! Hollywood. Oh.. heavy industry is now centered around donut shoppes.

    10. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is because of foreign students that universities can afford the subsidized seats for local students.

    11. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Universities will not re-think allowing so many foreign students to take the seats of Americans.

      I guess Universities aren't those bastions of leftist ideology, because cash is still king.

      Oh yes they are. Recently the University of California had a big raise in tuition. The UC Regents claimed they looked all over for money, looked all over for savings, waste, duplication, etc; and found no alternative to raising student tuition.

      Less than a year later they are announcing their great new program to give illegal aliens in-state tuition rather than out-of-state. They had no problem finding the money for that. That was quite the political move given the above.

    12. Re:And yet.. by zlives · · Score: 1

      tax benefits only come into play once you are focused in making money rather than providing education. The tax benefits are a symptom of a broken system.

    13. Re:And yet.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just FYI. American schools do pretty well with better students, which isn't really a surprise, good students are easy.

      It's our bottom 20% that fuck the average. They're functionally illiterate and innumerate. Bottom half+ are innumerate, but that's no problem for liberal arts majors.

      Chinese grad students are still coming to the USA, just not in the numbers previously seen, going only to better schools.

      Qualified American STEM students skip grad school because they want the money, now.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:And yet.. by zlives · · Score: 1

      you can put a price to everything... if you so choose.

    15. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I know someone who hasn't looked at the numbers for federal/state expenditures on higher education or tuition increases.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is claiming that the system is not broken. I'm just pushing against lack of government funding as being the culprit - if anything it has been an enabler of the massive tuition increases we've seen.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tired old racist shit voted to the top. That's Slashdot in 2018, and it's why this place is dead.

      There are reddit sub threads threads with more traffic than all of Slashdot.

      There are single posts with more insight.

    18. Re: And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work at a smaller university that's already adopted pulling in foreign investment as a revenue stream through international student programs. The entire situation is hilarious (I plan to move and leave this year so I can appreciate the irony).

      Essentially, they joined an international student recruitment program which brings in a steady stream of sub-par graduate students. To give you an idea, I helped a coworker/friend working as an adjunct by subbing for 2 lecture/labs of a graduate level CS course teaching principles of "big data" and analysis. My coworker had a brain dead assignment that was literally following directions (there was almost no programming involved, he did everything before hand for them). The directions, I shit you not, we're even color coded. I had no background using the software involved and required no unexpected knowledge leaps and was easily able to finish before the students. The students could not follow at all and it was not a language issue (English) since they spoke very fluently. It turns out something around 90% Of them could not program (in *any* language) in a graduate CS course. But those students ended up passing (Even after almost all were caught cheating) due to administration intervention. It was a degrading sham for my colleague who was rightfully disgusted.

      The entire CS department faculty had since then left and all the new hires are recent immigrant PhDs fresh out of their postdoc positions. Many of them aren't even that competent even in their own domain (I've collaborated with them on research projects due to administrative forces). All positions are adjunct and pay terrible.

      So now, you have the blind leading the blind. Faculty payroll costs are down, admission rates and cash flow are up high, and they're being piped through programs bordering a diploma mill. I'll be leaving soon but I've seen where this mess can lead. It's less of a problem for top tier universities where everyone is at least competent but when smaller universities adopt this model, it seems to run to hell.

    19. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's neat what you can do when you ignore the federal side of "Federal and state".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:And yet.. by zlives · · Score: 1

      its probably a circular argument as the universites complain that the reason for increase is lack of funding. :)

    21. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I'd be more charitable about believing them if they hadn't sustained something like an average 7% increase over 30 years, whether the state funding was going up or down, and if the problem were limited to state schools. I think it's a complex problem, but easy loans and lavish spending on perks to make the schools appealing to wealthy international students seem to be large contributors. I'm not smart enough to resolve this, but at the very least I wonder why so much attention is spent seeking foreign dollars at taxpayer-funded schools. There was a time when you could fund your way through a 4-year state college with a crappy job. It didn't have $50 million student centers or food courts, but you got a decent education without getting buried in debt. There should be something to fill this void.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re: And yet.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. US schools generate about 10x the number of PhDs vs. the number of research positions in academics.

      If your going to end up in industry anyhow, why spend the time and effort to politik a committee of self important profs. Get on with it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's amazing how we can blame foreigners and poor people for everything. How are foreign students going back home after getting education abroad even a problem? We're actively trying to kick people out of the country under this admin and we're blaming them for leaving? Hell, it is not easy to be allowed to stay in America. Plenty want to stay and couldn't after exhausting all their options.
      Also, plenty of Americans study abroad and move back home. Is that ok or not? If it's ok for them to do it, what is the difference besides a double standard? A lot of Asian companies actually hire western CEOs and managers and many move back home eventually. Is that good or bad?
      Maybe there is a percentage of foreign students that somehow have been able to take advantage of local scholarship or something, but as far as I'm aware most have to pay full tuition and actually subsidize local students. More local students can afford college because of them. It's the same reason we allow rich unqualified American students into some schools so their donation/bribe allow other students to go to school. Foreign students are not committing a crime or trying to harm people coming here to study. If it's somehow detrimental to the locals, then it's the schools that allow them in doing something wrong rather than those students signing up for an existing program.

    24. Re:And yet.. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      American universities are private institutions, moron. Their only beneficiaries are its charter and institution, as directed by their board of directors.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    25. Re:And yet.. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      Universities will not re-think allowing so many foreign students to take the seats of Americans.

      Public Universities would prefer to have all foreign or out of state students. The tuition is far more expensive for an out of state student. Berkeley is probably the top public univ in the US. In-state (California resident) tuition is $14,068 while out of state tuition is $28,014. There's 30,574 undergraduate students. That's $13,946 more per student if they're out of state or $426m more income from just tuition alone income. Berkeley has expenses totaling $2.4B... so adding another $426m to the coffers is tempting...

    26. Re:And yet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Universities will not re-think allowing so many foreign students to take the seats of Americans."

      That just makes international universities more attractive places to attend.

      There are plenty of seats in university lecture halls, and much open time in those halls for more lectures. It's not seats, it's your intelligence or lack of ability to pay. No one is taking anything from you.

      This is like having a US commercial sports team reject international athletes. It's a less lucrative and interesting product.

      You might as well admit foreign students are smarter, richer, and more willing to take classes you can't. I'm a US citizen, got in and paid my way by myself through one of the most expensive national universities at the time I went to college, and I consider having international students at a university an integral part of my education experience.

      And you'd better be prepared to pay more. More for tuition. More for the teaching aids that teach many university classes. Pay out more for using research dollars going to research workers. I lot of university funding is from international students who pay up. There are several national security projects in the past that were implemented because of students from foreign countries in university positions.

      It's very strange you want to alienate international income in higher education, but have no problem with massive tax breaks international corporations have made out with, especially energy companies who build pipelines to export US natural gas overseas, or light sweet crude being exported out for mixing overseas, driving up barrel prices. The "market' increases in barrel or btu production alone since the tax "break" already has been eaten up.

      Once again, you advocate a position that actually hurts your chances at high education by raising the cost ceiling to you, while advocating companies get a free ride. What a ridiculous stance.

    27. Re: And yet.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure, I counter you anecdote with all the useless PhDs I've worked with over the years. Better than MBAs, but only when they're working in their field. PhDs outside their fields are a big problem in my experience.

      3x? bullshit on that. In fact, in Engineering, the average industry starting salary for Masters degrees is higher than for PhDs. PhDs are overspecialized.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:And yet.. by jezwel · · Score: 1

      By "exporting" education, America earns billions of dollars and generates jobs for hundreds of thousands of university employees. Portraying this as a "bad thing" is idiotic. We should be working to make it far easier for foreign students to study in America.

      It's good in that it addresses trade deficits, provides jobs & funding for local infrastructure.

      What is "bad" is administration intervening in marking students to the same standard across the board, and reducing pass requirements for full-fee paying internationals. Turning a blind eye to plagiarism and cheating.
      This reduces the reputation of the university and affects those that have graduated from it. Internationals don't care as they have their degree.
      This is happening everywhere where exporting education is a big part of university revenue.

    29. Re:And yet.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what ideals are for. I'm sure rightists have their own ones.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    30. Re:And yet.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      One system counts on human nature and works

      ...or at least that's how it fancies itself. :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    31. Re: And yet.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It turns out something around 90% Of them could not program (in *any* language) in a graduate CS course.

      Well at least in this part there's nothing new and unusual. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:And yet.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Too bad about your denial.

      You could make the argument in 1945, even in 1960.

      But it's a proven fact now. Capitalism has raised over a billion people out of poverty in the last 20 years.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:And yet.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's a rather low bar for "works". :-p Not to mention that many of the societies can only be described as "capitalist" when squinting your eyes very forcefully.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    34. Re:And yet.. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Adam Smith even has a footnote in Wealth of Nations where he explains why higher education doesn't have in a Capitalist way, because people choose the school with the best education that they can get access to, they don't choose a different University if there is a sale somewhere else. So he recognized that it needed public funding.

    35. Re: And yet.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sure, I've supervised many PhDs from places like CERN. They were writing database code, feeding LP solvers, it was a step UP from the usual post doc work.

      It's a great recruiting pool. A good percentage have the chops to become engineers (trolling Sheldon).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There are obviously cases above and below the trendline. I'm talking big picture, not your particular school.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      OK, I'll hold your hand for you, since you talk so sweetly:
      Number of colleges in 2000 (technically Title IV postsecondary institutions): 6,479 In 2013: 7,236. Total increase of 11.9%. Source
      Number of college students in 2000: 13.2 million In 2015: 17.0 million. Total increase of 29%. Source

      But just so you don't accuse me of cherry-picking numbers, let's use the larger increase of 45% between 2000 and 2012 from Pew - they only consider full-time students.

      From the same link:

      A major shift has occurred in the relative levels of funding provided by states and the federal government in recent years. By 2010, federal revenue per full-time equivalent (FTE) student surpassed that of states for the first time in at least two decades, after adjusting for enrollment and inflation. From 2000 to 2012, revenue per FTE student from federal sources going to public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions grew by 32 percent in real terms, while state revenue fell by 37 percent. The number of FTE students at the nation’s colleges and universities grew by 45 percent during the same period. Without adjusting for enrollment growth, total federal revenue grew by 92 percent from $43.3 billion to $83.2 billion in real terms, while state revenue fell by 9 percent from $77.8 billion to $70.8 billion after adjusting for inflation.

      To sum up, enrollment increased by 45%. Number of schools rose by around 12%. Total state and federal direct funding (sans loans and tax credits) went from $121.1 billion to $154.0 billion, for a total of 27% increase in direct funding. In addition to that, tax credits have increased from around $12 billion to around $31 billion. Add that to the direct funding and you have $133.1 billion vs $185.0 billion, or a total increase of 39%. Enter student loans. I get that these are meant to be repaid (except the subsidy) and should not count as direct subsidy. But the fact remains that they have increased 376% in the same time period.

      So if we use total enrollment, then direct funding has been approximately flat, but tax credits have increased substantially. If we use only full time students, then direct funding has decreased significantly, but when you add in tax credits the decrease is not as significant, around 6%. If you consider student loans to be a kind of subsidy, there certainly has been no decrease no matter how you run the numbers.

      I'm on firm ground, even if I don't have your silver tongue.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re:And yet.. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      University administrations never were, and college students rarely were, despite what the press told you. Many of the "radicals" of the 1960's were actually conservatives who believed what they had been told in government and civics classes in high school. You know, free speech, individual rights, etc. The groups tended to be co-opted by those with a better understanding of how group politics work, but the individual students were often libertarian (small "l") idealists. The anointed spokesmen, however, rarely were. This is partially because the press likes to shock and dismay people, and partially because the actual libertarian idealists were generally lousy at working together. And I never met one who was a good public speaker.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    39. Re:And yet.. by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Lets not drift all over the place with foreign students versus specifically students from China. Why could so many afford school in the US, well, because the government of China was paying and why were they paying because the government of China plays the long game, as well as the short and medium game. Train them in the US, to get a job in the US and to 'well', you get the spy vs spy ramifications. Why are the going back in numbers, maybe because the US is entirely corrupt and it is simply cheaper to buy what ever info or action you want from a US contractor totally willing to betray their country for profit, why not their bosses do, as do the lobbyists who the bosses pay and as do the politician who the lobbyists in turn pay. Cheapest way to spy on and corrupt the US government, pay lobbyists to do it for you or find those who will do it for them. Don't pay and those lobbyists will arrange attacks upon you for cheating them out of their rightful money. The Russian government learnt from that mistake and now pay much more attention to the model developed by the Israeli Mossad to turn the US government into a puppet state (those guys have Americans so bum fucked it's becoming an embarrassment for other US partners).

      Maybe others are just reading the writing on the wall and taking the long term view, which many Chinese do and most Americans do not. American is getting worse and worse becoming more and more an entirely corrupt fascist state and China is getting better and better, so long term bet, you are probably better off in China or say, even better work in China and live part time in say, Australia, some thing becoming increasingly popular in China. Yeah, USA, not so number one any more and drifting further and further down the charts. Yep more defence spending and less infrastructure spending will save you, sure. Just remember you must obey Israel first, they have paid for their control and will publicly ruthlessly punish any who disobey and this from the top down, this via their total control of US main stream media, RT foreign agent, what a joke Time/Disney/VIA/NBC/CBS/NEWS they are the foreign agents on the payroll of foreign corporations and governments and you people are schmucks for letting it happen.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:And yet.. by invalid_user · · Score: 1

      Errr... do you know how popular Trump is to the Chinese?

      Obama, on the other hand, is hailed as a loser who wants men to go to women's bathroom.

    41. Re:And yet.. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      These students bring money to pay for their education. So, no, the universities will not re-think their business model.

      Of course, one option would be to make US university education much worse, then these students would go somewhere else....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re:And yet.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The form of government funding is important here. Suppose you want a college to get $10M from the government. If you just give it to the college, the college can use it. (I'm ignoring the question of what the money will be spent on here.) If you give it to the students as tuition support, the college has to raise its tuition to collect that $10M. This means that any student who doesn't get government support gets screwed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:And yet.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Who found the money for that? Is it the University being more efficient, or getting additional money somehow?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re: And yet.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I helped a coworker/friend working as an adjunct....It was a degrading sham for my colleague who was rightfully disgusted.

      Look on the bright side. Adjuncts get paid so little that resigning in disgust wouldn't cost your colleague much.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    45. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. We are terrible at how we spend public money on education, and I think massive reform is called for. But the criticism that we don't spend enough is false.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    46. Re:And yet.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Who owns the 'means of production'? People with money? It's capitalist.

      It might be a low bar, but it's one that socialist states don't make. The key flaw in socialism remains excessive concentration of power. There is no fix.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    47. Re:And yet.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, your turn Mr. No Data.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Somebody would have to pay their tuition by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and living expenses. The nice thing about foreign students isn't just that they pay more, it's that they have the money to pay. We've been cutting federal funding to Public Us non-stop since Clinton. Hell, I was there in the mid 90s when my school's paper started talking about how the cuts meant tuition would be over $10k by 2020. They were wrong, we passed that milestone in the mid 2000s. The schools didn't get that much more expensive to run either. Nor did the salaries go up all that much (the admin staff always made a tidy sum). We cut the funding, and it had to come from somewhere. Those tax cuts don't really pay for themselves, ya know.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Somebody would have to pay their tuition by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      B-b-but when we give money to the rich they'll like...give it all back and make all of us rich! The wealth always trickles down!!!

    2. Re:Somebody would have to pay their tuition by slew · · Score: 1

      The schools didn't get that much more expensive to run either. Nor did the salaries go up all that much (the admin staff always made a tidy sum).

      FWIW, The staff required to run the University is generally unrelated to the amount of staff that gets hired by the university. Not only do they make a tidy sum, but their ranks swell to consume all budget surpluses, but never seem to shrink at other times. It's a classic government bureaucracy...

    3. Re:Somebody would have to pay their tuition by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yep. feel the warm manna tinkling down on your head! In ancient times it had resale value.

    4. Re:Somebody would have to pay their tuition by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, in the end this whole thing cannot be fixed. It is just a sign of China being in ascend and the US being in decline. At the moment, (some) US universities still have an apparently superior product to sell, but that will change in the next few decades as of course some of those going back will become professors in China and eventually, the Chinese will get academic culture right enough to educate their engineers an scientists domestically. The biggest problems they probably still have are conformity and a focus on learning facts instead of thinking. Cannot educated good engineers and scientists with that. However, they will eventually find a way to deal with this cultural handicap.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Communism by fluffernutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine that. A communist country overtaking a capitalist country in terms of innovation and quality of living. This goes against many discussions I have had here.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, using China as an example of how state-run centrally planned Communism leads to economic miracles is like citing North Korea as an example of why libertarianism can never work in the real world.

      You know, because neither statement makes any fucking sense when exposed to the light of day.

    2. Re: Communism by Archtech · · Score: 2

      Patents and copyrights do a lot of harm. Jefferson always made a point of publishing any invention he made, or bought, free of charge in all the big city newspapers.

      Of course he died bankrupt.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re:Communism by Archtech · · Score: 2

      No country is purely "communist" or "capitalist" or "fascist" or "democratic".

      Well, actually no country is democratic, period. Last ones I heard of were ancient Athens and Syracuse, right up until the free democratic citizens of Athens decided to conquer and enslave Syracuse - and got virtually all their men of military age killed.

      A generation later, Athens was an oligarchy much like present-day USA, and Syracuse was ruled by an iron-fisted tyrant.

      No one has tried democracy since, except the Swiss, who are said to find it quite suitable to their needs.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    4. Re:Communism by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Stalinism is only one of many proposed models of communism, albeit the one with the greatest success.

      China describes its own system as a form of market socialism, but in fact it's probably better thought of as a kind of state capitalism, with a parallel private sector in which the state freely interferes to suit public policy. While it's not a system I'd want to live under, it is undeniably successful.

      I'd describe the ideological stance of China's ruling party as post-communist Burkean conservatism. The emphasis is on getting the institutions they already have to work rather than pursuing Utopian schemes. Instead of using ideology to make policy decisions, policy decisions are made pragmatically and later rationalized, a stance described by Deng Xiao-peng's famous slogan, "Practice Is the Sole Criterion for the Truth".

      "Communist China" might well be the least ideological and most pragmatic society ever devised. This makes them formidable, because there's really nothing they can't do if it suits their purposes. For example President Xi is currently reducing state intervention in private sector businesses, something that would have been heresy in pre-Deng China. But it's not because he thinks it's right, it's because he thinks it will bring the country greater wealth. However that wouldn't stop him from nationalizing a business if he thought it was useful -- or more likely quietly forcing it to follow state directives. That wouldn't be wrong to their way of thinking.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re: Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Died bankrupt but spiritually was the richest man on earth.

    6. Re:Communism by jittles · · Score: 1

      Imagine that. A communist country overtaking a capitalist country in terms of innovation and quality of living. This goes against many discussions I have had here.

      They do not have us beat in quality of living. Not yet, anyway. And perhaps never will with the number of mouths they have to feed. But they are certainly doing well in the innovation department.

    7. Re:Communism by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That's a no true Scotsman fallacy.. If they're doing something successful they must not be communist.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Communism by Dorianny · · Score: 2

      In my opinion the single biggest difference between Communist China and the rest of the failed Communist states (or Democracies for that matter) has been a peaceful leadership change every 10 years and a (unofficial but mostly adhered to) retirement age of 68 from the Party. This has allowed a constant flow of new leaders that have prevented stagnation, introduced new ideas and leadership styles. If they continue, this should lead to the consolidation of the rule of law and institutional memory as the primary drivers of the State

    9. Re:Communism by fredgiblet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. The benefits of a pragmatic authoritarian state. Here in America getting people to agree to get better health care for less money is a fight because "muh taxes." In China if something is obviously a better option then they just do it. I don't doubt that they have severe issues that are hidden from view, but at least they have leaders that know the meaning of the word pragmatic.

    10. Re:Communism by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If students want to go back there, then the quality of living must be quite adequate.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:Communism by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Possibly. Or maybe just being back in a culture that is 'home,' speaking one's native language, getting one's native foods, etc.

    12. Re:Communism by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although the governance of the Communist Party of China is opaque, it's supreme authority is not the President or General Secretary. Theoretically it is the thirty member politburo, but in practice it seems to be the seven member Politburo Standing Committee, whose votes in effect have force of law.

      PSC members are chosen to provide an extensive array of party experience, representing expertise in local and regional government, internal party affairs and national security, and by that very nature represent deep and extensive connections throughout the party. It's not a bad way of doing things if you want them to be stable, but because the actual practice of power operates outside the formal Constitution of the nation or party it's hard to know for sure exactly how stable China is.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Communism by jittles · · Score: 1

      If students want to go back there, then the quality of living must be quite adequate.

      I'm not saying quality of life is bad in China - just that it is not on par with the US. At least not in my experience. If you make enough money, then you can live incredibly well there. Going out to eat is dirt cheap in China, for instance. Unless you go to really fancy restaurants all the time. You could probably afford to have some cleaning staff and things like that to compensate for the other areas of life that aren't quite as nice as the US.

    14. Re:Communism by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, China is struggling with providing health care to its population too, but they have an interesting approach: they're focusing a lot of their efforts in prevention and reduction of chronic diseases to buy them time as they build out their health care delivery systems.

      It's interesting to compare China vs. Russia, both post-communist states. China may have problems, but Russia is a basket case. China has a persistent corruption problem with officials charged with regulation; Russia is an outright kleptocracy. I think the difference between the two countries is this: mineral wealth. In Russia they can squabble out of riches they dig out of the ground, but if things don't work in China they've got nothing to squabble over.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:Communism by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      or more likely quietly forcing it to follow state directives

      We do this in the US as well. We call it the Law, as passed by legislators bought by their donors. Same deal, but we have better packaging for you.

      Following state directives does not mean it is bad either, for example, Chinese businesses now have to follow the labor and environment rules a lot stricter than a few years back due to public complains about these issues.

    16. Re:Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      China is a state capitalist system built on top of a stalinist system built on top of a fascist dictatorship built on top of a really shitty 2000 year long absolute monarchy. Their culture and state institutions have inherited a lot of garbage.

    17. Re:Communism by hey! · · Score: 2

      You make a good point, but it's important to note that "law" and "political authority" have different characters in the US and China. In the US even law is constrained by higher law and precedent. Lawfully constituted authority is checked by an independent judiciary and independent institutions like the press.

      You can think of it this way: the US system is designed around constraining a worst-case government, the Chinese system around enabling a best-case government.

      The problem is that nobody ever has a best case government, and the flexibility Chinese officials have in when and how to enforce laws actually limits the government's effectiveness in some cases. That is why, for example, China's air pollution laws have failed; officials feel free to ignore the law if it helps them meet their economic goals. This discretion may also be responsible for China's long-term corruption problems.

      No system is perfect. Designing your government around the worst case means that *good* governments are constrained from things they want to do too. In China if the Politburo wants certain kinds of people kept out of the country, it'll just happen. In the US, it may not, even though the idea is popular.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Communism by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      China spent a few decades to understand who the USA educated its very best students.
      How they got tested before for years before university. Who got into university and why. What was done in lectures and given to study. What lab equipment was used for that generation considering the gov, mil, science, consumer products in the USA at the time.
      Say from the 1980's to 2017.
      Once China fully understood how the US education system worked and sorted populations over a generation. What created the best creative, innovative parts that ensured the USA kept winning at the time.
      No need to send as many of the best students to the USA as the domestic system is now better funded, as creative, as innovative and as fun as the best the USA has to offer at any price.
      The USA was studied on how it educates for a generation and the best results used to build up China.
      MI6 and the CIA thought all that "free" US education to counter communism would induce freedom and democracy into the minds of generations of the best students for when they went back to China.
      The West did not understand that China was taking the educational methods back and would not allow the Western lifestyles to alter its selected students allowed to study in the USA.
      China walked out with the US way to innovate and did not take democracy back.
      The USA did not get to change the way the visiting students viewed democracy and the need for democracy in China after that study in the US.

      The USA just gave its best education system to China for free.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    19. Re:Communism by hey! · · Score: 1

      Largely accurate, except for the shitty 2000 year old monarchy part. From the decline of the Roman Empire until around 1800, China was arguably the most effectively governed society in the world. It was certainly the richest and for most of that period the most technologically advanced.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:Communism by TheSync · · Score: 1

      You can think of it this way: the US system is designed around constraining a worst-case government, the Chinese system around enabling a best-case government.

      Fortunately, Chinese culture historically has recognized that the ruler must serve the needs of the ruled to some extent, so you can have these long periods where everything is basically stable, and leaders can feel shame if the people say they are not doing a good job, but the lack of checks and balances gets you occasional things like 20 million people starved to death for political reasons during the Great Leap Forward Famine.

    21. Re: Communism by hey! · · Score: 1

      OK you're seriously not up on your technology history.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:Communism by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      China will probably figure out health care sooner or later. The problem that they are facing is that they are essentially building their entire country from the ground up after decades of mismanagement.

    23. Re:Communism by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Wisdom. China used to lean WAY more communist economically. Centrally controlled economy just like the CCCP. It was a clusterfuck. Now, economically at least... in some ways... they're a lot more capitalistic. Probably not AS capitalistic as the USA though. There's a lot of state-run business. Then again, there's also a lot less regulation.

      No place is a pure democracy. Democratic... the -ic part is important. It's got some nice features pertaining to the subject at hand. The difference between saying "I'm fit" and "I'm getting fit". Also, even in Athens it was only about 30% of the populous. No women, no foreigners, no slaves.

      Some people in Australia are trying it, at least trying to try it. Online direct democracy. The constituents all get to vote on how the representative votes.

    24. Re:Communism by bazorg · · Score: 1

      China describes its own system as a form of market socialism, but in fact it's probably better thought of as a kind of state capitalism, with a parallel private sector in which the state freely interferes to suit public policy.

      Let me add that as the age of "big data" matures, I would be surprised if this approach will not make free markets obsolete. "what? 50 years ago they didn't actively manage things?!"

    25. Re:Communism by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Obviously, this must be blasphemous heresy. Well China is not really communist. They are some hybrid construct and basically do their own thing. And while there are very stupid things done there for ideological reasons (Ban pornography in a country that has overpopulation? Does not get any more stupid than that....), they are also doing quite a few things right. Of course, with the planned "social score", they just may go into full-blown fascism. But then they may not and actually make it work somehow. (Fascism never works. It always declines....

      It is really interesting to see what happens there, and no simple explanation actually fits.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    26. Re: Communism by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes, keep telling yourself that. Right up until you begin to starve.

      Fact is China was the most advanced nation technology-wise on this planet for quite a while. Although they then remained stagnant on that level for many centuries and that is the reason they were eventually overtaken by the west.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    27. Re:Communism by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Imagine that. A communist country overtaking a capitalist country in terms of innovation and quality of living. This goes against many discussions I have had here.

      Innovation... you may have a point (as the old joke goes, Chinese R&D: Remember and Duplicate).

      However quality of life, a skilled engineer isn't a highly paid thing in the US. You can eek out a life and a career with an average house and car if you're smart and a little bit lucky. Engineers are not paid well, they aren't respected and aren't desired (by employers or the opposite sex).

      Being a western level skilled engineer in China gives you a good house, nice car and makes you very desirable to the fairer sex.

      Western educated Chinese engineers are moving back to China because they can have a meagre wage in the west or a kings wage in the east. Ex-pat packages used to be very good in China, as long as you could be happy living in China (Chinese people are great in general, but a few of their cultural traits take some getting used to for our western sensibilities... like queuing, the Chinese just don't do it).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re: Communism by hey! · · Score: 1

      Stagnation is probably an inevitable result of self-satisfaction.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:Communism by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Consider that contemporary Capitalists are more corrupt than ever.
      This is the beginning of the end of capitalism as we Americans have abused it.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    30. Re: Communism by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or politics. The Chinese had large exploration fleets roaming the Indian Ocean, and could have dominated the seas for a long time to come. Except that the shipbuilding industry was on the wrong side in a dynastic struggle. In Europe, it didn't really matter if crappy politics screwed something up in one country (and it did), because another country would seize the opportunity. I think the division of Europe into many countries might be its biggest advantage over China.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Communism by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, it's not their success that makes them not Communist. It's how they're getting it. There's a lot of private-sector business going on, including large conglomerates. The Soviet Union permitted private businesses, but they couldn't have employees. If you worked for someone or something, you were working for the State. That's how Communism works (not well, empirically). In China, you might well be working for a large private business that made some private Chinese very rich. In the Soviet Union, you would become very rich through politics, although ability helped.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re: Communism by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Makes sense to me.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    33. Re:Communism by Archtech · · Score: 1

      The greatest problem with making democracy work has always been getting the people well enough educated, informed, and motivated. What we see today is that elections are held, whose outcome can be accurately predicted when one knows how much money each of the various candidates has spent. Given money, apparently, one can secure votes simply by the oldest techniques of propaganda: repetition, the Big Lie, etc.

      These considerations may go a long way to explain the steadily worsening quality of publicly-funded education in most countries. (See the Goering quotation below).

      "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant".
      - Maximilien Robespierre, “Oeuvres”, Volume 2, page 253

      "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree".
      - Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia” (1782)

      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".
      - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

      "Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy".
      - Hermann Goering

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    34. Re: Communism by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    35. Re:Communism by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      What we see today is that elections are held, whose outcome can be accurately predicted when one knows how much money each of the various candidates has spent.

      That was more true in years past. But.... the last cycle didn't pan out that way.

      Hillary Clinton, Total raised $1,191M

      Donald Trump, Total raised $646.8M

      Even in the primary, Jeb Bush was way WAY in the lead money-wise. And he didn't go anywhere.

      2008? oh YEAH, Obama raised nearly DOUBLE that of McCain. He also broke records for number of small donors. People vote with their wallets before the elections. (The problem is that some people have much bigger wallets)

  5. The natural path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know why people are getting mad or anxious about this.
    It's a totally normal and expected development. People came here for the money (and a little prestige) and now that their own country has developed are finding they can get a better deal back home.

    That's all there ever was to it. It's not as if they considered the USA their "homeland" or anything like that. So I must agree to some extant with the posters who say they won't be missed. America was just a hotel to them.

    1. Re:The natural path by Archtech · · Score: 1

      America was just a hotel to them.

      And now it's getting to be more of a hellhotel, they are off. Good for them.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  6. Re:Still many benefits in US by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We do a lot of business in China, and to retain good employees we basically pay double the going rate. If you are talented, you can command a big premium there. I wouldn't want to be a worker on the factory floor, but skilled technical people can do very nicely.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  7. Re:Still many benefits in US by zlives · · Score: 1

    double the going rate of US?
    sign me up.

  8. Re:Still many benefits in US by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    No. China. You can live very well in China for a lot less than you can in Silicon Valley.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  9. Re: Enjoy shitting over a hole in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is absolutely true that Chinese stuff *has been* inferior copied CRAP.

    But... you don't expect that to be true FOREVER, do you?

    If you are old enough, consider the development of Japan. After WW2, they produced pure junk, and badly copied junk at that. In the 1970s Made in Japan was the punchline that Made in China is now. But by 1980, Japanese was a solid brand. Innovation too. The thing is, first you crawl, then you walk, then you run. China is no longer in the crawling phase.

  10. Indians to the rescue. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Don't worry. India still does not want the Sea Turtles back. So there will be enough Indian Americans to keep America on top.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. You... by midifarm · · Score: 1

    Have taught us well

  12. Re: Enjoy shitting over a hole in the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry to self-reply, but I'll add that China's labor costs are much higher than they used to be. You can only play the game of cheap exporter of junk when your costs are also really low. China will have to step up in quality because they will have to start charging more. At what point in time this will happen, I don'gtknow.

  13. Re: Enjoy shitting over a hole in the ground by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Chinese culture is very different from Japanese culture. China has zero face. Negative face. China’s face is actually an ass.

  14. China is not, nor have they ever been, communist by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    not even a little bit. They're a Kleptocracy. Calling them communist a) gives their system of government more legitimacy than it deserves and b) puts a bad shine on Democratic Socialism, which thanks to a decades long campaign of attacks by various members of the ruling class gets associated with Chinese style Kleptocracy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Re:Ever Freer Markets by Archtech · · Score: 1

    Very droll!

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  16. Time was by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We could dangle financial success as the motivator for getting good talent over here. That's always been understood to be a temporary thing given that the rest of the world can only get richer. Passing laws over here that encouraged outsourcing wealth-generating industries like manufacturing to there hurried that along faster than was good for America, however.

    "No worries!" proclaimed the coastal elistists, "for American freedom entices the whole world to flock here!" Well, in principle yes. But given the way Big Tech in Silicon Valley seems to be about as open and tolerance as Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia (that's not as big of an exaggeration as it used to be, for you can now be fired and blacklisted from tech for your politics), we can't really claim that as an advantage either.

    So let's look inward and ask ourselves an honest question: We've got money, we've got clean air and "green" but they also have money, and the comfort of the home culture and neither one of us has more freedom than the other, and while their schools don't measure up to ours (yet), our schools are at best a decade from all turning into Evergreen State. Berkeley has already fallen down that moronic rabbit hole. What do we do to make America a desirable place to be again? This is a practical question. The foreigners with means to leave are the canaries in the coal mine. Listen carefully and you'll hear people who already have power and influence (cough Bernie Sanders, cough cough) itching for policies that will turn this place into Venezuela. Venezuela used to be rich and no one would have thought twenty years ago that it would go so far down in such a short amount of time.

    1. Re:Time was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His comment is modded up to 5, it's jut so damn interesting. Bernie's policies would like to turn it into Canada/Norway/Sweden/Denmark/Australia, but he seems to pick Venezuela as an example of failed social democracy. Forgetting of course that Venezuela isn't a democracy, and that it's biggest problem is it's fascist leader, not it's socialism.

    2. Re:Time was by fredgiblet · · Score: 2

      Because it fits the narrative that the Right MUST believe in that socialism is inherently bad and cannot succeed. If they admit that it can work just fine in moderate doses then half the reason to vote Republican fails.

    3. Re:Time was by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The coastal elistists in the CIA really thought they had China accepting students back that had enjoyed democracy, freedom, fun, pleasure.
      That within a generation the best of the best in China would want everything China did not have thanks to their free education the USA.
      China did not send over its most susceptible students. It sent over its smartest and only the most loyal.
      They took back everything they could extract from the USA and return to China with every useful aspect the US education system gave away.
      Nobody returned to China as a CIA spy. Nobody spread democracy in China after been allowed to study in the USA for years.
      Back into uniform, better quality communist housing given the academic skills, a job the Communist party provided, better health care.
      A student selected by the Communist party returns to the Communist party after a free US education.
      No democracy. No new people working deep in China for the CIA every generation. All the next gen US innovation now been worked on in China after been handed over for free by generations of US academics.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Time was by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      FWIW, US manufacturing is in great shape. What it doesn't do is employ nearly as many people as it used to. We largely exported the low-margin stuff that benefits from cheap labor and kept the good stuff, which is now pretty heavily automated. The jobs that unskilled people used to get in large numbers now go to people in other countries or machines.

      The US was unquestioned top dog in pretty much everything in the 50s and late 40s, having the advanced economy that wasn't devastated by the war. (The UK economy was mostly broke and worn out from the war.) Then the previously devastated countries started recovering, and Europe got more important again. Then countries that didn't have advanced economies started getting them. At first, they were fairly small (Singapore and South Korea, to name two), but they're increasing.

      Leading is harder than following, so we have to expect less developed economies to catch up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Re:Still many benefits in US by Archtech · · Score: 1

    Louis XIV lived for a lot less than he would pay in rent in Silicon Valley.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  18. Re:Still many benefits in US by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    We do it because we have a lot of Chinese customers and so it helps to have software developers and engineers locally. Of course everything is ultimately driven by cost, so I guess you'd say we use Chinese employees to serve the local market because it is very cost effective. As you suggest, we did not open a factory there simply to save on costs to our other markets.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  19. Re:Still many benefits in US by zlives · · Score: 1

    in both cases, income inequality to the rescue.

  20. Re:I don't blame them... by Archtech · · Score: 1

    Talking about shitholes and "street shitting", have you taken a walk in San Francisco lately?

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  21. Re:Enjoy shitting over a hole in the ground by Archtech · · Score: 1

    Again, quite droll.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  22. Given restrictions on US side, this is good by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the viewpoint that the US is not highly welcoming of highly educated US-educated PhDs and Masters from other nations, unlike most EU nations and Canada, it makes sense that they would return to China, where they don't prop up failing fossil fuel industries and have high speed rail, instead of trying to remain in a country in denial that it's the 21st Century already.

    Now, this does point out that it would be in America's interest to encourage highly-educated US-educated PhDs and Masters recipients to remain, via expedited citizenship procedures, as occurs in the EU, UK, and Canada. But that's just an objective viewpoint.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Given restrictions on US side, this is good by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      ROTFL, so you think the Chinese return to china because they want to be more ecological through use of high speed rail (which is in itself an interesting worldview, that high speed rail is at all particularly ecological).

      Do you actually KNOW any Chinese?
      Have you ever been to China?
      Do you have the slightest idea what the world outside 'Murica is like?

      Just wondering, because your statement above would seem to imply you dont have a clue.
      They leave the USA because they can get much better treatment, more job prospects, better working environment, and even more money in China.

  23. Re: Ever Freer Markets by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I find unmoved if the door hits em in the ass on the way out.

  24. Re: Enjoy shitting over a hole in the ground by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

    It was more in the 50s and 60s that made in Japan meant garbage. That started changing in the 70s when it meant inexpensive but good quality, and by the 80s made in japan was something to be looked for. Before WWII the Japanese did make high quality stuff but when your country is basically destroyed after a war and then occupied for 10 or so years it tends to be kind of shitty for a while as you rebuild and recover.

    I am mostly familiar with this in regards to cameras and optics but I get the impression that most other Japanese industries were similar. While inexpensive at the time those Japanese SLRs from the really late 60s and 70s were really high quality being as good or better than others offered at the time. The lens quality that they produced was great for prime lenses back then which hasn't change much other than better coatings and some different low dispersion glass mixtures (no more thorium glass). Even the quality of work outsourced to them (series 1 Vivitars) which while not Japanese designed are basically as good as can be found now. I still use old Super Takumars (single coating, no thorium glass) from the 60s, SMC Takumars (multicoated optics and some have that wonderful thorium glass) from the 70s, and a Series 1 Vivitar from the 70s (if you don't know what these are and are into photography use one and see just how good vintage glass can be) on modern cameras. For those who pixel peep they are as good, when operated competently, as modern high end lenses and will curb stomp modern non-high end lenses. To be fair modern zooms are almost always better as are ultra wide angles that the old ones as they benefited greatly by the additional computational power that could be thrown at their design although there are some good older zooms from the 80s that while a bit slow are still pretty damn nice.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  25. Seeds of our own destruction by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

    Just one more bit of evidence that the American Empire is failing. Hard times ahead, I wish we could be preparing for them.

  26. Re: Neal Stephenson warned us... by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

    Yep. We're aiming straight for a cyberpunk dystopia soon. I just hope that we get cybernetics before the collapse.

  27. Space race? by ghoul · · Score: 1

    The soviets did get to Space first so not like being beaten by Communists is something new for USA

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  28. Re:Still many benefits in US by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Not with the way the US is now accepting students for social reasons rather than actually only getting the very best exam results. Merit and academic skill was the pathway into a top US university.
    Thats what made and kept the USA great. Only the very best got into a top US university after years of testing and only the very best grades.
    Wealthy parents could buy into a university for generations but that did not alter the intake by using scholarships only for the best of the best. That did not exclude the very best from been accepted only after the best academic results over years.

    Now its a failed generation been accepted on political correctness and for virtue signalling.
    The best scholarships given out only to reflect wider US culture, not just the people who can actually study. Who have passed their exams better than most other people in real terms and who can and want to study. People who got the best grades without new political "considerations".
    The benefits of been surrounded by random people who cant study and never will study is only in brand virtue signalling.

    The US has nothing to offer now as it has weakened its once great educational system with party politics and by accepting a generation of failed students who cant study.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  29. Re:Spies Return Home Enrichedby Stolen Data by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The CIA hoped the graduates would return home with ideas of democracy and change China within a generation.
    China only sent over its smartest and most ideologically trusted students to the USA. They returned with all the US gov, mil, academic methods and did not change politically after years of study in the USA.
    The best US education on offer was just used to build China up. The US educated its competitors for free always thinking it would export democracy back into China.
    The CIA did not even get to tempt people to spy back to China for all that freedom, money, education and lifestyle on offer. The USA got nothing but debt after educating another nations students for generations.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  30. Quality of life in China by aberglas · · Score: 2

    For the tech elite, quality is good. Main issues is uneasiness about the government and being able to breath.

    But for the bottom 80%, they are still an underdeveloped and struggling.

    Mind you, I would not want to be poor in the USA either. But certainly the bottom 50% of non-US western countries lives better than most Chinese.

  31. What they learnt. by aberglas · · Score: 2

    Not entirely true that the Chinese students did not pick up anything about freedom, democracy and the civil society. That is why the Chinese government has started to actively discourage western education as leading to "cultural incompatibility".

    China is changing again, fast. And this time not for the better. Xi Jinping is taking them towards a dark place. Total control by a hierarchical party, enforced by all encompassing technology. Social media is a tool for control, not freedom, if used "correctly". An the AI the Chinese want is to control.

    What will happen when, inevitably, the economy stops growing so fast and corruption becomes more obvious? When a leader claws his way to the top that is not as cunning as Xi Jinping, and causes grief. Unlike Trump, they cannot be voted out.

    Taiwan is toast. But what about the rest of us?

    1. Re:What they learnt. by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      China has a political firewall to keep democracy and the CIA, MI6 out.
      The only remaining "civil society" in China is communist.
      The generation of students who got back in university in China after the Cultural Revolution by passing university entrance exams had to be good Communists.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The students that got allowed to study in the USA for years could only be very good Communists. They would have not been allowed to go to the USA if they where not fully treated to stay loyal to China.
      Re "What will happen when, inevitably, the economy stops growing so fast and corruption becomes more obvious?"

      If a person wants to keep their education, uniform and rank, good city living conditions, healthcare, pension, keep good standing with the Communist list party they don't show up to protest.
      Take part in a protest? All the normal things a person worked so hard for can be removed during one interview.
      Education? No graduation, no results can be found. Address? Not in the good part of a nice city anymore. Healthcare? Much less. Pension? Much less. Wage? Reduced to minimum. Show a good attitude by denouncing others and some of that quality of life will be restored.
      Every protester is turned into an informant.
      East Germany had its Zersetzung to change minds about freedom and democracy.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      China is changing in the way it never lets a protest start by going after everyone who protests. Not just all the CIA, MI6 backed protest leaders.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  32. Bosses, Capitalists, and Libertarians by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Told you so
    30 years ago when this shit started
    it was self evident that the trade practice and techniques were going to go BACK and bankrupt the people who labored to create the industry
    And the answer was always "We know what we're doing.
    Better quarterlies now, and we'll buy them up later"
    Well now they have bought up your profitable businesses, or put them out of business, creating wage stagnation and job insecurity even among your highly skilled labor force and they voted their anger, and now you have tRump and Putin running things
    Happy now?

  33. Re: They're not "U.S-trained" by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    After 6 years here, they are U.S. trained.

  34. Re:To Implement Chinese Versions Of... by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

    Too late, all the versions are already in China, they are just cutting the middleman.

  35. Re:Not my Chinese friends by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

    Not my American friends , they recently moved to Silicon Valley

  36. Re:Good. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    The funny ones are the ones that cheer on their own downfall. Like this one.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  37. Re:Still many benefits in US by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And the thing is, that is just capitalism at work. All those going back will be going back to deals like the one you describe. The ones that are not very good will stay in the US.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  38. Re: Enjoy shitting over a hole in the ground by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Indeed. You start learning by copying. Also, quite a bit of Chinese stuff is pretty good these days, look for example to all kinds of steel-wares. They are still lacking in the very top quality range, but for most applications that level of quality is not needed.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  39. You do understand that people can lie by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    right? If I said I was the undisputed King of the World would you bow down before me and shower me with riches? Maybe I should try that...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  40. Here's an idea by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    tax the billionaires who benefit from a skilled workforce to pay for maintaining that skilled workforce. It's called paying ones dues. They benefit the most from that work force so they bloody damn well should pay for it. By "exporting" education America's 1% no longer need to maintain funding to schools here. And it shows, they've slashed budgets non-stop for 30 years in the name of 'fiscal responsibility', all the while cutting their taxes via loopholes and offshore banks.

    The reason to bring those folks overseas isn't to fund our education. It's exactly the opposite. It's so somebody else (them and their home country) can pay for it. This is also why we need so many H1-Bs. If you're not going to pay for Americans to go to school and instead rely on foreign countries to do it then you need import those workers too.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  41. Re: Neal Stephenson warned us... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    When we're importing cars from Bolivia and microwave ovens from ex-Soviet republics, it will be because those are no longer cutting edge (and that will take some time with cars). We'll be manufacturing newer and more profitable stuff by then, in large quantities.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes