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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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! --
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.
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.
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.