Hacker News

points by Avicebron 1 day ago | 0 comments

I think people underestimate the knife edge China is on, but still, I want these in the West.

> I think people underestimate the knife edge China is on

What do you mean by this?

Not OP, but if China takes up labor and manufacturing automation with robotics in a big way, there are a LOT of people there that will not have much to do anymore ....

[–] roenxi 1 day ago

This is similar to complaining that we don't all have the opportunity to spend 8 hours a day doing backbreaking farm labour after the agricultural revolution - it is only important to have people labouring if the labour is achieving something useful.

Labouring for the sake of doing labour is stupid. If robots can do it cost effectively, they should.

[–] samus 23 hours ago

Industrialization did not occur to make people's lives more comfortable; it was introduced to make investors more wealthy, and it is not a given that the wealth will be distributed to society at large. Also, after each disruptive innovation people's existing skills and experience might very well be worthless in the new environment. These two factors together mean that it might take a long time to adapt to the new situation and reach a similar level of wealth again, and that is the main concern at the core of Luddism.

[–] roenxi 21 hours ago

I mean sure. The paint isn't dry on China's economy, they built most of it in the last 20 years. They're probably not feeling overwhelmed at the thought of that sort of change - they won't have jobs they never used to have, but there will be all this stuff available assembled by machines.

[–] bigstrat2003 1 day ago

For one, people need to feel like they have something meaningful to contribute. Work is an important part of that. For two, people need to be able to make a living, and work is an important part of that.

It's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have to do menial labor. But unless you have something to fill the void, it's going to be a bad time for everyone involved.

[–] bruce511 1 day ago

How much of the "need" is intrinsic to humanity, and how much is it a product of the culture you live in?

Western culture ties the value of people to their work. The unemployed are "lazy" (itself a pejorative). The first question you ask someone you meet is "what do you do?" A lawyer is naturally more valuable than a postal clerk. (Despite an obvious example to the contrary. )

A lot of western jobs now are menial, or worse, useless. Lots of office jobs are, frankly, meaningless. Endlessly generating reports that no-one needs, or reads, isn't a path to massive self-worth.

In the US no job means no income. No health care. Your worth as a human approaches zero. In Europe, post war, there are far more social supports for the unemployed. That's a fundamental cultural difference. Asia is also culturally different in ways which are hard for US folk to comprehend.

For example there are 3 major political viewpoints; US capitalism, European socialism, and Chinese communism. Each appears to function well, and yet the US vilifies the others, while barely being able to tell them apart.

So, to return to your hypothesis of what "humans need", it may be less of that and more of "my culture needs". Which is perhaps going to come into play when predicting a post-labor economy in other cultures.

[–] guai888 1 day ago

Totally agree but it is difficult to retrain people even when it is possible. Technology can replace certain work faster than society can adjust. How to use socialist policy to help with transition is still a work in progress. What happen in France and rest of Europe will become a textbook case and we do not know how it end.

[–] ares623 1 day ago

Same can be said for every country right now. And now, there's fewer and fewer reliable greener pastures that unsatisfied people can go to, which used to let off some much needed steam.

The people will always have something to do. What those somethings are is entirely up to the ruling class.

[–] yogthos 1 day ago

China has an aging population like most countries. So, automation will likely help fill the gap rather than make work obsolete. However, if China does get to the point where a lot of work is automated, they have a socialist system where the government can do things like step in to reduce working hours or provide universal basic services which would be impossible in the west.

Ultimately, the whole point of an economy is to direct labour and resources in a way which allows people to have a good standard of living. If most labor can really be automated, then people can just spend more of their time enjoying their lives instead of working. The technology itself is not the problem. The only reason this becomes a crisis under capitalism is because the means of production are privately owned, and the people who own them require the rest of the population to sell their labor in order to live. Automation under private ownership frees people from a paycheck, while the owners keep the gains.

[–] junofan 1 day ago

Why would wealthy party members put up with that kind of redistribution? If most things are automated, why do they need those people?

[–] yogthos 1 day ago

People in the west often make the mistake of assuming that China is simply a mirror of their own system rather then spending the time to understand it on its own terms. CPC has around 99 million members, and it is predominantly made up of regular working class people. Also, it should be obvious that the party depends on social stability to remain in power. So, ensuring that people have their needs met is paramount for the system to continue to function. http://www.china.org.cn/china/2013-07/25/content_29525199_3....

[–] za_creature 22 hours ago

You need a lot of oversight for that 99M number to matter at all in the decision making process.

Western voting systems work more or less because the parties are in a mexican standoff when counting the ballots. This requires at least two parties and doesn't translate very well to electronic voting or vote-by-mail where a comparatively small minority (programmers or postal workers) can heavily skew the results in their favor.

[–] yogthos 17 hours ago

There is a lot of oversight in the decision making process, and there is also voting happening within the party. Furthermore, voting can only be meaningful when it is an informed vote. Random people voting on issues they don't understand is no better than a coin toss. For example, I might know that I want better traffic conditions in my city, but I'm not a civil engineer so I don't know whether it would better be accomplished by adding more subways, LRT, busses, or all of the above, and in what ratios. What makes far more sense is to collect public opinion and then having experts make plans to address the grievances, which is how Chinese five year plans work.

Meanwhile, Western voting systems are much more of a game of hot potato than a Mexican standoff. Each party just blames the other party for all the problems, and you just a revolving door policy with no accountability. With a one party system, there's no scapegoat to blame. The very legitimacy of the party hangs on it delivering on the promises.

[–] mitthrowaway2 1 day ago

Institutional memories of civil wars and uprisings?

[–] derektank 1 day ago

They have invested a huge amount of capital in manufacturing capacity (cars in particular), so much that their total capacity is equal to about half of the entire rest of the world put together. The problem is that they do not have the domestic demand to fully consume this supply. If the rest of the world opts at any point to put up trade barriers and prevent Chinese manufactured goods from being imported, China will wind up with billions of dollars in capital stranded in these investments. That could cause a financial crisis or an economic environment similar to Japan’s lost decade.

[–] randycupertino 1 day ago

There's a real risk of conflict happening with Taiwan. They also have decreasing birthrates, an aging population and government incentives to promote more kids is not working.

[–] marcosdumay 1 day ago

They are facing some Keynesian dilemma: because the rest of the world is importing less and they have almost no socialism, their people can't buy the stuff instead. If those corporations fail, the people will be poorer, if they distribute wealth, those corporations will be less competitive.

They have some political dilemma: people only accept the government because of economical growth, but they grew to a point where growth naturally slows down.

They have some financial and monetary stuff going on, but those are mostly non-problems. They have a bubble that is bursting too, that makes the other two problems larger.

All said, I wouldn't say they are in a knife edge.

[–] bruce511 1 day ago

Automation is orthogonal to demand. If demand isn't there then it doesn't really matter if the factory is automated or not.

And yes, China is aware of some slowing demand (although their exports are still impressive.) You can see this playing out in a couple ways.

Firstly they dominate production in key "future" technologies. Solar and EVs spring to mind as examples, but there are others.

Secondly they are investing in infrastructure (and goodwill) outside of China. Africa has a billion consumers-in-waiting.

While the US retreats from Africa (killing USAid, indulging racist theories about South Africa, etc), promoting isolationism (America First), activly alienating people via tarrifs, what is China doing?

China is quietly filling the void. They are building roads, ports, airports and other infrastructure. They are improving supply lines (Temu is expanding in Africa at a huge rate.) They are building cultural bridges, learning and teaching two very different cultures to work more easily together. In essence developing future customers, not antagonizing them.

It will be interesting to look back in 10, 20 or 30 years to see which strategy delivers better rewards.

[–] thoughtstheseus 1 day ago

What will the African customers pay with? Average income in Africa is maybe $200 per month. Chinese solar and EVs already lose money when factoring in capex and subsidies across the supply chain.

[–] bruce511 22 hours ago

You're thinking short term. The world changes a lot in 50 years.

In the 60s your argument would have applied to most of Asia. South Korea was an agrarian society. All of eastern Europe (and much of western Europe) was poor.

The question is less "where are markets now" and more "where will they be in 2050"?

"Losing money" (whatever that means at the national level) is not terribly relevant when it comes to global strategy. The US "loses money" on the military, because the US has chosen the military as a way to strategic dominance.

China instead has chosen "production" as a global strategy. One empire is voluntarily contracting. Another is expanding. The US is fighting the last war, with planes and bombs, while China builds infrastructure and makes friends.

[–] thoughtstheseus 7 hours ago

South Korea was allowed to industrialize and now exports advanced semiconductors. Chinas industrial policy will not allow Africa to do this. Maybe that is the right approach? Keep other countries strategically weak. I am skeptical. Losing enough “money” means your economy slows or shrinks and you have fewer real resources and capacity.

[–] thenthenthen 1 day ago

Honestly not much more than local Chinese income. Why wife works 15 hours a day. EVERYDAY. For about 300 usd, excluding penalties for making mistakes :/

[–] marcosdumay 12 hours ago

China seems to me to be doing the bubble-inflating monetary imperialism that Europe did before WWI: lending lots of money to other countries on the condition that they use it to buy your products.

That's a sure way to extend an unsustainable situation, while making it bigger. It doesn't usually lead to anything good on the long term, but I don't think they have been doing so much of it to break the world.

... and who knows? maybe this time it leads to democratization and growth all over the world, and they get somebody to export to. I don't think that's likely, but I can be wrong.

[–] Avicebron 1 day ago

The term is 内卷, or involution.

[–] MattDamonSpace 1 day ago

Honestly to think America’s constant paranoia is a positive

Who here remembers when Japan was gonna take over and the West needed to adapt

[–] derektank 1 day ago

The west did need to adapt and adapted partially by importing Japanese production methods such as lean manufacturing. As Andy Grove said, “Only the paranoid survive”

[–] numpad0 1 day ago

US destoyed Japan & global economies to solve that problem. And the sources of those problems all moved to China, which was almost a failed state. That's how China problem today have come to be.

Russia is now probably in the state similar to circa 1980 China. In case The China Problem were to be Solved like how previous one was solved, perhaps militarily this time, that'll just launch the seeds of the same problem over the borders to there. OTOH we'll be watching Russian homage to Chinese recreations of Japanese interpretations of Disney animations by 2060s and that will be awesome.

Will the US become its own 1980 China or 1950 Japan, just to get onto the ladder back up to be 2020 China or 1990 Japan, finally building the California HSR owned by DOT? Is it playing a genius 4D Chess ... whatever ... move towards that? Maybe, I don't know. All I know is that it's not like people simply stopped being too alarmist with Japanese global takeover scare and it just went away naturally.