Hacker News Reader

Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

A Reddit comment [1] on this same article really hit home,

> Mr. Cook has watched China's middle class grow to four hundred million while watching the domestic middle class shrink. Like GM, which sells more cars in China than the USA, Apple knows where the market opportunities reside.

America needs growth again, whether that's immigration, childbirth and childcare subsidies, or seeking to merge with other democratic nations (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan).

America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.

America needs education that is equitable, but it also needs to let academically or extracurricularly gifted students advance to special placement.

I want America to be #1. Free speech, being critical of government, and even having the ability to run for president are rights that every person should have.

edit: [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/rb2774/comment/...

View on HN

> ... seeking to merge with other democratic nations (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan).

That presumes that other countries want to be part of America. I suspect strongly you'll find that's not the case. Merger then has a more "1812" feeling to it.

The only folks tripping over their shoelaces to be US states are Puerto Rico and DC.

> America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.

While these are strategically sensible decisions, that won't bring back Apple any time soon. Everyone manufactures in China because there's a critical mass of manufacturing in China. All your components are made there, by everyone, and the best-in-class assembly folks are all there. Supply chain and logistics are all there.

China's investments in ports, roads, railways are paying dividends. Including their one belt one road initiative offering overland rail links to the UK.

It's not sufficient to just say "let's make stuff at home" - it requires real, long-term, strategic thinking, huge investments and optimizing for the group. These are not America's strengths right now.

> That presumes that other countries want to be part of America.

I feel like if there was a referendum, the UK's population would happily dump their monarchy in exchange for US statehood. There's a lot of commonality with their democracy, language, skepticism of foreign immigration, embrace of capitalism, etc.

It would also be a pretty solid strategic move to bring the US closer to Europe as a hedge against the Russian ambitions laid out in their Foundations of Geopolitics playbook.

UK dumped EU, which didn't asked for country dissolution, not sure it would agree to join USA...

UK voters (imho) were still stinging from the economic decline and austerity measures post-2008, and were led to believe that a divorce from the EU would restore their greatness. Now that that's been demonstrated to be a delusion, and with covid-related economic collapse piling on top of Brexit consequences, UK voters might be open to a dice roll.

This is obviously my idle speculation, and I think the UK voters would never be allowed to vote on such an opportunity anyway. Still, I think if it happened it'd be great for everyone.

I think you misjudge how much the Anglophone world looks down on America, and Americans in general. We take great pride in Australia of our differences from that place. We're much more similar to the British (and them to us) than to the Americans.

... And yet there's a net brain drain to the US.

1 in 3 people resident in Australia is an immigrant. I don't think Australia is losing the immigration game, all things considered.

The problem is, it's not a numbers game: quality matters a lot.

Importing massive amounts of unskilled labor only depresses wages and, combined with NIMBY, creates a massive housing bubble thanks to artificial shortages.

In Australia's case, it also suffers from a disproportionate brain drain of highly educated professionals since local firms simply won't compete for talent.

When you're discussing merging nations, it is in fact a numbers game.

I hope you're not suggesting that Australia is getting low-quality immigrants. Unlike the US, Australia has a points-based immigration system where you have to meet specific, standardized criteria, which IMO is more objective than the US process. I don't know what guidance State Department staffers follow when determining who gets a visa, but the process is more opaque, and I suspect more subjective.

edit: I think the "quality" argument is overrated. Not all immigrants do ground-breaking research or start billion-dollar companies. When it comes to economic activity, quantity has a quality of its own (apologies to J. Stalin). A city/state/country with the economic activity of an extra 20% population of mediocre, healthy, tax-paying, car-buying, mortgage-paying, burger-eating blue and white-collar immigrants is better off than one without.

> I don't know what guidance State Department staffers follow when determining who gets a visa, but the process is more opaque, and I suspect more subjective.

Except for categories where there's an extremely high burden of proof for extraordinary abilities, it's simply someone's ability to get a job no American is qualified to take (and be so in demand that it commands a salary in the top percentiles for the profession).

So the market takes care of the selection.

> ... it's simply someone's ability to get a job no American is qualified to take.

Not exactly, its someone's ability to get a job that their employer cannot find a more qualified candidate after advertising the job in the local newspaper for 6 months including at least two separate Sundays.

There's more to it than that.

You misunderstand immigration, as I explained in a different reply.

Maybe in high tech service jobs, but not the average punter on the street. Migration from Australia is usually for greater economic opportunities, which all things considered only includes a small number of countries and a limited set of occupations.

There's a brain drain to California, much of which has an even more negative view of the US than other countries.

> tripping over their shoelaces to be US states are Puerto Rico

That's inaccurate, repeated votes for statehood in PR have failed.

No representation without taxation. PR residents don't have to pay US federal income tax, and most of them aren't willing to pay that price to get the political benefits of statehood.

Failed is a misrepresentation. They haven't been overwhelming victories, but the majority of voters voted to become a state in the most recent vote.

> I suspect strongly you'll find that's not the case. Merger then has a more "1812" feeling to it.

Ironically, the hardest challenge for the British during the war was to keep their soldiers from deserting to the US. Since there was no way a young British male could legally come to America from the UK, joining the army then crossing into America was their only hope.

Ironically today, the countries named by the GP (Australia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan) all have a net inflow of people to trying to get into the US, mirroring what happened in 1812. The political elites might laugh at the idea of a merger (considering they have a vested interest in keeping power) but it seems to make sense for a lot of their highly educated citizens who decided to make it happen here in America!

> ... but it seems to make sense for a lot of their highly educated citizens who decided to make it happen here in America!

That's not the same thing as wanting to abandon independence. Folks go to work in other countries not because they want their home country to be America. Those smart highly-educated workers aren't moving to America so much as the Bay Area to work at tech companies and make money - based on my personal experience and that of every other immigrant I know. Even those that went on to become US citizens wouldn't begin to entertain the idea of folding in their home countries.

I've lived in America for years but I certainly have zero interest in "merging" in Canada. I couldn't want anything less, tbh.

They're both unique and interesting countries in their own rights, with quite different peoples and values.

It's interesting that the narrative is that when people move to Canada, it's because they have a deep desire of becoming Canadian, and according to the current administration deserve it even more than the folks who built the country [0], but when it's people coming to the US it's simply for higher pay and not because they want to make America their home.

Meanwhile, there are now universities where 85% of the graduating class immediately moves to the US upon graduation [1]. And the numbers have actually increased during the Trump administration, despite the narrative that the US would stop attracting international talent.

[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/3567893/justin-trudeau-jealous-im...

[1] https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1351785083598893062

> It's interesting that the narrative is that when people move to Canada, it's because they have a deep desire of becoming Canadian.

That’s fine on an individual level but that doesn’t mean they want to merge their home countries into Canada!

Someone from Italy may move to the US but that is totally disjoint from them wanting to make Italy the 51st state. If they retain a strong positive association with the attributes of their home country, they want to retain independence to preserve them. If they have a negative association with their home country they have no interest in merging them either as they've actively distanced themselves from the negative attributes of their home state.

Someone moving from California to New York doesn't want to see CA and NY merge into one bi-coastal superstate any more than someone moving from India to Canada wants to see a bi-continental megastate.

> Meanwhile, there are now universities where 85% of the graduating class immediately moves to the US upon graduation [1]. And the numbers have actually increased during the Trump administration, despite the narrative that the US would stop attracting international talent.

The number of people who desired to stay after college went up, but visa issuance was suspended so they were precluded. They can want to stay all day long, they're not being allowed to. And that will have an effect in time. Meanwhile... [1]

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/b663ef33-2b6c-42ea-8952-bee9673f6...

> The number of people who desired to stay after college went up, but visa issuance was suspended so they were precluded

What I posted is people who moved to the US, not people that had a desire to move.

> Meanwhile... [1]

It's interesting, because in these stories Canada is never the first choice. Seems like every story starts with someone being unable to qualify for US immigration using Canada as a back up plan.

> It's interesting, because in these stories Canada is never the first choice. Seems like every story starts with someone being unable to qualify for US immigration using Canada as a back up plan.

Yes, because these are economic migrants and economic migrants are going to try for the most active and lucrative market first. If they can't get a visa, they'll certainly take their second pick. They'll then build up that market over time. This is why we have Shopify in Canada. The ecosystem builds on itself and it one day won't be quite so distant a second choice.

> All your components are made there, by everyone, and the best-in-class assembly folks are all there. Supply chain and logistics are all there.

The first part of this statement is inaccurate and the second part is accurate. No, all of the components in your iPhone are not made in China. Yes, they have the logistics and capability to assemble efficiently. No, they do not make everything in an iPhone or Mac—not even close. Examples of major components often not made in China:

- Microprocessor (Taiwan)

- Memory (South Korea)

- Screen glass (USA)

- Audio, Wifi Chips (USA)

- Gyroscope (Switzerland)

- Accelerometer (Germany)

- Display (Japan)

- Camera (Japan)

The batteries tend to be made in China, but many of the raw materials that go into the batteries are not. Also, Apple has successfully had iPhones assembled in India, so there's no reason to believe if they chose to, they couldn't (at very significant cost and ramping up and effort) move assembly. iPhone prices might go up then though.

See more here: https://www.lifewire.com/where-is-the-iphone-made-1999503

Or checkout the book The One Device https://amzn.to/3pDolNW

I suspect apple manufactures in china at least partially because china requires it to access their market.

> America needs to onshore manufacturing of critical chemicals and components. Steel. Electronics.

I'm all for countries having local manufacturing capabilities. Not just the US. I was also pretty vocal about Argentina having them when I lived there and I'd love the US to have more accessible local manufacturing now that I'm here.

Thing is, as much as I can want that as an engineer with a somewhat cozy desk job it's true that on-plant jobs require skill and determination that I don't have so I feel a bit of like a hypocrite for suggesting that. Are there people in the US that want factory jobs? Because when looking for talent in California for stuff like manufacturing engineering, supplier development... or when trying to find small shops that will prototype I kinda feel that no one wants to do that. Salaries are kinda okish for those positions, but to actually rebuild the talent and the collective energy and willpower to work those jobs is going to take a while.

Honestly can't blame the Bay Area for not wanting to work in plant considering public transport sucks and everything closes early. You need someone at the house or with flexible schedule to be able to take a job on plant.

> Are there people in the US that want factory jobs?

The only way to make manufacturing at home competitive with overseas is full-scale automation. It won't create jobs to bring it back onshore - nor should it for exactly the reasons you specify. Instead, it would be a strategic investment.

Except automation can’t change on a dime. It also is bad at all kinds of things… just see Musk’s commentary on why they backed away from so much automation with Model 3 for humans.

Automation works. It's not perfect but it works.

The biggest impediments are political. China will subsidize anything they're not already leading in. To counteract that, you either need tariffs or your own subsidies. But corporations will fight against tariffs (they've already invested in manufacturing in China) and labor unions will fight against subsidies for automation, so here we are.

> It also is bad at all kinds of things…

For now. The trajectory is pretty clear, and the goal would be to shoot for where the puck is going, not where it was.

On the other hand interdependence reduces the likelihood of conflict somewhat.

The rural South wants those jobs.

The rural South wants a lot of things it probably isn't going to get. Most of those jobs will be automated away or low wage and low security Amazon warehouse kinds of employment.

If they're expecting lifetime security on the assembly line with enough money for two cars in the garage and a pension with a gold watch at the end, it's not going to happen. That's not how the world works anymore.

iPhones are not a middle class item anymore, or, I've seen plenty of "low income" people with iPhones.

Apple dominates the US market, and will continue to do so. So why bother to invest more in a market you already own? The US domestic market hasn't shrunk for iPhones. I think this is reading way too much into this. China is a new growing market largely untapped by Apple, and one that is significantly larger just due to population sizes. It's as simple as that.

Which subreddit is that from? Seems like rare comment content for Reddit.

It's in the URL. Technology.

If you're relying on growth to save you then you'll die like a locked-in morbidly obese person in a bed of shame and your own filth. It's unsustainable.

Had USA not spent decades destabilising South/Central America, It would have been a good place to bring lot of manufacturing to.

> I want America to be #1. Free speech, being critical of government, and even having the ability to run for president are rights that every person should have

In principle I agree with you, but in practicality something maybe isn't working as expected? If those things mattered so much, why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much while the American middle class shrank? (assuming this is true, which I'm not sure)

At the end of the day, there's still a hierarchy of needs. If one country cannot offer its citizen those needs, reaching for higher level ones doesn't matter. Most people would rather be able to afford food, clothes, a home, electronic, entertainment, etc, than they would the ability to be critical.

On some other dimension, the best argument free democracies had used to be that the people of those countries were richer and had better lives, while totalitarian regimes, religious regimes, communist regimes delivered a worse outcome to its people. And while this is still mostly true, it seems that it's no longer as obvious which one delivers better value to its people.

> "why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much while the American middle class shrank?"

Going through an industrial revolution has impressive growth effects that can cover up a lot of bad stuff.

We'll see what happens when that growth starts to slow - I don't think it'll be good.

>Most people would rather be able to afford food, clothes, a home, electronic, entertainment, etc, than they would the ability to be critical.

The Chinese 'middle class' standard of medical care ( on average, a lot cheaper but it's also a very basic level of care), financial security, air / water / consumer good safety, access to meaningful education, and freedom of worship / speech / congregation of all types is well under what is typical for a middle class citizen in a western democracy, even including the united states. At around $20,000 USD per year (approx boundary of China's upper middle class) you're in the same general territory as Russia.

The difference is that Russia has been stuck in that quagmire for 30 years[1], whereas in China, most of those people would have been impoverished rural poor, 30 years ago.

When you have observed a colossal material improvement in your life, and you have hope for the future, you can overlook a lot of problems with governance.

[1] Yes, yes, Moscow is not an active disaster zone. Russia does not begin and end in Moscow, though.

> When you have observed a colossal material improvement in your life, and you have hope for the future, you can overlook a lot of problems with governance.

It has been long believed to work the other way: Poor people don't have the education or resources to deal with governmance; they are trying to survive, working three jobs (if they can get them), etc. When the middle class expands is typically when democracy blooms.

Democracy doesn't bloom when the middle class expands. Democracy is just one possible outcome of political upheaval - and political upheaval happens when the middle class feels that their situation is hopeless.

Russia's 'middle class' expanded massively since the economic disaster of the 90s, but I would not describe it as being more democratic today than it was in 1995.

A rising middle class isn't why communism fell apart in the 80s, either. It fell apart because the country lost any faith that the system will bring future prosperity.

I didn't say that it happened automatically.

> why would the Chinese middle class have grown so much while the American middle class shrank? (assuming this is true, which I'm not sure)

It's not meaningful: Middle class in China would be poor in the US, and developing countries can expand their economies much more quickly.

I am happy for the middle class people in China.

> the best argument free democracies had used to be that the people of those countries were richer and had better lives

You skip the main reason they have better lives, which is freedom. All those Americans (and others) worked and sacrificed for freedom. Wealth is barely mentioned in the founding documents; the Gettysburg Address, FDR, MLK, etc., didn't mention it much (though the latter two did address poverty).

It still remains to be seen if these short- and medium-term gains for China's middle class will result in prosperity in the long term. "Selling" your social/political/religious freedom can often be a boon in the short term but come back to bite you later.

China simply invested more in their people than USA it seems. You now see American business people like Elon Musk promote divestment from the USA in his attack on government deficits.

> You now see American business people like Elon Musk promote divestment from the USA in his attack on government deficits.

Source?

If that's true, that's disgusting.

https://electrek.co/2021/12/07/elon-musk-senate-not-pass-bui...

Context: The bill they're talking about is unusually porcine, to the point of overwhelming even cynics. Relevant example: Subsidies of $12,500 for electric vehicles, but only if they're made by a union. Because auto unions are major campaign donors.

Everybody always talks about "oh the government spends so much money on pork all the time, deficits are so big etc." but this is another level:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Federal spending as percent of GDP last year: More than triple the level present during the New Deal. >50% increase year over year.

It's unprecedented in peacetime. The only time it has ever been more as a percent of GDP is WWII, and in dollars (even per capita and adjusted for inflation) it's already more than WWII.

This year's proposals are a significant increase from that level.

The claim that to oppose the bill is to "promote divestment from the USA" is pretty bold.

Thank you for the context!

All that money goes into the private sector. Government deficits are an investment. Recent investment is huge and helped millions of people. Without the investment we would be in a depression (not just a recession). Elon Musk is not happy about this kind of investment for some reason. He doesn't want the government to invest so much in it's own people, which is so strange to me.

There are of course criticism in the details. For example, a majority of the funds went to the top 10% which isn't great. How the funds were deployed was far, far from ideal. It lead to asset price inflation because of this. So there are problems with it, but the alternative, not investing, would have been much worse.

> There are of course criticism in the details. For example, a majority of the funds went to the top 10% which isn't great. How the funds were deployed was far, far from ideal. It lead to asset price inflation because of this. So there are problems with it, but the alternative, not investing, would have been much worse.

The criticism of the details is the point. Spending half as much money by cutting out the portion that went to the top 10% is only the most obvious of the better alternatives.

This doesn't mean anything without the details:

> Government deficits are an investment.

The government can borrow a trillion dollars and give it to Mark Zuckerberg or whoever else donates the most to their campaigns. That's not an investment, it's corruption. It represents a net loss to the American people, because they lose the money, have to pay interest on the debt forever, and get nothing in return.

To be an investment you actually have to invest in something. But during an economic crisis, the best thing to invest in is people. If you're going to borrow money, just send out the checks. Everybody gets the same amount. It helps the people who are in trouble, it stimulates demand, and it isn't susceptible to corruption or regulatory capture.

And if you did that, you wouldn't have to borrow as much, because the same money would be more effective and the same benefit could be achieved with less of it.

But that's not what's happening.

Wait until you hear where Musk got the money to stop TSLA going bankrupt a couple of years ago (spoiler: it was the Chinese govt).

> China simply invested more in their people than USA it seems

So long as you're not Muslim.

Technically, especially Muslims. The per capita amount spent on securitization, reeducation, labour transfer (jobs programs) for the purpose of sinicizating restive muslims population is massive.

Those camps didn't build themselves.

What do you mean? China invest heavily in Xinjiang. Xinjiang GDP is 19th on the list https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%...

Per capita GDP is similarly ranked.

And there are 56 minorities groups in China, they were all have specific aid program, like preferential treatment in national college exams.

What's the basis of such a wishwash statement on China and the people? Are you suggesting Chinese people are practicing racial segregation? Or what exactly are you suggesting?

barbed wire and re-education don't count!

> Are you suggesting Chinese people are practicing racial segregation?

Lol. Are concentration camps segregation? Because if so, then yeah that is what most people (outside of china) suggest is happening.

that this is an extreme oversimplification of the Xinjiang issue should be obvious given the fact that other Muslim Chinese minorities like the Hui in China enjoy relative religious freedom. (in fact the issue is assimilation into China's ruling class, not religion per se). In fact inter-Muslim wars in China itself have a long history between different Islamic groups. Also of course the (lack of) response from the Muslim world in general to the Uyghur situation should make clear that the situation is somewhat more complicated.

No, American executives sold middle class souls to mass manufacturing in China, directly leading to Trumpism.

>China simply invested more in their people than USA it seems.

when you say "invested more in their people"? what do you mean?

if we are talking about education. both country offer free education to its people. College education are not compulsory and free in both countries

One culture values a broad band of technical education...one values social education. One advances technically and one wrestles with social issues.

that's culture differences. it doesn't support or shown China invest more in its people.

I'll argue, you don't need a lot of techies. you need people with vision like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma...etc. they don't have tech background and yet created giant tech company.

You need both, and you need a lot more "techies" than visionaries. Otherwise those visionaries just sit around at home with no one competent enough to execute on their vision.

College education is dirty cheap in China compared to the US (income adjusted).

this doesn't support "China simply invested more in their people than USA it seems.".

I'm not replying to that. I'm replying to your comment.

And you now changed it to "College education are not compulsory and free in both countries" which is even more wrong..

>I'm not replying to that. I'm replying to your comment

thank for clarify

>And you now changed it to "College education are not compulsory and free in both countries"

i never change my statement to OP and what's wrong? both countries doesn't offer free College education. one is cheaper doesn't mean its free.

Ok, so you mean "College education are not compulsory or free".

> if we are talking about education. both country offer free education to its people. College education are not compulsory and free in both countries

Education in China is also only compulsory through the 8th grade. Only 60% go on to high school.

> Free speech, being critical of government, and even having the ability to run for president are rights that every person should have.

Every person? Including convicted criminals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_t...

Ones who have finished their sentence? Absolutely. The world is better served if we allow folk who have made mistakes are allowed the opportunity to grow and re-enter society as full members rather than permanently made a second-class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com