India's demographic outlook is far better than China's for the next two decades. I expect Apple is anticipating the resultant societal disruption and is trying to get out ahead of it.
Reality is, India demographics is less blessing and more curse, she has to tackle a far larger overpopulation crisis with fewer resources and opportunities. Her economic growth / ability to generate new jobs has rarely kept up with population growth, and with automation, offshoring spreading out to smaller countries, there won't be same amount of manufacturing jobs to elevate India as it did PRC. India looks to be destined to get old while staying lower middle-income VS PRC who will at least enter high income. And once the old start dying in PRC , there will be huge amounts of generational wealth transfers that analysts predict will increase / sustain highend consumption. What Apple is really anticipating is being squeezed out due to geopolitics and rise in domestic PRC luxury brands.
That said, still India has 1.4B people and aggressive tariff policies to encourage local assembly / sales, but in terms of market power, there will be more high income PRC nationals vs Indians for Apple tax tier products, and that won't meaningfully converge unless India goes all in on income disparity.
I asked the question because their English seemed so good to me that it seemed intentional, it also seemed unusual.
To me it's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from my grandparents. It's weird and old-fashioned. Even most news sources use the genderless "it" for countries nowadays.
It's honestly a bit cringy to read.
English doesn't have gendered nouns, but this linguistic quirk runs deep enough in human psychology that we do sometimes use female pronouns to describe these things. Examples: "She's a beauty" (of a car), or "America and her allies."
While I like the theory, its cute, I dont know that that's true. L'automobile is male in Italian and Spanish. And its easy for a native speaker in either language to come up with numerous examples.
In fact gender really is just grammar. We shouldn't see much into it trying to project ourselves into it. Otherwise, why can the same object have different genders through synonyms? Again:
La macchina L'automobile.
La yerba (granted in Spanish its lost its meaning as grass) El cesped
La nave Il barco
La embarcación El bote
Or changes from the addition of a mere diminutive:
Il banco La bancarella
Il barco La barchetta
Gender is just a classification, largely binary (although Spanish retains the neuter) that got the unfortunate sexual labels of male and female
What? LA automobile is female.
> Il barco La barchetta
"IL barco" doesn't mean anything, it's "LA barca" which, again, is female.
I'd say that generally speaking "it's female when they contain people" is correct, but of course not always (LO ufficio = the office).
Going by the languages I have some knowledge of, that doesn't hold true for Portuguese, where the word "country" itself is masculine but the truth is different countries have different genders. I guess it would be the same for other latin languages? (at least for Spanish). German is also the same but the word "country" is neutral.
I guess it does somewhat hold true for my native language, Hebrew, where all the words you specified but "house" are feminine. So I guess it might also hold true for Arabic then?
>Bhārat Mātā ( Mother India in English) is a national personification of India (Bharat) as a mother goddess.
I don't know how valid, TBH I use pronouns because it's rhetorically tedious to keep typing country name.
But you don't have to. "it" is considered impolite, something you don't use for something you treasure. Furthermore English has a perfectly long history of referring to countries as shes. This has fallen in disuse in the past 50 years as we've gotten fussy about the sexes. But it is certainly not incorrect or foreign to English.
Basically this. I generally try to use variant of 2/3 letter country code instead of pronounces to reduce repetition, but IN/IND sounds awkward.
Countries have, historically, been identified as women not just in the written word but also in illustration, poetry, etc. The OP's relationship to his country is entirely on his terms not yours.
Furthermore the role of pronouns are not to refer to people, but generally to refer to nouns. In some cultures it is considered rude to refer to a person as a pronoun. So OP shouldn't be using "India" repetitively (which would tire the reader/listener). One can use "it" to refer to "India", OP will prefers to refer to India as a "she"
Some may find this backwards, or misogynistic. That's their problem.
In China, the children are expected to take care of their parents in their twilight years, and the husband is typically expected to provide for the wife and kid(s), so you basically have 1 dude providing for 8 people: himself + his wife + 2 kids + his parents + his wife's parents.
Any way you cut it, China is due for ~35 years of an absolutely horrendous labor participation rate. And unlike developed nations with declining birthrates, it's unlikely immigrants will be able to take up the slack, as extreme xenophobia is omnipresent in China and her population is absolutely massive.
Which is better in terms of the well-being of the population and all that is a separate question.
That takes care of the resource problem.
So if one subset has a large fertility they eventually inherit the Earth since the neighboring countries will be empty, or will have changed their fertility course.
this is pretty much a polite way of saying indians are dying much younger while giving birth to more.
China's forays on the world stage are because of money and its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
That's a very reductionist point of view which glosses over history.
Sounds like China in the 1980s, when Apple first began manufacturing in China...
Deng Xiaoping started Chinese economic reform. You might want to check out China before Deng. its a poorly educated and financially constrained country.
Do you need an educated labor force to assemble iPhone?
Yes you do.
"Low-skill" workers with basic education (reading, writing, counting, some understanding of some scientific concepts) will simply perform better.
And you still need engineers and other high-skill workers to supervise, maintain, perform quality control, improve methods etc..
The thing is China (at least until quite recently) had a huge quantity of those and at a rather low price.