India or China?

[AstroProdigy]

Who's going to be on top?

[Aileron]

Neither. Both of their economies are based upon cheap labor. When their economy grows, their people will be richer, and labor won't be as cheap.

 

Besides, China has a lot of social problems to solve and India has food-supply problems caused by vermin they can't kill for religious reasons.

[AstroProdigy]

I've never heard of India's food supply being permanently crippled because of vermin. Also, China's social problems seem to be swept under the rug very well at least for the near future.

 

India's economy is based on cheap labor, but it's also more largely based on skill as there are many well educated Indians and although the proportion of well educated Indians versus the whole population might be lower than the US, India has almost 4 times the population. Developing countries use cheap labor to develop, but also transform their economies in the process to become more than cheap labor economies (or are supposed to). It's simple economics. Also, the US is failing miserably at maintaining an educated, high technology workforce which, along with outsourcing, is an open door for poorer countries to take our place.

[Aileron]

China will have to deal with their social problems sooner or later. India's current food supply is already under threat from the vermin, and keep in mind that rats reproduce faster than humans, so until something changes it will only get worse. That being said, historically when people need to decide between a better way of life and tradition, way of life always wins because the whole purpose of starting the tradition in the first place was to improve the way of life. India's rat problem will get worse and worse, but when it reaches a certain threshold they will find a way to kill the rats.

 

Keep in mind that the US's primary education is failing, and by failing I mean "not doing as good as Europe" which really means that ours is sufficient, it just happens to be that theirs is better. Furthermore that's in terms of taking tests on textbook topics, not real world training and skills. Our Colleges and Universities on the other hand are generally the best and our scientific and engineering workforce still rivals Germany and Japan, with particular dominance in the aviation industry.

 

India's economy however consists of sending students to the US to get educated and then having them return to India to do lower-end technical jobs for lower wages than US technicians and engineers. As the Indian economy grows, they will need to build up their own educational system and they won't be able to rely on their engineers being willing to work cheaper than US, Japanese, and German engineers.

 

They are doing good, and its clear they are going to become an economic power within the next hundred years. I just wouldn't count on them being the next superpower yet.

[AstroProdigy]

Like I said I've never heard of India having a huge vermon problem. Where'd you get this information?

 

Our universities are great, but the best ones generally support a class system. Also, our high tech workforce is deteriorating as less and less people choose to get educated for those types of jobs. There is a big problem with this and over time we're just gonna fall behind.

 

I think if China can keep its problems under the rug for a few more decades they can become a superpower at this rate. I don't know how stable and likely it can be though. India seems more stable with a relatively longer lasting democratic government and steady growth and a population that continues to grow at a rate where the elderly will not be a major problem. It would take them a while to get a GDP per capita close to ours, but keep in mind even with a fraction of our GDP they could still have a GDP higher than ours and if they focused on military they'd have a giant workforce and with equal funding could be as advanced as our military with more manpower. A lot can happen during a century. The U.S. did rise from relative obscurity in the beginning of the 20th century to be the only superpower and arguably a hyperpower at the end of the 20th century.

[Aileron]

China's social problems cannot be swept under a rug in terms of economics. They live in a classist system, that alone limits the heights their economy can reach. Sweeping it under the rug can make them stable, but that fundimental truth will still be there and still hold them back.

 

 

We do have a problem in that few people are willing to work in technical fields. Simply put, that part of the workforce is paid less than what they are worth, and accountants are paid far more than they are worth. But, that problem is like India's rat problem, its there but its so easy to solve that it will be solved in the future.

 

 

I forget where I read about India's rodent problem, maybe a Time magazine a few years back. It stems from them being Hindu, believing in reincarnation, and being forbidden to kill any animal. I really shouldn't have mentioned it at all, its not a critical problem. As I said, they will solve it soon enough anyway.

[SVS]

India's current economy is small and growing very slowly in comparison to China. People focus on the outsourced jobs that have gone to India but they don't bother checking on the corresponding increase in per capita GDP in India. Let me give you a hint, it is very, very small. The great majority of India continues to live in extreme poverity with little to no education.

 

India will never be on top and it will be quite a long time indeed before it becomes a fully industrialized nation.

[PoLiX]

As we send more and more jobs over there, it will begin to help change things. Maybe not in 10 or 15 or even 20yrs, but it will begin to change.

 

And trust me, Technical jobs aren't the only ones underpaid. It really seems anymore if your not part of a union, you can't get paid !@#$%^&* for what you do. I do 2x as much work in Recieving for SEARS as my buddy does for Safeway, and yet even after going into Security for a bit and getting a $1 raise to $9.10 over a year ago, in 2yrs time he is now making $13/hr and i'm making $9.28 as of the 5th. I started out making $.10 more than him. The big difference? His company is ran by a union who controls the pay scale. Mine just gave everyone in WA a $.30 raise back in August, but didn't mention til a week ago, that it was for the fact WA's minimum wage is going from $7.68 to $7.98, also a $.30 increase.

 

I think if the Governments over there start making any sort of Labor laws, or the people begin banding together into Unionization, our industry is going to be !@#$%^&*ed.

 

I forget who said it, but I've heard it a few times since: "Our Economy is one of the most profitable for business right now, yet our workers are getting the lowest cut of that profit, and are the most underpaid since the 1930s"

[AstroProdigy]

Just because something in Hinduism says you can't do something doesn't mean they have to follow it. Do you see Christians following everything in the Bible? Muslims are the only ones who seem to be moving further towards extremism.

 

As for SVS; China's economy is growing very rapidly. India's economy is growing slower, but it's still growing much faster than ours. Poverty in India is falling as well. Most people aren't educated, but for it's size, India has a huge population of educated people and it in fact is quite a bit larger than China's educated population.

 

There are only 4 forseeable candidates for superpower right now; the United States, China, India, and the European Union. The U.S. will likely stay a superpower, but whether it's on top depends on the other 3.

 

China is growing rapidly, but if they don't solve their social problems it will eventually bite them in the !@#$%^&*. They're also going to go through a population collapse in the future.

 

India is a fairly long lasting democracy and although they are growing slower than China, they are still growing rapidly and I think they have good prospects to exentually be on top. Don't forget China is going to go through a population collapse because of their one child policy, while India's continues to grow naturally (without immigration) and will be in an economically healthy shape in the future as long as they can match that with economic growth. That's something even the United States can't say since a very large part of our population growth is through immigrants.

 

The European Union combined right now would be the most powerful economy in the world, but they don't have a viable way of uniting all the different countries together right now. If they could do that then they could continue to grow with new membership and stay on top at least for a while economically at least.

 

I honestly think we're screwing ourselves right now with our pro outsourcing and anti education policies. That leaves us with no labor intensive work in the US and not enough people to have a high tech economy.

[Aileron]

Oh, they won't violate their religion en masse, but they will find a way around it. My bet is that they'll recruit non Hindus or animals to do the job for them. Jeez, if ppl only drilled a pressurized insulated vacuated tunnel through the Earth we could send them several litters of stray cats to solve that problem which would arrive in 42 minutes at no cost of fuel, and only sacrificing one of the cats' nine lives.

 

Ur right in that we are screwing ourselves with outsourcing and education, but I'd say we'll eventually stop. Those problems are certainly less daunting than Europe's unification needs or China's social problems.

[AstroProdigy]

Or they will simply not follow the unpractical parts of their religion the way Christians do. Is that hard to believe? Why do you expect Hindus to follow their religion to the extreme? Do Christians do this?

 

I never said we would not be a superpower in the future. It's just that if any of the 3 reached even close to their full potential they'd be more powerful economically, militarily, or both than us.

[Aileron]

Well, Christianity was founded on the idea of abhorring meaningless traditions. Most of the conflicts between Jesus and the High Priests were caused by such traditions. Christianity today is in the often contradictory status of being a religion founded upon not tolerating meaningless tradtion yet having 2000 years worth of traditions.

 

Its similar to the US really. The US was created by combating a superpower, and in many ways our nation was founded on the idea of fighting the tactics used by superpowers, yet today we are the superpower and don't really know what to do with ourselves.

 

 

Hinduism doesn't oppose tradition, thinking the universe is a cyclic state of balance, and thus that nothing really changes and that the traditions founded so long ago apply just as well today as well as in the future.

[NBVegita]

As for the tech field, I work for the tech field. I get paid quite well for my position, better than the other 3 guys who have 2 years seniority and are more quallified than I am. But you see I know how to negotiate. Not only am I getting better pay than them, I also convinced the company to pay the benefits for me and my fiance. Out of the 3 men in my position, they all out age me by 6+ years.

 

I think that people just don't know how to negotiate, and don't realize just what they're worth to a company. It also helps that companies of course start offering lower wages, and with the job market in such a scarcity (spell check) that people are willing to take a job making less pay than they deserve because there might not be another one out there.

 

A big problem in the tech field is that everyone is getting educated in the low end tech jobs, but you don't see that many nuclear engineers coming into the workforce nowadays. I'm going back to finish a degree part time at Syracuse University in Physics Engineering, where you take a specific field of physics and get your masters in engineering with it. Out of the 10's of thousands of students SU has, there are only 24 people in that program, they estimate 3 of us will actually graduate from it.

 

People nowadays want those easy jobs, like accountant or low end tech jobs. I think for the most part people are content living life like that. Money isn't really the issue for continuing education, because for most of the tech companies I have investigated, they will pay most of, if not all of the cost for you to get more certification or education. But most of the employees are happy making 40k-60k a year and don't bother trying to go back. Right now there is an abundance of high speciallized jobs, but all of the jobs that most of us are going for nowadays, or right from college are already taken.

 

It used to be a big deal to have a college degree, now its basically like you can get one out of a cracker jack box.

 

I think that we can't just blame the economy, we have to shoulder some of the blame ourselves. The two biggest majors at least when I entered college were business and psychology. Notice those are also some of the most useless majors you can have. If people would strive for the specialization jobs, that would free the low end jobs, and start to balance the economy. I think that would be the most effective, and only way to fix our job economy problem. Bringing in more low end jobs will just give us the same problem as soon as the class of 07" graduates.

[AstroProdigy]

Aileron:

Christianity is based on plenty of traditions. For example, not eating meat for 40 days and nights. That doesn't mean everyone or almost everyone is suddenly following it. As for Hinduism, neither of us knows much about Hinduism, but considering the facts and the lack of proof you have to back up your claim and my inability to find your proof I'd see this is an !@#$%^&*essment you got from a biased source and need to update your research.

 

NBVegita:

If everyone knew how to negotiate the company would be forced to lower the wages altogether.

 

How do you suggest people strive for high end jobs? High end tech and science degrees are harder and take more time than any other degree. There needs to be real incentive like high wages for careers that are harder to get to than medical or law degrees. What about the lack of respect people interested in these fields get before college. Public education needs to do it's part too. As of now it encourages mediocrity when it should strongly encourage excellence.

[NBVegita]

Thats my whole point. People don't want to work for the jobs. Do you know that starting off a nuclear engineer makes more money than a doctor, with less schooling? People need to want to do better. But with society today, if you want to be lazy, thats deemed just fine. At least around here, noone got less respect for trying to get into a tech field before college. Most people looked at that as better than trying to be an accountant.

 

If you get your CCIE cisco certification, for which only 4400 people in america have, you start in the 200-250k a year range. And you get to write your own hours. What more incentive do people need for this stuff? With high end tech jobs you can make great money without having to go through 8-12 years of school, or internships, or residencies. And your hours are normally great.

[AstroProdigy]

Maybe people like the idea of doctor because it sounds easy once you're done with the schooling? It's also a lot more common job so people see it as less of a risk.

[NBVegita]

I do believe that you are right on that point.

[Aileron]

My father is a Nuclear Engineer. The reason no one wants to be a nuclear engineer is because since TMI it has been a dying industry. Every time some corporation wanted to build a nuke plant, a bunch of environmentalists would swoop in and stop them. No new nuke plant has been constructed in the US for almost 50 years. It was so bad for a while that my father, a licensed professional who had almost 20 years of experience a while ago decided to go back to college in order to get some business degrees. Only now is is starting to turn around, due to President Bush no less, because Bush has no love for environmentalists and knows this country needs to get away from oil. Don't get me wrong, its not so mcuh Bush as changing at!@#$%^&*udes in the country. I believe Westinghouse is planning on building a new reactor soon.

 

People like the Doctor job because it is very stable. Humanity has always needed doctors and will always need doctors. If one has a medical degree, one is practically guarenteed employment.

 

As for "people being lazy", its only smart to do what is going to give the most money for the least amount of work. The people who are going into business and psycology are in a certain way smarter than engineers. We need to fix our capitalist system so as to stop rewarding them. We shouldn't be paying those fields that much, because as you said, those industries are overpaid.

 

Though I've seen firsthand the value of psycology. A basic knowledge of psycology should be incorporated into the medical profession, and Psychiatrists should still continue to be MDs, and probably should be stationed at hospitals. A lot of hypochondriacs, drug addicts, and morbidly obese come in. That being said, the "industry" shoudln't exist. It should be a section of medical training, maybe with few people specializing in it in the same way we have Optomitrists, Orthopedics, Dermatologists, etc.

 

I also firmly believe that colleges should make it easier. As you said, out of the tens of thousands of students, only 24 are actually enrolling. Making the program difficult enough that 21 ppl drop out of it is only making the problem worse. Those 24 didn't get in the door by being dummies. By that time they have already proven that they are intelligent and willing to work. The college has already effectively filtered that population, and shouldn't filter it out more.

 

High schools should promote the sciences more, but if students listened to high schools we wouldn't have drug use and underage pregnancy. The problem is a lot of our whole culture. The cost of success is that the society itself becomes weak. A rising society believes in promoting technology and new ideas. At its peak however, society starts to promote things people can indulge in. In our case, we promote singers, athletes, and actors. Our expensive items are not built better in utility but rather in entertainment value.

 

Now this could be a result of either entire societal decay or merely the result of a large baby boomer population who locally has already reached the peak and started to decline. I'm an optimist, so I'm hoping that its just them and that when the younger generations who still hold ambition take over that these problems will solve themselves.

 

 

 

A final word in the off-topic arguement:

Most of the Catholics I know do observe lent. Its far from meaningless either...it essentially teaches discipline at that is why it has lasted. As for my remarks about Hinduism, I have known a few Hindus, but I also know their basic teachings, and a notion of balance is a big part of it. However, generally everything I've learned about culture taught me that people behave the same way despite their culture. In this case, people will only break traditions if there is a need to break it and there are no alternatives, !@#$%^&*uming they believe in those traditions in the first place. In this case, there are alternatives, and I would guess that most Hindus are active because most nations are relgiously active and our inactivity is the worldwide anamoly.

 

I understand your point of view and agree that the "problem" I mentioned was overstated and that their traditions will not stand in the way of them solving it.

[AstroProdigy]

It's not Bush at all...It's people needing alternatives to oil. Nuclear power is much less hazardous to the environment than all that oil that's taken at the cost of the environment and contributes to global warming, but hey hippies want what hippies want. Did you know the deal we made with the Russians is to take buy the uranium from their nukes? We're effectively providing power to the country and dismanteling the giant Soviet nuclear weapons stockpile that was built up over the years.

 

Some good ideas you've stated.

 

I was raised in an orthodox family. The Orthodox also observe lent, but I know lots of people who don't. The same thing goes with Catholics.

 

Hinduism for the most part seems to be going further towards secularism and India is a democratic, secular state. The reason I wouldn't mind India being on top instead of China is that India has better long term economic and social indicators and I'll take a democratic country over an authoritarian one any day.

[Aileron]

I didn't mean to imply that Bush was the catalyst in this case. He is merely the first president in this catagory to see the reality that fossil sux and solar is a pipe dream. I expect subsequent presidents from both parties to support Nuclear and Hydrogen technology.

 

That deal with Russia isn't that sweet however. I don't think we are getting Uranium fuel, but rather spent nuclear waste. We have essentially agreed to dump their nuclear garbage on our turf because they have shown repeated failures to deal with it and letting them keep it would be a worldwide security threat.

[AstroProdigy]

Presidents before him knew the problems of fossil fuels. It's just that over time other forms of energy become more viable. It's simply coincidence. Hydrogen energy will take a long time to develop and by then solar energy will probably be efficient enough to provide a lot of energy.

 

If it keeps Islamic extremists from getting their hands on nukes alone it's worth it.

[Aileron]

Hydrogen isn't that far off actually. Israel's really working hard at it, and already have m!@#$%^&*-efficient models working. All it will take is to get the cost down and to build the infrastructure. The only problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel on Earth. (Fuels are materials that are lying around naturally that can be used to produce energy. Hydrogen isn't lying around anywhere on Earth, so it can't be used for power plants. To be honest we might as well run our cars off an electro-rail system built into the roads.)

 

Solar will never be efficient enough. Life essentially runs on solar energy. Fossil fuels are essentially deposits of millions of years of biomatter condensed into one small package. A gallon of gas is about a hundred years worth of solar energy condensed into a small liquid package.

[NBVegita]

Well the whole point of the major is that the knowledge you must have to do the job correctly is that difficult. You want only the smartest of the smartest.

 

And as for doctors, they do a solid amount of psychology work. My brother was going for pediatirics, and ended up with a minor in psych.

 

The problem is that business jobs don't pay that well. Besides the hours being !@#$%^&*ty, you can make more money doing retail management, of which you need nothing more than a hs education, than you can with low to mid end business jobs. Its just everyone is dying for that 8-5 job...

[AstroProdigy]

It depends on your opinion of "far off". We will probably still be alive when it becomes efficient. Hydrogen is lying around everywhere on earth in the form of water. Solar power will eventually become efficient enough to take a portion of the slack of energy needs and combined with wind, hydroelectric, and fusion power we should be alright as long as we develop them fast enough and don't overuse fossil fuels. Also, solar power could help the global warming problem by absorbing some of the energy.

[Aileron]

Nope, all that electricity will be eventually converted to heat anyway, so solar won't help global warming except by replacing something that gives off emissions.

 

Yes, hydrogen can be found in water, but it takes electrolosis to produce, and it takes more electricity to make hydrogen gas from water than you can possibly generate from burning the gas, and that is regardless of how efficient the technology gets...it would break the laws of thermodynamics otherwise. In order to be a fuel, a material has to be found naturally in a state in which one can make an energy profit by burning. It works for cars, though it is understood we would need to make that energy for the electrolosis in a power plant.

 

 

 

Veg, you shouldn't need to be the smartest of the smartest to get a BS. Eliminating more people doesn't necessarily mean the remainder is the smartest anyway.

 

One of the stories I heard (coincidentally it has to do with nuclear power) deals with the reformation after TMI. An educational board was sent in to "re-train" engineers. Their initial goal was to disqualify 75% of the working engineers. The plan was halted in the early stages because the group they were working with were well qualified engineers who had certification and experience, and the power plant needed more engineers to run. Basically, educators have a tendancy to ignore the initial qualifications of the group.

 

The grades for any college class are always shaped like a normal bell curve, regardless of the end abilities of the student. If you lined up all of the Nobel Prize winners for the Natural Sciences and put them in a Physics 100 class, half of those "students" would fail it. The instructor would just make the course material more and more useless and obscure until half the class had no idea what he was talking about.