←back to thread

689 points taubek | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rayiner ◴[] No.43632822[source]
Americans need to get over their view of “Asia” as being about making shoes. When I was working in engineering in the early aughts, we mocked the Chinese as being able only to copy American technology. Today, China is competitive with or ahead of America in key technology areas, including nuclear power, AI, EVs, and batteries.

We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but four times bigger. Is that a world where “Designed by Apple in California, Made in China” still makes sense? What will be America’s competitive edge in that scenario?

What seems most likely to me in the future is that the US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now. Dominating finance and services won’t mean anything when both the IP and the physical products are being produced somewhere else.

replies(66): >>43633029 #>>43633740 #>>43633979 #>>43634170 #>>43634230 #>>43635003 #>>43635033 #>>43635225 #>>43635278 #>>43635334 #>>43635471 #>>43635491 #>>43635637 #>>43635791 #>>43635923 #>>43635965 #>>43636370 #>>43636516 #>>43636589 #>>43636933 #>>43637091 #>>43637096 #>>43637236 #>>43637388 #>>43637764 #>>43637890 #>>43637962 #>>43638040 #>>43638048 #>>43638164 #>>43638448 #>>43638552 #>>43638604 #>>43638675 #>>43638810 #>>43638985 #>>43639013 #>>43639148 #>>43639294 #>>43639502 #>>43639504 #>>43639511 #>>43639667 #>>43639766 #>>43639770 #>>43639816 #>>43639820 #>>43639966 #>>43640213 #>>43640292 #>>43640451 #>>43641017 #>>43641361 #>>43641971 #>>43642066 #>>43642532 #>>43642662 #>>43642938 #>>43643423 #>>43643596 #>>43643685 #>>43643708 #>>43644078 #>>43646083 #>>43660566 #>>43661419 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.43633979[source]
> US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now

The thing is .. there's a point here, but it's not at all tied in with physical products. People are obsessed with one side of the ledger while refusing to see the other. Most of the stuff the UK is struggling with (transport, healthcare, energy) are "state capacity" issues. Things where the state is unavoidably involved and having better, more decisive leadership and not getting bogged down in consultations, would make a big difference.

The UK stepped on its own rake because it was obsessed with tiny, already vanished industries like fishing. Fishing is less profitable for the whole UK than Warhammer. It's not actually where we want to be. While real UK manufacture successes (cars, aircraft, satellites, generators, all sorts of high-tech stuff) get completely ignored. Or bogged down in extra export red tape thanks to Brexit.

To improve reality, we have to start from reality, not whatever vision of the past propaganda "news" channels are blathering about.

replies(22): >>43634292 #>>43634663 #>>43634841 #>>43634864 #>>43634939 #>>43634964 #>>43635024 #>>43635112 #>>43635288 #>>43635699 #>>43635776 #>>43637627 #>>43637838 #>>43638051 #>>43638563 #>>43639599 #>>43639910 #>>43640460 #>>43641575 #>>43641946 #>>43642439 #>>43642587 #
throw0101c ◴[] No.43634864[source]
> […] are "state capacity" issues. Things where the state is unavoidably involved and having better, more decisive leadership and not getting bogged down in consultations, would make a big difference.

See "America needs a bigger, better bureaucracy":

> I believe that the U.S. suffers from a distinct lack of state capacity. We’ve outsourced many of our core government functions to nonprofits and consultants, resulting in cost bloat and the waste of taxpayer money. We’ve farmed out environmental regulation to the courts and to private citizens, resulting in paralysis for industry and infrastructure alike. And we’ve left ourselves critically vulnerable to threats like pandemics and — most importantly — war.

[…]

> If government spending isn’t going to pay government workers, it must be going to pay people who work in the private sector — nonprofits, for-profit contractors, consultants, and so on. In other words, state capacity is being outsourced. But this graph doesn’t actually capture the full scope of the decline, because it doesn’t include outsourcing via unfunded mandates — things that the government could do, but instead simply orders the private sector to do, without providing the funding.

* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-...

Mentions the paper "State Capacity: What Is It, How We Lost It, And How to Get It Back" (22pp, so short):

* https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/br...

And the book Bring Back the Bureaucrats: Why More Federal Workers Will Lead to Better (and Smaller!) Government:

* https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/templeton-press/bring...

replies(1): >>43637615 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.43637615{3}[source]
That article seems confused, e.g.:

> If government spending isn’t going to pay government workers, it must be going to pay people who work in the private sector — nonprofits, for-profit contractors, consultants, and so on. In other words, state capacity is being outsourced.

The money is going to social security payments. Social security went from <1% of federal spending at its outset to more than 20% of federal spending today. Medicare and other assistance programs are a similar story. Most of the money from these programs goes to paying benefits rather than administrative costs, which is generally regarded as a good thing. But they're also what together now constitute the majority of federal spending.

Meanwhile there is another reason why the number of government workers has gone down: Computers were invented. Things that used to be done by hand are now done by machine, and then you don't need as many clerks and bookkeepers to manually process paper records. This is also generally regarded as a good thing.

The points it makes about unfunded mandates and NIMBYs holding everything up with meritless lawsuits are valid, but the "ministerial review" it proposes is the existing permitting process. The problem is we have unfunded mandates and NIMBY lawsuits on top of that, which could simply be deleted and replaced with nothing.

This really seems like the fundamental misunderstanding:

> And guess who’s responsible for monitoring Medicare spending? Bureaucrats. So that’s at least a 2300% return on investment in bureaucracy!

If you only look at the most efficient thing a bureaucrat could be doing, look how efficient bureaucrats are!

Meanwhile the government is still paying thousands of people to process paper records because although computers were invented many decades ago, only parts of the government have discovered them and there are still many things you have to do by bringing physical documents to government offices to be processed in person even when those things have no legitimate reason not to be a government website.

What we need is not to have more bureaucrats, but rather to finish computerizing the things that have no reason not to be so the existing government employees can do the high value stuff instead of wasting time shuffling paper that should have been bits.

replies(1): >>43638725 #
hermitdev ◴[] No.43638725{4}[source]
> Meanwhile there is another reason why the number of government workers has gone down:

Uh...excluding the very recent cuts this year under Trump; the number of civilians in the US Federal work force has gone up fairly steadily. [0]

We had 23.592 million civilian employees in Jan 2025. 21.779M in Jan 2021, after being largely stagnant overall the previous 10 years. That's a net change in excess of 1.8M employees under Biden.

I do find it interesting that it appears that employee count was flat, or even down under Obama, but until COVID, there was a steady increase under Trump v1.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USGOVT

replies(2): >>43643655 #>>43644641 #
DeathArrow ◴[] No.43643655{5}[source]
And beside government institutions there are lots of institutions at state and city level.
replies(1): >>43644667 #
1. dahart ◴[] No.43644667{6}[source]
Institutions at the state and city level are called “government”, and those are included in the data parent linked to.