China

[Luke]

But we are getting off topic again. Main argument were the problematic tendencies of western capitalism that china tries to counter balance. I think that assessment of the situation is well-thought-out and these regulatory crackdowns are one sign of their willingness to change it. 

Edited March 22 by Luca

[cubsfan]

You want to improve the quality and pay those that deserve rewards in Academics - get rid of the bloat. It's totally out of control at these Universities. They need to pay the teaching assistants better, since they are basically slaves to the Professors - and get rid of the Administrators. Get back to teaching.

 

https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/

 

The number of staff at Stanford has more than doubled since 2000, drawing some criticism of administrative bloat — including fromformer U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

 

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/01/05/more-employees-than-students-at-stanford-give-each-student-a-concierge/

 

Specifically, there were 15,750 administrators, 2,288 faculty members, and 16,937 students. The paid help of 18,038 (administrators plus faculty) outnumbered the customers (students) by 1,101.

 

 

Edited March 22 by cubsfan

[Dinar]

2 hours ago, Luca said:

Was your phd such a freebie and what do you consider as a "fair salary" for someone with a phd? 

I paid nothing for my Phd which I received ten years ago.  I also received a stipend every year.  I could have tutored undergrads for $100+ per hour if I had the inclination.

The people I am talking about received PhDs in marketing, economics, management, accounting, finance and computer science.  All making $170k-300K per annum, + insane benefits + incredible lifestyle in academia.

I don't know about Germany, in the US you do bachelor's in four years, although some people can do it in three.  Masters is part of PhD program, that can be done in four to five years.  Yes, some people take six or seven, but that is generally the exception.  

Fair salary for a PhD in academia?  I don't know it depends. You work 10 hours a week twelve weeks a year, and the rest of the time you do research, except once you get tenure, you don't even have to do that. There is well known research study/ies that show that research productivity collapses after people get tenure.  Well, for 120 hours of work per year what should you get paid?   

Keep in mind, tenure is like a bond.  You get your salary, pension, healthcare (worth $40-50K per annum after-tax in the US), other benefits - like tuition payment for your kids at university.  You can also "work" till you are 80.  

@thepupil, I don't know about professors of engineering.  I know that a friend is a professor of physics at City College of NY.  He makes about $90K per annum, pays nothing for his health care benefits, pays nothing for his future pension benefits, and teaches about 20 hours a week, twelve weeks a year.  Also gets a sabbatical every sixth or seventh year.  

 

Edited March 22 by Dinar

[thepupil]

Again, I’ll just repeat that your data points seem far more cushy than the data or my anecdata suggests.

 

almost every PhD I know also did 2-3+ years of some research or other low paying job b/w undergrad and grad to have a chance of getting into a competitive funded program. Combine with a couple years of post doc and your looking at 10-12 years before you get a job with real benefits and a salary >$60k…most people in my wife’s cohorts ended up in debt despite no tuition/stipend because making $25k in major metro isn’t cutting it.

 

the idea of a 20 hour workweek is laughable to me. Another family member is a professor at a small podunk rural liberal arts college. She’s constantly grading papers and doing emails /admin work, honestly seems like she works 50 hours/week. She make $50k/year. It’s a labor of love for her.

 

Perhaps your datapoints are people with PhD’s wher the private sector is more competitive like comp sci.

even then,. They seem world’s away from my experience.

 

Edited March 22 by thepupil

[Spekulatius]

On 3/22/2024 at 3:51 AM, Luca said:

He is not a communist advocate, but you can't deny several observations Karl Marx did. 

 

Being a professor is an important job in our societies, and he certainly provides a lot of value too, nothing about being a parasite. 

Hudson seems like a neo Marxist. He has some valid points (as did Marx) but I think his conclusions are wrong and any application of what he teaches will lead to disaster. Adam Smith is long dead but in terms of his legacy, I don‘t think we have come up with a better model.

[Luke]

Just now, Spekulatius said:

Hudson seems like a neo Marxist. He has some valid points (as did Marx) but I think his conclusions are wrong and any application of what he teaches will lead to disaster. Adam Smith is long dead but in terms of his legacy, I don‘t think we have come up with a better model.

What do you think are his conclusions, and why are they wrong? 

[treasurehunt]

23 hours ago, thepupil said:

Again, I’ll just repeat that your data points seem far more cushy than the data or my anecdata suggests.

 

Here's some more anecdata for what it's worth. I got my PhD some 25 years ago but never went into academia. Some of my colleagues did. I also know quite a few school teachers here in California.

 

Not one of them is leading what I'd consider a cushy life while making tons of money. Some might be in great shape when they retire, with generous pensions. I, on the other hand, managed to retire at 45 thanks largely to stock options from my tech company employer.

 

All I know is, if some kid were to ask me "What line of work should I go into where I'll have an easy life and make a lot of money?" I sure won't be saying "Teaching, my son! That's the golden ticket!".

[thepupil]

Yes, honestly if I wanted to kneecap a smart, hardworking person’s earning potential, I’d tell them to get a PhD and try to go into academia.
 

Almost guarantees underemployment and little net worth growth for many years.

 

 

[Gregmal]

Right....but other anecdata....my little brother is currently in a PHD program for genetic engineering at a top school. Yes, he makes shit. Yes, he's overworked and semi abused(depending upon how tough you are mentally and how you define abuse)...yes all he gets is a stipend....BUT....once he's done he knows he has a cushy academic job if he wants it, or he can go private sector starting off at probably $200k plus stock options.

 

But thats a real productive space he s in...one with private sector demand. Tell me where else...say, someone who goes to Rutgers or Penn State with 950-1100 SATs, parties their way into a 3.0...ends up with complete job security, elite health insurance, a pension, and summers+holidays off while making $80-120k a year in their late 30s/early 40s?

[Gregmal]

My other brother is white coat PHD....always wanted his own practice, did the whole run...lots of school then residency etc...he's now debating a "research" position at a major university because "private practice has gotten too challenging"...most of the people who he went to school with also went the "academic" route because it was easier. These are the cream of the crop. 

 

Theres no "free ride", but realistically, putting in 5-10 years of intense labor is fairly standard, except when you make it to the other side in the academic field you're unchallenged and golden. Whereas if you do 5-10 years as an electrician...well, then you can go off on your own a start your own business from scratch, likely competing against your old boss....

 

Sure theres also a huge difference between grade school teaching at public schools and say graduate stuff at university...but both aint nearly the torture we always hear about. I had a Spanish teacher in middle school who taught the middle school, high school, and then had classes at two different local colleges...guy would boast about his hobby of buying $5,000 bottles of wine, despite not even drinking. Its one thing to have these sort of gravy trains if youre a cop or a firefighter putting your life on the line and having a smooth exit after 20 years which could potentially be your early 40s...but the teaching/academic stuff? No lives are on the line yet they get a similar if not better deal than the cops/firefighters. 

[thepupil]

Wait We’re talking about elite MD/PhD’s? And it’s a grift for them to make < a PCP after like 8-12+ years of paying for school or making less than a living wage? (And the lowest form of hourly comp for elite professions)

 

I just don’t get it. Honestly I think it’s a strength of the American system that our smartest people can go into research and make just okay money. 
 

but even then, I was not aware of $200K+ research positions; my only exposure to this is discussions with biotech funds who employee loads of PhD’s cheaply, because according to them research pays so poorly. 
 

Even $200k in 30’s would be well below market for someone of that caliber in any other elite

profession.

 

Edited March 24 by thepupil

[thepupil]

Re teachers

 

think part of this is a red state blue state thing as well. My MIL worked 20 years as a teacher in a red state, topped out at $60kw/ a PhD, $12K/ year pension. Naturally, her state is in spectacular fiscal condition.

 

if your reference point is Illinois or NJ, and those numbers are >$100k pension, you feel differently 

Edited March 24 by thepupil

[Gregmal]

56 minutes ago, thepupil said:

just don’t get it. Honestly I think it’s a strength of the American system that our smartest people can go into research and make just okay money.

No, that’s perfectly fine. But what about the other 95%? The top percentile always gets treated well, however I do kinda think it’s ineffective to encourage the most capable to outright shun going into the real world, which is definitely occurring in the medical space because of all the consolidation and shifts occurring in that system. I’d also put an asterisk next to “just Ok money”…”just ok” for lots of vacation time, straight 9-4 leave work at home hours, probably your own private office, 100% job security, elite benefits and retirement? I mean I’d peg that as more valuable than making $500k-$1m a year for a few peaks years in other professions.
 

Outside of the medical space….do we really consider a Literature or Philosophy PHD “best and brightest”? I’m definitely kinda dunking on academia more than I want to, but it’s crazy how easy it is if you do the 5-10 years and share in the politics. Nobody counts the summers and winter breaks. Or ALWAYS being home for the holidays unlike cops or firefighters or medical professionals. No one puts a value on the pension which is so awful a deal for the employers that even the worst private sector capital allocators have kinda just thrown in the towel on them. 
 

I think the mistake we make is looking at ourselves or a normal ambitious, half intelligent, and driven person and assume this is the HBU. It’s not. But if you’re not ambitious, don’t want to work like an adult, love being an authority figure, and want a guaranteed cushy retirement….I’d definitely recommend it. Especially if you didn’t exactly kill it grade wise in high school and college and don’t sport a Tier A college on your resume. 

Edited March 24 by Gregmal

[Gregmal]

5 minutes ago, thepupil said:

Re teachers

 

think part of this is a red state blue state thing as well. My MIL worked 20 years as a teacher in a red state, topped out at $60kw/ a PhD, $12K/ year pension. Naturally, her state is in spectacular fiscal condition.

 

if your reference point is Illinois or NJ, and those numbers are >$100k pension, you feel differently 

Yea good point. There’s also a huge difference between “teaching” K-12 and college/university. My grift comment was 95% directed at the college/university crowd. 

[james22]

On 3/22/2024 at 9:28 AM, Gregmal said:

Yup...the biggest grift in America right now is the guys getting paid 6 figures with amazing benefits and complete job security to drink craft beers and teach/hit on young adults 4 hours a day, 3 days a week. 

 

It's hard work undermining Western civilization.

[Cigarbutt]

From the anecdotal to the global and back to China

 

Our oldest offspring is a teacher at the primary level. He (like his peers in in North America) experiences greater trends across the education system in North America. Of course, there are major relative comparative advantages to other jobs especially after achieving a more 'permanent' status including the not so benign side effects of over-regulation, over-management and various 'entitlements'. However, there are also major disadvantages. A rising proportion of recent graduates are leaving after a short time spent on the 'job', despite recent adjustments to various salaries and other other monetary incentives (money does not appear to be enough). Based on what happened this week in his class room (and what has been happening for some time in North America), a major issue is the growing lack of respect linked to the gradual drift to incivility (also 'seen' in various forms of communication..). Here's an 'intelligent' answer from a perplex 'friend':

-----

There has been a gradual normalization of this drift and...

-----

Back to China

The US continues to be a leading pole of light as seen in the large numbers of international students coming to the USA.

For China, this has been an important factor in catching up but how to compete now?

For the US, it's hard indeed to spoil the secret sauce but its market share of international students has started to decline lately. Why?

Edited March 24 by Cigarbutt
minor spelling mistake

[Luke]

2 hours ago, Cigarbutt said:

Back to China

The US continues to be a leading pole of light as seen in the large numbers of international students coming to the USA.

For China, this has been an important factor in catching up but how to compete now?

For the US, it's hard indeed to spoil the secret sauce but its market share of international students has started to decline lately. Why?

They are competitive already on all fronts except semiconductors. Nobody can say with certainty how and if they can catch up, black box. Although I wouldn't say, it's impossible. 

 

The more I think about china, the more I come to the conclusion that they are in a window of opportunity for their country right now that could easily close with foreign interference. If I see Trump already using intelligence services to sow distrust against the Chinese government, the US likely feels threatened in their economic dominance, justifiably so. 

 

To counteract that, china needs strong leadership that can not be influenced by foreign sponsored pro-democracy movements that try to move china back into a US satellite position that just serves as a giant market for us firms. 

 

Putin knows that, Xi knows that...

 

Based on chinese infrastructure, access to universities, talent pool, local industrial base there is so much potential, even more than for the US which has deindustrialized a lot, making local processes slower. 

 

The growth story in China is far from over. 

[Luke]

The game got a lot better for china now with Russia as a very reliable resource exporter and economic partner, the KEY partner Europe needed. India also doesn't say no to Russia

 

The sanctions completely backfired, Europe has weakened incredibly while US still feels threatened by global south alliances. 

 

But "everything" is collapsing in China, and they are very mean people (no democracy!!!!), very dangerous, we need to encircle them and pressuring them into subordination and stop them to try to get independent and exert their interests globally! 

Edited March 24 by Luca

[Luke]

Which economy will grow better: 

 

A): An economy that is mostly deindustrialized and harms their own energy consumption with green initiatives promoted by ideologues: 

 

 

40% of GDP coming from "insurance" and "finance"+"business services"+"healthcare"

 

B): An economy that has a huge industrial base, local supply chains, large and cheap worker pool

 

 

Edited March 24 by Luca

[Gregmal]

47 minutes ago, Luca said:

Which economy will grow better: 

 

A): An economy that is mostly deindustrialized and harms their own energy consumption with green initiatives promoted by ideologues: 

 

 

40% of GDP coming from "insurance" and "finance"+"business services"+"healthcare"

 

B): An economy that has a huge industrial base, local supply chains, large and cheap worker pool

 

 

Stop posting! You’re making too much sense and making me wanna buy some of these. Until now I’ve been very impressed with my discipline and limited but so far modestly successful quick trips to the Chinese ADR dumpster. 
 

In all seriousness though, do you really believe any of these are long term compounders or just trading sardines? Over the years I’ve had some luck with Baidu, Xiaomi, Tencent, PDD and whatever the Twitter knockoff was. But they all have their runs and then eventually give it all back. Almost easier to just use options and trade the ETFs.

Edited March 24 by Gregmal

[Luke]

3 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Stop posting! You’re making too much sense and making me wanna buy some of these. Until now I’ve been very impressed with my discipline and limited but so far modestly successful quick trips to the Chinese ADR dumpster. 
 

In all seriousness though, do you really believe any of these are long term compounders or just trading sardines? Over the years I’ve had some luck with Baidu, Xiaomi, Tencent, PDD and whatever the Twitter knockoff was. But they all have their runs and then eventually give it all back. Almost easier to just use options and trade the ETFs.

Just look at PDD, brilliant founders, management team executing like no other business, utilizing the huge manufacturing powerhouse of the peoples' republic and the scale is so huge...3b earnings last quarter, bombing everything away, trading at 10x earnings NTM...you tell me how something like PDD looks like when chinas GDP doubles the next 15 years and the Asian region grows...they all look like multibaggers and already have been. 

 

BUT the market hates it...

 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3256500/china-ready-remove-barriers-foreign-companies-premier-li-qiang-tells-international-forum?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage

 

Does this sound like Stalinist central planning?: 

 

Li said the Chinese government was “carefully” studying some of the issues raised frequently by businesses, including market access, public tendering and cross-border data flow.

 

“Some of the questions have been basically resolved, and for some others we are still working on solutions to ensure a good settlement,” he said, two days after China eased security checks for cross-border data transfers.

 

He also said Beijing would make government services more efficient and protect the lawful rights and interests of businesses of all types.

“We are convinced that a more open China will bring more opportunities of win-win cooperation to the world,” he said.

President Xi Jinping signalled China’s interest in foreign investment and hi-tech firms with a trip last week to BASF Shanshan Battery Materials, a Chinese-German joint venture producing lithium battery materials in the central province of Hunan.

 

Commerce Minister Wang Wentao has also met an array of top global tech, finance and pharmaceutical executives, including Apple chief Tim Cook as well as the CEOs of US chip markers Qualcomm and Micron and South Korean semiconductor producer SK Hynix.

 

“China is now working to build a modernised industrial system with advanced manufacturing as its backbone, which is also an opportunity for the world,” Li said.

 

He also highlighted the importance of the nation’s “vibrant and dynamic” private sector in bolstering economic growth through generating confidence to invest, expand business and create employment, which in turn leads to consumer confidence.

 

 

[Luke]

I think the odds are over 90% that these businesses will just chugg along and do their thing, invest into china, asia in the world, they will buy back their stock, they will issue dividends etc just like western peers and as they already did the last 10 years.

[Gregmal]

Yea Im almost there. I need them to universally kind of take order from Xi to spray everyone with a firehose full of cash. If they adopt Western capital allocation policies you could definitely see a 1980s onward type of multi decade bull market here. Going from the "all the profits are fake" mentality everyone currently has, to a "lets give them a decent multiple" is a life changing type rerating play waiting to happen. 

Edited March 24 by Gregmal

[Luke]

41 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Yea Im almost there. I need them to universally kind of take order from Xi to spray everyone with a firehose full of cash. If they adopt Western capital allocation policies you could definitely see a 1980s onward type of multi decade bull market here. Going from the "all the profits are fake" mentality everyone currently has, to a "lets give them a decent multiple" is a life changing type rerating play waiting to happen. 

We will see what happens, I think we are at the bottom now and that bottom is very comfortable to sit on compared to the lofty highs for the US...id not feel comfortable up there...meanwhile we collect the dividends and buybacks and let the Chinese work...

 

 

[Luke]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-launched-cia-covert-influence-operation-against-china-2024-03-14/

 

Like, how afraid do you have to be as president and administration that you ask the CIA to PLEASE sew disapproval for the belt and road initiative within the Chinese society...

 

How pathetic is this: 

 

"The CIA team promoted allegations that members of the ruling Communist Party were hiding ill-gotten money overseas and slammed as corrupt and wasteful China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which provides financing for infrastructure projects in the developing world, the sources told Reuters."

 

And then the US gets mad that the CCP tightens its grip on their local media...