Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chaostheory 3194 days ago
> China being the world's giant copy machine has worked very well for those in power in China. Why not sustain that as long as possible?

Someone may correct me...

1. having a more open society results in more innovation, which results in more economic development which allows the ruling class to become even wealthier and more powerful globally

2. currently, only 18-20% of China is middle class. About 78% of China is still poor. If things slow down due to a lack of innovation, historically things get ugly.

3 comments

This article has some very different numbers. Also, it may be a small percentage but the total number of individuals is huge. There's a lot of Chinese people, after all.

Anyhow, link:

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/

As for the numbers in that link, I'm not sure of the validity. I see lots of different numbers quoted at different sites. I have to wonder if it is accurate. A couple even put their upper middle class at 35%.

According to your article (unless I misread it) the lower class is 68% of the population. While it has greatly improved, there's still a huge gap
Right, 32% vs. 18-20%. Which, in hard numbers, is quite a few individuals. Your post said 18-20%, so I figured I'd give you the current estimates for more accuracy. The estimates for upper-class were but 2%.

Probably important: There is some disparity in numbers. A few claimed higher, a couple had lower. Neither was significantly higher or lower, so I went with that one. Interestingly, a frequently listed number was 50% middle class by 2030.

My guess is that the numbers aren't accurately reported, which explains the variations.

> having a more open society results in more innovation

Yep.

> which results in more economic development

Yep.

> which allows the ruling class to become even wealthier and more powerful globally

This one does not follow. It's probably false. Even if China gains a ruling class that is wealthier than the current one (what isn't a given), there is no reason to think the same people will be there.

What he meant is it has worked well for a selected few in China, as well as those international tycoon.
Yes I understood. I'm just saying that it can be even better for those select few as well. i.e. they are leaving money on the table