[epicureanideal]

Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel all have much lower populations than the UK and yet remain important global influencers.

It isn't all about population. The USA has 1/4 the population of China and yet technologically is a peer competitor. Japan had less than 1/2 the population of the USA in the 1980s and was a technological peer competitor.

With wise investment in capital equipment, education, and technology, even small, resource-poor countries can punch far above their weight. The UK remains a sufficient economy to serve as a foundation to rise significantly above its current situation. Imagine a UK with a $150,000 USD average income, thanks to intensive investment for a generation. If that sounds unrealistic, so would our current level of average incomes to people living in 1900. Somehow we've just lost the belief that we can continue to dramatically increase our quality of life.

Between its nuclear deterrent and soft power, the UK could remain a global power for at least the next couple of centuries if it chose to do so.

I wonder what the electoral interest would be in a UK political party that advocated the goal of doubling the nation's per capita income in 10 years?

[somewhereoutth]

To be honest it is all about population. Industrial/technological first mover advantage has now gone really. You need the concentration of talent that only drawing from a very large pool can achieve. US, EU, China are the 3 poles at the moment - with Africa and South America as potential for the future if they can get their governance sorted out.

The UK stopped being a global power after Suez - not for nothing is Brexit known as 'Suez for slow learners'

[epicureanideal]

One counter-argument to this would be:

A nation with a 10x higher per capita of truly productive scientists and engineers (with a well functioning R&D system that wasn't just publish-or-perish or other friction that reduces efficiency) would perform roughly as well as a nation with 10x the population. Somewhat but not perfectly analogous to how some countries invest more, or more wisely in their military budget, and have equivalent military power as much larger countries.

So if the UK invested such that it had 10x the per capita scientists and engineers, let's say 10% of the population vs 1%, then it could compete with a nation of 680 million.

If it also invested more wisely in capital equipment, business efficiency, legal efficiency, and so on, it might be able to get further multipliers and compete with the biggest economies in the world.

[actuator]

> So if the UK invested such that it had 10x the per capita scientists and engineers, let's say 10% of the population vs 1%, then it could compete with a nation of 680 million

With the equal outcome approach taking over universities and sciences being considered the unfashionable stream unlike East Asia, how would you do this?

Even if you are able to, why won't these trained people just leave for US when they realise they are compensated more and taxed less there?

[epicureanideal]

> With the equal outcome approach taking over universities and sciences being considered the unfashionable stream unlike East Asia, how would you do this?

Clearly that approach is harmful and is preventing the economic development of nations, which in turn harms those who need assistance because there’s a smaller tax base.

[somewhereoutth]

But as other nations 'catch up' and turn out productive scientists and engineers in similar ratios, the disparity in the denominator becomes overwhelming. E.g. China.

[jsmith99]

This sounds like a win-win. No need to imply it is a zero sum competition.

[slaw]

To add an example. Israel with 9.3 million population has more productive scientists and engineers than whole continent of Africa with 1.2 billion population.

[convolvatron]

you could try raising the level of education. breeding a whole bunch of people and hoping some of them teach themselves to be useful isn't really a great way of maximizing intellectual output

[somewhereoutth]

certainly education is vital to a modern economy (and society), but I suspect that you hit diminishing returns at our current levels - not many more can really benefit from e.g. post graduate studies. Sending ~50% of school leavers to uni in the UK has arguably been counter productive, as instead of a path for the talented to rise, uni has become more a rubber stamp for entry into the middle class and course content has become diluted (and then loans on top to pay for it all)

[epicureanideal]

> but I suspect that you hit diminishing returns at our current levels

I think there are plenty of uses for another million bioengineering grads. Combine the grads with R&D funding and we’d see a regular cadence of medical miracles.

Similar for materials scientists, robotics engineers, etc.

Also on a low tech side, a million more teachers, teaching much smaller classrooms, might pay for itself many times over.

[somewhereoutth]

Depends whether there are another million that have the natural ability/inclination to become these bioengineering/etc grads.

Absolutely agree on more teachers though.

[notahacker]

> I wonder what the electoral interest would be in a UK political party that advocated the goal of doubling the nation's per capita income in 10 years?

Probably about the same as the electoral interest in a party that promised everyone a perpetual motion machine, which would be about as capable of achieving its promises. (The recent UK electoral record of promises you'd have to be utterly delusional to believe isn't bad actually, just helps to have a lot of backing from the status quo!)

The UK already has more global influence than Taiwan, South Korea and Israel and massively outsize influence for a country making up less than 1% of global population and an even smaller fraction of its land physical resources, it's just this global influence isn't guaranteed to be used wisely, never mind benefit the lifespan of the average citizen.

[actuator]

Israel has an existential threat next door and the region where they have to exist and their past drives them to have real ingenuity in innovation.

Taiwan and South Korea are modelled after Japan like obedience to authority and way higher tolerance for tough work conditions than a western European nation. Is it realistic to assume that a Brit would work 12 hours in a job?

I am not trying to say UK lacks the talent to do it, it absolutely does have the talent and historical pride to do it, but as a nation it is too distracted and bogged down by social chimeras to be like South Korea/Taiwan.

[epicureanideal]

> Taiwan and South Korea are modelled after Japan like obedience to authority and way higher tolerance for tough work conditions than a western European nation. Is it realistic to assume that a Brit would work 12 hours in a job?

1st, historically Western European countries absolutely did work 12 hour days, back when that made any kind of economic sense, despite the human misery it creatd.

With modern knowledge work, a forced 12 hour day is probably not going to help anybody achieve more. Although a very very highly educated, very very highly compensated, might choose to work longer hours, but hours aren't what would cause the higher productivity.

[actuator]

A forced 12 hour work day doesn't make people achieve more, but if you have to compete with others whose output is 1.3x of yours by putting in those extra hours, people will do it with efficiency.

> Although a very very highly educated, very very highly compensated, might choose to work longer hours

Yes, like SV companies are able to do but not sure how this will work in UK.

[6510]

> With wise investment in capital equipment, education, and technology, even small, resource-poor countries can punch far above their weight.

It is much easier to organize for smaller countries.

[screye]

The problem is labor exploitation & work culture.

SK & Taiwan have working hours that would be considered hellish in West. At the top level & for immigrants, US working hours are similarly hellish. The British may be just as productive per hour, but they could never keep up on time. Personal life in SK/Taiwan is non-existent as demonstrated by the countries having the 2 lowest fertility rates in the world. On the contrary, Israel is another story of fertility rates. At ~3.0, they have so many young people, that there is always ample labor available to support Govt. money-sinks like welfare and healthcare.

All of these nations are a glowing endorsement for conscription. Conscription lifts the entire population to a certain level of mediocrity that helps avoid labor unemployability. It's no surprise that other successful nations include Singapore & Scandinavia.

[rippercushions]

Israel's high fertility rates are driven by Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews (haredim), two groups that, by and large, do not drive entrepreneurship and the tech sector. Quite the opposite, in fact, the haredim are exempted from military service and around 60% of them live off welfare.

And the only country in Scandinavia with real (universal) conscription is Finland.

[screye]

Thanks for the clarification. Didn't know those specifics about Israel.