[nindalf]

No one doubts that Chinese people work incredibly long hours. They do so because there’s been a strong link between input and output. The harder you work, the wealthier you get. That has been incredibly motivating … so far. In an economy that isn’t growing quite so fast, people might not see the same returns for their labour that they did between 2001-19. They might not work as hard.

That’s speculation though. What we do know is that the CCP is changing the way of managing the economy. Between 1992 and 2019 they leaned heavily on the private sector for growth. They would do anything they needed to help private enterprise succeed. That approach paid rich dividends, it’s obvious.

Xi Jinping is going a different way now though. He reckons he knows better than Deng, the architect of the Chinese economic miracle. His approach is to pick winners and losers. It may succeed because he’s picked good horses so far - EVs, solar panels, AI, semiconductors. And state led capitalism has had success in China, with major players like Huawei doing well despite major headwinds.

Because of this shift in approach you can’t extrapolate from the success of 2001-19 and say China’s future success is inevitable.

[Log_out_]

If a country were a company and Xi the CEO, would that be "ideologically kosher"?

[spaceguillotine]

there is zero link between hard work and wealth. There is a link between wealth and exploitation.

[logicchains]

If you define hard work as intellectually challenging work, there absolutely is a strong link between hard work and wealth in China. Even the corrupt bureaucrats have to pass a difficult exam to become bureaucrats.

[Log_out_]

Which one and why is cheating nepotism not as widespread as with everything else? In a company or functioning democracy in competition, if you nepotism, you kill the company..

[lazide]

Only if the person picked via nepotism isn’t competent.

Which is less likely (one would hope) than via other methods, but the correlation is not as strong as we’d all like.

[ChainOfFools]

> Only if the person picked via nepotism isn’t competent.

It'd be interesting to know how much this phenomenon would explain the stability of otherwise culturally ossified regimes that stood for four or five centuries before collapsing, where government was built almost entirely out of extreme nepotism in which the ruling potentate had 50 or 60 kids to choose from, and thus had a shot at picking the most capable from the, er, top of the class.

Or the most ambitious /ruthless pick themselves, taking the old man and/or their dangerously competitive siblings out of the picture.

Either way there is a little more competition involved then what we normally think of with a modern family unit.

[lazide]

There is also the factor that the nepo kids are trained since birth for the role, often with the best education money can buy.

Training makes up a lot for stupidity and other gaps.

At some point, it doesn’t matter enough, but that can go quite awhile.

[refurb]

Clearly not since even the middle class in the US holds trillions in wealth and the vast majority did it through work.

[adampk]

If you work more hours and take more overtime, you will make more money you can use to build wealth.

Seems like a clear link.

[nebula8804]

Yeah like I said it could still collapse, but I am not ready to write them off so quickly like others are, thats all.