If instead there are 10 men and 9 women, as a result of Momma and Pappa Zhou slavishly adhering to cultural taboos that demand production of a male offspring, the results change dramatically: one man will be unpaired, and if everything is equal and he is rational (and wants p00n), he should be willing to spend all of his surplus to securing the affections of a woman. This quickly reduces men’s payoff to just over zero, and women gain 499,999Y from the exchange. Harmony does not ensue as the unpaired male must resort to a selective combination of World of Warcraft and pillow fapping.

Several ‘long-term-mating’ equilibriums will emerge among different social strata. Yuppie urbanites will find a relatively equal gender balance, since they need marriage and children for status. The ultra-wealthy will enjoy multiple partners as the rewards to being an extremely high status male go up, so also will the effort that goes into acquiring the attention of an extremely high status male. Very poor rural migrants will be left with an even worse gender imbalance, and move into some sort of sharing arrangement with lower status females.

For Chinese men, a house is a very important asset in attracting a woman, and not unreasonably as it represents stability amid a rapidly transitioning economy with no real social safety net. Previously I’ve asserted that the link between getting-some (and having a family, I guess) was not that strong, since the low-status men group wouldn’t be in much of a position to afford houses anyway. This paper presents convincing evidence to the contrary, as household savings rates are higher in provinces with higher gender imbalances. A summary:

“The increased pressure on the marriage market in China might induce men and parents with sons to do things to make themselves more competitive,” Wei says. “Increasing savings is one logical way to do that, to the extent that wealth helps to increase a man’s competitive edge. Parents increase household savings mostly by cutting down their own consumption.”

… “We find not only that households with sons save more than households with daughters in all regions,” Wei says, “but that households with sons tend to raise their savings rate if they also happen to live in a region with a more skewed sex ratio.”

Calling something an ‘inflated asset’ and ‘bubble’ requires an a-priori notion of what a non-distortionary equilibrium would produce. If gender imbalances are affecting competition, and as a result, reservation prices for apartments, there will be considerable skew vis-a-vis models that consider income alone.

Americans are a rather unhealthy people, which might be one of the reasons why we spend 17% of income on healthcare. Yet here I am, an unhealthy American, outside of the US, and actuarial giants such as AXA, AIG, and Ping’an are telling me (through a price mechanism) that I’m going to pay much less purely by the fact that I’m not in the US.

This is probably some part of a wider argument on healthcare policy in general. It does seem that if moratoriums on pre-existing conditions were illegal, insurers would need to raise prices significantly across the board. Effectively they would need to assume everyone is slightly less healthy than previous actuarial models suggested. This is because healthy people will generally know their health condition (or the converse, marginally unhealthy people will probably have better access to that information than a potential insurer), the optimal course of action would be to have a very inexpensive, emergency only plan to begin with. If something that is considered a pre-existing condition emerges, immediately switch to a higher priced, more inclusive plan. If insurers are prevented from price discriminating on the basis of (already limited) actuarial information, they will inevitably be forced to raise prices on all participants in the scheme to make the system solvent. Whether there is some efficiency loss between the two regimes is an empirical question, one which I’m not remotely qualified to address. If no efficiency loss: nationalize everyone. Even better, cover everyone in the world, since the best rates would be possible by covering as large a population as possible (and you get better data). If there is an efficiency loss, then the (socially equitable) course would be to have healthy people pay a tax to subsidize the difference in cost to provide coverage for the unhealthy people. Doing so would, it seems, maintain actuarial standards and provide better pricing across the board.

All theory anyway, and entirely unfeasible given path dependence. If one is young and healthy and American: leave North America and get health care elsewhere. Chances are you won’t need bypass surgery. Foreigners do most other health procedures rather well. In the meantime ancillary factors (walking everywhere) will probably make one happier and healthier. Return home *after* smog induced lung cancer develops.

Shanghai already has a very nice metro system (it’s supposed to handle 3 million daily); and is the third largest in the world in terms of length of track. Anyone who rides it in the morning will tell you that the major lines are far from ideal, though sardine style people packing probably provides a measure of safety [I cheat and live absurdly close to work.]

The map uses Shanghainese romanizations for several place names (Lohkatsy, Zaanhai, Phuton) rather than a standard Mandarin Pinyin. Linguistic regionalism is supported by design firms? Some might respond that an expanded metro system is wishful thinking. Nonsense – more stimulus!

While I’m all for laissez-faire utopias,* there’s a certain amount of qualification necessary when discussing Hong Kong’s success. Rapid growth in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan occurred after 1949, when a lot of the formerly mainland bourgeoisie fled throughout the greater Chinese diaspora, taking with them their money,** and much more importantly, their skills. Today, people often hold up Hong Kong and Shanghai as rival cities, since the latter is attempting to become a regional/global financial hub. Many in Shanghai feel this would be the case already were it not for the half-decade of non-participation in the world economy that the mainland experienced after 1949; the fact that people went to Hong Kong was “because they couldn’t go to Shanghai.”

Examining average incomes in both cities, it becomes clear that the largest gaps existed during the height of the mainland’s various socialist experiments. Now that the mainland has stopped the crazy train, some of those who left after the revolution are heading back. Just as significantly, the mainland is able to tap into an (up until 1990) unrealized pool of talent and skill. This isn’t to suggest that all of Hong Kong’s success in the last fifty years has been due to the fact that it benefited from the lucky few who were able to escape the revolution (who were largely those with the wealth/network resources to do so), though it’s certainly a very important source of HK’s success (combined with the fact that, for the same period, it was the only route into China for limited trade).

Institutions alone aren’t the result of Hong Kong’s success, though it’s certain that without them the city would have languished, regardless of circumstance (a la Macau). Institutions are extremely important for wealth creation and, generally, there are several interrelated factors at work that are important for applying them outside of the very limited geographies in which they seem to work:

1. if legal rules are codified without underlying capacity, they will be unenforceable [i.e.: making a law that everyone in the US should have 6 months of holiday every year for mental health reasons.]
2. certain rules are required for social coordination. The best types of these rules seem to be idiosyncratic [decisions or rules that might not make logical sense but produce a positive outcome approaches that are successful and are replicated.] To some extent these can be imposed; though if an authority oversteps the constraints of item 1 they will find their authority quickly undermined
3. people tend to achieve some basic level of coordination with or without a centralized legal structure. The exact nature of this matters, however, as it seems to be a continuum between mafia-anarchy and despotism. Best to have something a bit more benevolent, from the perspective of the participants.

Hong Kong’s history provides an interplay of all of these factors, since the British authorities were able to replicate rules and laws they knew were generally useful and produced positive outcomes. These were adapted for a local context, and the city simultaneously benefited greatly from geography and a windfall of talent after the Communist revolution. Currently, however, simply pointing at Hong Kong’s policies (which are outcomes of a particular process) and declaring that copying them would create prosperity is wishful thinking at best. A much more interesting project would be to determine the process that creates these policy outcomes, which are probably slightly different if one is dealing with a diverse set of national and cultural contexts.

More generally, the inner contrarian wonders whether democracy should be an explicit goal of aid or internal development policy. Singapore did just fine (for a certain class of people) without serious democratic reforms. The more I learn the more it seems that democracy is the result, and not the cause of, prosperity and free social systems. The success of the Chinese diaspora in places like Singapore and HK should fill China watchers with considerable hope for the future of the mainland, barring an asset price implosion. Beijing planners have explicitly used Singaporean and HK technocracies as a deliberate model, and it will be very interesting to see how extensively these systems can be replicated over a much larger and diverse population.

* Mmmm laissez-faire utopia. Hong Kong feels like it has a free banking system, with HSBC, Standard Charter, and the People’s Bank of China all minting notes (though the money supply is controlled by the HK Monetary Authority, so the minting is name only, and for tradition’s sake). Hold an HSBC HKD1,000 note and feel the Smithian glory.

** One of the more amusing arguments advanced by mainlanders to explain Taiwan’s success is that, when the KMT fled China, they took all the bullion and historical treasures. This somehow translated into prosperity, which seems odd since they mostly still have that bullion and historical treasures.

Initial results: much removed from the pressure of feeling like something-sort-of-interesting-somewhere is being missed, one is free to pursue slower activities, such as cooking and sleeping. Health benefits are probably balanced: time spent exercising will probably increase though alcohol intake also appears to increase commensurately with boredom. Overall diet will probably improve.

My hope is that the results of this experiment will: 1) shed light on what daily life was like for my parent’s generation, 2) better help manage content filtering and aggregation in the future. I have the luxury of not being tied to a Blackberry at this stage in my career. Learning how to limit information consumption would seem critical for future mental health, if these trends continue.

Meanwhile, Chinese regulators are continuing to liberalize financial markets, and will soon introduce rules to allow large institutional investors to trade index futures. In isolation, this may not make much of a difference for the near future (particularly given limits on participation). As part of a broader trend it is very important: the “China collapse imminent” story is, at present, predicated on a property bubble that will collapse and saddle banks with lots of dead loans. At the same time, the mainland is derided as pursuing policies which solidify global imbalances (or, the process by which Chinese savers are shafted with artificially low rates of return, and Westerners get cheap credit that we proceed to do stupid things with).

Currently, a dearth of options for individual investors is only contributing to these distortions. Currency revaluation alone will not fix global imbalances, and a more efficient financial sector (say, anything with >0% return) would allow Chinese investors to save (incrementally) less, which is the only way trade deficits will actually shift in the long run.

Of the short selling rules change by the SEC, Robin Hanson nails it:

Anyone who believes that stocks which have fallen at least 10% in a day are an unappreciated good buy are free to grab that free money they think is lying on the sidewalk.  Clearly most folks don’t do this, and so don’t believe this, implying that short sales that push stock prices down on average give reliable bad news: this stock is worse than you thought.

Taxing short sales is an attempt to ban this bad news, to trick people into thinking those companies are doing better than they are.  After all, we all know that the financial crisis was not caused by banks making bad loans, it was caused by short sellers telling people that banks had made bad loans — if only we’d killed the messenger, we wouldn’t be in this mess, right?

Higher H-1B admissions increase immigrant science and engineering (SE) employment and patenting by investors with Indian and Chinese names in cities and firms dependent upon the program relative to their peers. Most specifications find limited effects for native SE employment or patenting. We are able to rule out displacement effects and small crowding-in effects may exist. Total SE employment and invention increases with higher admissions primarily through direct contributions of immigrants.

[Crowding in would mean that Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs enable even more entrepreneurial activity than would occur in their absence, which I suppose would manifest itself as: Chinese friend takes lots of money from his parents, uses his super-programming skills and creates mega-algorithm. I help him by making phone calls to people I know. At the very least, the paper presents convincing evidence that there is no 'opportunity stealing' that occurs from immigrant entrepreneurs. In other words, it's a generate wealth and opportunities for free card.]

This research dovetails nicely with this incredibly good idea for a Startup Visa, propagated by a number of entrepreneur advocates, where immigrants would be eligible for H-1B status given certain types of self employment. At present, the H-1B is sort of a 21st century version of skilled indentured servitude, whereby US firms that have the legal apparatus to sponsor international hires can enjoy the benefits of cheaper (skilled) labor, since they have very limited exit opportunities (unless they flee home, which more and more are doing).

The ability to rapidly integrate immigrant labor (skilled and unskilled) is a feature almost entirely unique to the U.S. (and Canada). This factor alone assures much better long-term prospects than anywhere else in the world, including China. The extent to which deliberate policy helps or (as of late) harms this situation will be a major factor in determining Americans’ future wellbeing.

90% of the time, if you’re looking on your own for an apartment (or property) in China, you will do so through a real estate agent (中介, zhongjie) company. They have lists of properties they manage, acting as middlemen. For residential rental, their normal fee is 30% of one month’s rent. It’s a good idea to check out online property listings first, Google Lifestyle (谷歌生活搜素) or Soufun (搜房). Most of the listings on these sites are also from agents, so it’s an easy way to get contact information (call, tell them where you’re looking/what price range, and they can arrange to show you a several properties).

Personally, I’ve had good luck just wandering around neighborhoods until I found a real estate company (usually something-something-房地产). Indicate that you’re looking in the neighborhood, price range, and when you want to move in. No one has really tried to take advantage of me, and white-person-premium seems to be 100-200Y per month at most. Going through a real estate agent also has the benefit that they provide contracts for you, and keep copies of them. Again, never had any problems in this regard but it seems wise to have another layer of involvement should something go wrong with the landlord.

Always get the landlord/agent to write out receipts anytime you pay for anything (handwritten notes, if signed, are legally enforceable in China) and any agreements you have about ‘if something breaks, party X is responsible.’

Timeframes: one of the major differences between apartment hunting in the US and in China are the timeframes involved. It’s normal to look for a place, and be moving in within 48 hours (this often seems to happen). There is little advantage of trying to plan a month in advance, unless you have the luxury of waiting over the entire period to find something that is ideal. Using simultaneous real estate agents is a good strategy, at least to be sure that you get a good range of prices.

In general, most apartments will come ‘furnished.’ Don’t expect heating, aside from a reverse air conditioner (it’s possible to find central heating, though it will be more expensive). Insulation is universally bad. In general, there’s a strong correlation with appearance and price, not necessarily quality and price. If the place is in a tall building, expect it to be even more expensive (not quite sure why, as the newer properties tend to have terrible sound insulation). It’s always possible to find international standards, though you’re likely to pay even a slight international premium. In Shanghai, 1 bedroom 1 bathroom 1 living room apartments seem to run 1500-3000, with the lower end being extremely far away from transport. In cities like Wuhan, 2000 will nab you a many-room palace.

My personal preference is for 2nd/3rd story places in older (1980s/90s), decaying, Blade Runner-ish buildings that are located near pedestrian markets. Since most properties here don’t have fire escapes/alarms/sprinklers, being located near the ground seems ideal from a jumping standpoint. Ground floors often have rodent problems. If you’re high up you also less safe from petty thievery (the professional lockpicks I’ve spoken with here say they always go for places on upper floors since there’s less foot traffic. I don’t really think this is a big problem, so it’s probably not very relevant).

Despite a rising currency and financial crisis, the Chinese trade surplus continued to increase throughout the last several years. This means that major exporters, who claimed that a stronger currency would harm sales to their primary market (the US), don’t have much of a foundation to stand on.

The Rmb will be revalued (likely another crawling peg); probably sometime in the next eighteen months. The central government has committed to a number of policy goals (decreased reliance on international demand, an increase in domestic purchasing power), both of which would be served by a stronger Rmb. Since exporters will be the major group opposed to a currency revaluation, the fact that there’s not a shred of evidence that they were harmed by the events of the past three years stands as a strong indictment of their case.

The benefits of a global language monopoly (resulting primarily from numerous heavily armed contingents of fellows in tweed hats that enjoyed sailing and oppressing locals, cheerio) make the per-input-unit (years of education) returns from social-network-intense careers (law, business, finance, marketing) much more attractive for native born Americans than careers where “portable skills” are required (science, engineering and medicine, to some extent). This is one of the major reasons people like myself can command considerable wages purely by virtue of having been born in a certain geography, without many marketable skills.

For your average Chinese (or Indian or Japanese or Vietnamese…) overachiever, the choice between spending 7 years learning finance + 7 years learning English language and Western cultural taboos. 10 years learning programming are probably a better choice. I don’t mean to suggest that cultural familiarity is useless for scientific pursuits but merely to suggest that social skills facilitated by familiarity with taboos are more necessary in social-network-intensive careers.

Even if grant funding was reformed (an eminently reasonable suggestion, from the arguments presented in the article), my suspicion is that per capita, Americans would be much less likely to choose science careers from a purely rational cost-benefit perspective. English as a lingua franca is viewed by some economists as a coordinating equilibrium; even though English fluency may be very difficult for northeast Asians, for example, it is much easier than learning Hindi, German, Russian and Portuguese simultaneously. If it were not English it would probably be something else, say French (15th-17th century) or Mandarin (22nd century on?)

Much of the modern world’s coordinating activities are, as a result, conducted in English. This includes everything from the colloquial (most introductory emails to anyone overseas) to the refined and dignified (international contracts and treaties). Even for English speakers who have no direct contact with foreigners, the spillover benefits from lingua Anglica are considerable: the people they work with might be involved in overseas business, and derive significant advantages from being intimately familiar with language and cultural practices.

Furthermore, specialization would tend to occur more as globalization (in trade in goods and services) spreads and allows for greater specialization, making the above network effects even more important. With a greater possible pool of people to interact with, the rewards to learning the lingua Franca increase.

One intuitive way to examine this phenomena might be to examine intensity of science and engineering graduates, vs the Anglosphere:

And number of science/engineering graduates (green/yellow = lots, black/orange = fewer).

I suspect you’d find an even stronger relationship if you defined language families with etymological similarity to English. Could also expand the sample: China produces about 3 times as many science and engineering grads as India, the latter of which has much stronger native familiarity with English language and Anglosphere culture. The only outlier seems to be Norway (only 4 million people).

Another way to look at it would be to examine the immigrant intensity in science and engineering fields. Again, English speaking countries have a much higher percentage of immigrants. Unsurprisingly, the same pattern holds (though in this case, the US is a fairly weighty data point, given other reasons why lots of people probably might want to move there, and study science and engineering because it’s the only reasonable path to actually get in, legally).

A-priori we would expect such a world to feature greater specialization in portable skills (where language and cultural norms aren’t so important) in areas with less innate familiarity with the language and cultural norms. In regions with this familiarity (or degrees of it), we’d expect specialization in activities that become more remunerative when used with coordinating activities; as well as education (since we force everyone to speak our smooth, grammatically impenetrable mother tongue).

So, as long as English remains important as a global language, expect to see a disproportionate amount of top-talent go into finance, business school and law – evil bottom feeders that leech of the productive capacity of selfless doctors and engineers working to cure cancer and invent harmless nuclear energy. [Being one of those bottom-feeders, I would urge readers to understand the importance of coordinating activities (legal contracts, temporal shifting of obligations) in running a specialized economy that makes everyone wealthier globally.]

Broadly, these trends are probably a net gain (especially for people born in the US) and should be of concern only if: 1) you feel that science is really special and should be pursued past the point of rational costs, 2) you’re worried about national security and feel the US should have more really smart computer scientists and bio-weapon engineers. If the latter instance, there is then a very defensible argument for subsidization to overcome the innate lingua Anglica advantage, and motivate people to go into science.

As a consequence, observing career trends for top American/foreign students in the coming decades may be a leading indicator for Anglosphere-hegemony collapse. Individuals figuring out what to do with their lives are probably much more sensitive to minute changes in incentive structures, and examining their preferences provide a clearer early indicator than it would be possible to glean from numerous types of aggregate macro data. Disclaimer: personally, I tend to be much more confident in near-term U.S. prospects than a many other articles that have come out lately. Within a century, though, many things are possible.

There’s no direct link to Chinese gender issues aside from anecdotes; in general I consider China to still be a very patriarchal society, though men don’t seem to fit the modern definition of masculinity at all. Despite popular narratives of manly aboriginal hunters, extreme gender identities are a modern product of wealth and higher income levels. China’s gender imbalance, unique in the world in terms of its scale, will be felt most acutely amongst the very poor, the results decidedly uncomfortable for men and women at the bottom of the social ladder. Still, a visit to an internet cafe or university dormitory filled with better-off urbanites reveals the zeal with which a large swath of young mainland men have for the most exquisite forms of escapism. Something is certainly not right. Surely talking to girls is more interesting than getting to level 70.

Back to the US: it would be nice to figure out exactly what is going on. If decreased income prospects for men make marriage a more insecure institution by increasing the probability of divorce, and if single-parent households have deleterious effects on children, finding a way out of the cycle seems extremely important. Having been a stupid-mistake-prone adolescent male, it would seem very useful to adopt a different set of strategies when raising adolescent males, such that they do not make similar stupid mistakes, especially if alternate child raising tactics are relatively cheap to implement. Bearing the above in mind, I’m personally not convinced the problem is as simple as a “generation of men raised by women,” though existing social problems that gave rise to that idea are certainly going to be exacerbated by these economics trends if gender norms don’t radically change (evolution being terribly slow in reprogramming our desires.)

Marriage as an institution for child rearing seems more personally relevant as of late, having hit the age where biological clocks start ticking. Numerous 20-something female Western and progressive Shanghainese friends lament the dearth of actual interested date requests they receive, presumably to placate some sort of nagging evolutionary desire to feel pursued. The expectation, it seems, is for males to take the socially aggressive role while simultaneously being emotionally sensitive enough to… Not quite sure to what end. Learning to walk this kind of tightrope perhaps requires further maturation. Until then, numerous males my age will probably continue to be intentionally aloof. Gender equality in that sense may end up meaning universally equivalent odds when playing the see who we wake up next to today roulette. No idea what this might mean for the long-term efficacy of social taboos for child rearing. Perhaps it has always been this way, and we’ve only now the luxury of noticing it.

Happy Tiger Year!