> So why isn't China flooded in high-paying union jobs?
The Chinese government has very strict restrictions on unions; they're effectively illegal. This is normally considered political oppression, not forward-thinkingness.
Right, but business can profoundly influence government. Hong Kong, for instance, was largely allowed to do business as usual after the British handover. And Shanghai:
> China launched its first experimental economic free trade zone in Shanghai, seeking to transform the city into an international financial hub and drive yuan convertibility. It is intended to boost growth which is now heading for a 23-year low.
If a reliable workforce was so key to strong manufacturing, as the OP claims, then it would seem that there would be strong advocacy for workers' rights. That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions.
I have no idea which way you are arguing, since the OP was you, and your replies don't seem to address the points raised.
If a reliable workforce was so key to strong manufacturing, as the OP claims
Agreed.
then it would seem that there would be strong advocacy for workers' rights.
Disagree, and historically this hasn't been the case.
For example, in 19th century Britain the demand for cheap labour effectively depopulated the countryside as people rushed to the cities to work in factories. There was a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions (eg, children working in mills), and it was unions and a public campaign that stopped that.
That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions.
There are similarities between China and Britain in the industrial revolution - a huge rural population rushing to the cities for better opportunities. Both Britain and China were hugely successful at creating a massive manufacturing sector while completely ignoring workers rights (although to be fair, China seems better than 19th century Britain in that regard).
Like I said - I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not. If I am, then good.
I think we agree...When I say OP, I mean the post that has been submitted for discussion. I was arguing from a "if OP is correct, then we should expect x,y in China" perspective.
> business can profoundly influence government. Hong Kong, for instance, was largely allowed to do business as usual after the British handover.
Yes, as part of an agreement with the UK, without which the handover would not have happened. Nothing to do with business.
> That China has been able to create a massive manufacturing sector with what seems to be little regard for workers would argue against the OP's assertions.
Industrial Revolution Britain managed to create a massive manufacturing sector with an even more antagonistic stance to unions than China has. There were substantial efficiency improvements after workers' rights became a thing, though given the technological change at the time it's hard to reliably determine cause.
The Chinese government has very strict restrictions on unions; they're effectively illegal. This is normally considered political oppression, not forward-thinkingness.