In reference to: Building the American Dream in China
The NYT article covers the recent careers of several architects that moved to China during the last recession; in general, the impression is that they are given more creative opportunity than they would receive back home at such an early point in their professional development, but also that they found some business practices among Chinese firms difficult to adjust to or understand (e.g. copying schematics for standard office buildings with no creative premium). No particular surprise there for those that have worked in or even just followed China with interest any amount of time.
What struck me about the story is the comments that were left, and the general tone of those that were most highly supported by the NYT readership. I include a few below for illustration:
This article is really a sad commentary on what our economic “elite” have wrought through “free trade” and other contrivances the purpose of which is to make them obscene amounts of money at the expense of our country and its people.
My wife decided not to take the offer to work with a globally famous architect because all of his work was in China and it’s an environmental disaster in the cities there. Lead in the air. Foul water. Cooking fat scooped out of sewer drains. Not a place to raise a family. Now she builds structures of her own design in the US and agrees to sell them to people who “get it”. Very satisfying and not nearly as carcenogenic as living in China.
It seems like everything is in place for a Chinese real estate hard landing.
Overall the attitude is critical of those willing to jump ship for a Chinese payday, dismissive of the merits of working in China (given sketchy records on safety), or more generally dismissive of the rising tide of opportunity in China/outside of America. There are other comments with substatially different content, but these three seem typical of those most “Recommended” by NYT viewers.
Ok, we get it, enough already with the whining. It’s as if any mention of China induces a knee-jerk response which must include the the words pollution, human rights, crash (with relation to economic model/system), and most importantly, unfair.
China probably is in the midst of a property bubble, with excessive pollution and rampant statism. Is it a young architects’ responsibility to perform due diligence on an entire country before accepting a creatively rewarding position? Hell no! We wouldn’t have any architects open for business in the US if that was the case… oh, wait.
These comments are indicative of yet another line being drawn in the sand in America’s growing identity crisis. Migration for opportunity is brave, courageous, patriotic when undertaken a century or more in the past by European’s coming to the uncivilized Americas and forging a way for themselves, one which is better than what they left, but when a few young Americans seek experience in the Far East during a period of domestic stagnation it becomes an issue of abandonment. Only those that can’t handle the rough-and-tough countryside lifestyle leave to become edumacated city-slickers, and only the losers from the cities leave to go further abroad. In the detractor’s mind, movement for opportunity is a sign of weakness, not strength or curiosity.
The experiences described in the article are also indicative of another, more benign trend; the internationalization of professional labor. High skilled professionals are no longer limited to their own city, state or country for the best opportunities. Globalization’s detractors are outraged at low-skilled jobs trickling away, but at the same time the movement of high-skilled professionals is becoming increasingly streamlined and commonplace (and, reminder, many of them go to the US). Those with skills that are in demand can not only obtain good conditions, but have a range of exotic locals to choose from if they have the nerve for the adventure.
The thing is, the best way out of rural poverty for many in the US simply is education and relocating to more productive areas (either domestically or abroad). Insular thinking runs the risk of further exacerbating conditions, because then there isn’t even the chance of remittances reinvigorating small rural communities; just plain stagnation. Decades ago (or even now?) military recruiters used patriotism and the chance at seeing the world as a hook for new enlistments; a similar campaign, with escaping poverty and seeing the world, might do a lot to attract rural and underprivileged students into educating themselves out of the rural-poverty. Unfortunately that sort of campaign would surely be whitewashed as a major culture war on American values, which is why I hold relatively little hope for the rural poor… the opportunities are there, but they have to be seen before they can be pursued.
A similar development has been ongoing domestically within China over the past three decades. I’ve not spent any meaningful time in rural China, but given the massive exodus from the countryside to the city, I wonder if those left behind on the farm have a similar attitude to the sedentary Right in the US? And what direction government propaganda has prodded them in (given that rural-uran migration is only quasi-legal). One thing’s for sure; they are willing and eager to move.
