How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm once they seen Karl Hungus.

–The Dude, The Big Lebowski

The New York Times just published a discussion on unemployment among recent college grads, asking a variety of experts what their take on the subject was and what some of the causes might be.

The basic supply-and-demand problem:

In 1999, the government began a push to expand college education — once considered a golden ticket — to produce more professionals to meet the demands of globalization. This year, more than 6.3 million graduates will enter the job market, up from one million in 1999. But the number of high-skilled, high-paying jobs has not kept pace.

Or maybe it’s a chicken-and-the-egg problem. You push education to develop the economy, but the jobs lag certain other measurements of growth.

First up in the debate was Cindy Fan from UCLA, who downplays the huge numbers of grads (still only 8% of population is college educated) and looks for other explanations:

• Geography. Lots of kids from small cities are flocking to Beijing and Shanghai, putting pressure on those job markets. At the same time, there is a “brain drain” in these small towns.

Kind of reminds me of my situation when I graduated from law school. The economy was bad, sure, but the biggest problem for my fellow graduates and I was that we wanted to stay in Boston, a medium-sized city with too many law schools and not enough jobs.

• Sea turtles (海龟 – hai gui). Chinese students with overseas degrees are returning in record numbers and displacing local grads.

Yes, those folks certainly have a leg up on the local competition. Unfortunately, the market is so bad that many of them have come back to low-paying jobs, if any, earning them the sobriquet kelp (海带 – hai dai).

• Training mismatch. Students these days are more likely to be trained for service sector jobs, but China’s economy is still dominated by industrial firms.

Next up is Huang Yasheng from MIT, who focuses on geography as well. Grads do not want to invest time and money in a college education and then go back to their hometown. (The Karl Hungus problem, see above.)

Professor Huang also sees a skills mismatch, stating what everyone knows about recent grads here: they can’t do much. I can’t tell you how many clients I’ve had over the years who would kill for an experienced Chinese manager who had problem solving skills and who could think creatively. You can’t get that in a college grad (or many older workers, for that matter). I thought this comment by Huang was a particularly nice summary:

Although Chinese universities are not without pockets of excellence, they are churning out people with high expectations and low skills.

Daniel Bell, who teaches at Qinghua, was next. No surprise, he starts off with a quote from Confucius! Bell focuses on the current situation as opposed to the causes, which I think he mostly attributes to a supply-and-demand problem from a boost in education spending.

Bell’s advice is for parents and kids to lower expectations and for China to develop a strong vocational training system. I’ve heard that before, and it certainly is needed. However, if Professor Fan’s 8% figure is correct, it seems like on the whole, China does not have a long-term problem in training this many students.

Next up was Albert Park from Oxford, who is optimistic. He says that given the small percentage of people getting college degrees in China and the trajectory of the economy, everything should work out eventually. Given the short-term pain, however, it sounds as though Professor Park is cautioning grads to modify their expectations.

Last, but not least, was Loren Brandt from the University of Toronto. Professor Brandt points to a mismatch of supply and demand and of skills but is optimistic that economic growth will take care of this problem in the long run, provided that teaching and economic development proceeds forward.

To summarize: too many grads, not enough jobs. Teaching needs to be better, economy needs to grow. Sounds like no short-term solutions and no magic bullet. That does not bode well for recent grads, as the advice given seems limited to “be patient and lower your expectations.”

On the other hand, that’s pretty good advice.

I find this article mildly annoying:

Is there an “Asian way” to resolving global challenges? The conventional answer is no. But elements of an Asian way are gradually emerging. Given Asia’s growing influence, the world should pay attention – and may have much to gain.

The key to understanding Asian approaches is their pragmatism. Asians constantly adapt and change. (Asia Times)

The fact that it could easily have been me writing the exact same sort of gimmicky article does not minimize my annoyance. Everyone loves a good generalization, or shorthand, or trend, or whatever you want to call it. But you need to have some basis for all this, otherwise it’s what we call . . . an empty generalization.

So let’s take a look here. Saying that Asians adapt and change sounds great. Lots of change in Asia in the past few decades. But “constantly”? I don’t think China was adapting all that much back in the 1700s or 1800s, but I guess that wasn’t within the scope of the article.

Does that statement also mean that non-Asian countries do not adapt? I think that would be a surprise to countries like Ireland, Israel, and Chile, just to name a few.

Moving onward:

In the past, Asians put a premium on protecting their sovereignty and were wary of any multilateral approaches that could dilute it. Now, in response to global challenges – for example pandemics, financial crises and climate change – the vast majority of Asian countries understand that collective action does not erode, but instead protects, sovereignty.

Have Asian countries given up sovereignty in recent years to multilateral organizations? Absolutely, just take a look at ASEAN. But to say that this is a particularly Asian thing is ridiculous. I think it’s safe to say that France and Germany were mildly interested in their sovereignty before good old Monnet and Schuman came along with their nutty idea of European integration, at first in the form of the ECSC. Hardly an Asian way of doing things.

[R]eflecting their pragmatism, the Asians remain ready to accept continuing American leadership and domination of global institutions. Nor do they challenge the US-led security umbrella for the Asia-Pacific region.

OK, that’s called realism. It’s not an Asian type of foreign policy, although it has been practiced successfully by countries like China over the years. Nixon and Kissinger were not Asian but were seen as the masters of realpolitik, not to mention some of Dr. K’s European heroes (e.g. Prince Metternich).

Sure, Asians are willing to cede to American military leadership. It’s cheaper that way, and there is no alternative. The better question is whether Asians will continue that policy stance as their economies (and perhaps militaries) continue to grow. Many analysts already point to a much more aggressive Chinese foreign policy in recent years. That’s pragmatic too, but pragmatism is not synonymous with accepting American leadership.

Asian model? I don’t see it. Perhaps the headline of the article should have been “Asian Nations Pursuing Realist Foreign Policies At Beginning of 21st Century.” I’d go along with that.

For a Friday afternoon, that was way too academic and negative.

It was bad enough when Akio Toyoda, in response to a question about differing quality standards on cars sold in China as opposed to those sold in the U.S. or Japan, used a bizarre and inappropriate analogy to a popular tofu dish. The question really should have been addressed head on, since it seems that many Chinese firmly believe that second (or third) rate vehicles are being foisted upon them.

But the whole PR campaign seems to be getting worse:

Toyota did not offer any form of compensation for the RAV4 models recently involved in the recall in China over gas pedal problems, the Changjiang Daily reported Wednesday.

Consumers in Wuhan questioned the company’s different attitudes toward the issue of recall. In the US, the company provides door-to-door service to consumers involved in the recall. When drivers take their recalled vehicles to the factory themselves, the company offers transportation reimbursements and a loaner car of the same model.

Sun, a Toyota RAV4 user who had just had his car fixed, said although he did not pay for the repairs, it had cost him time and gas so Toyota should be responsible for his loss.

At some car forums on the Internet, many RAV4 owners are discussing the possibility of filing a class action suit in China against Toyota, the report said. (China Daily)

This whole thing is starting to remind me of other foreign-related product liability “scandals” we’ve seen here in the past, and that’s not a good thing for Toyota. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Toshiba laptop kerfuffle back in 2000. (more…)