Michael Pettis Profile picture
Feb 28 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
1/7
Bloomberg: "China is balancing productivity gains from AI with labor stability, as automation could displace workers and trigger an economic spiral."

I think this whole AI-will-cause-unemployment argument is very confused.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2/7
Getting workers to become more productive doesn't cause workers to be fired. In fact that's the only way to make them richer.

What really matters is whether or not wage growth for the overall economy keeps pace with productivity gains.
3/7
If they don't, growth in production will outstrip growth in consumption, and while this can temporarily be resolved by rising household debt, ultimately it means that production will be reduced and unemployment rise.
4/7
But if wage growth keeps pace with productivity growth, then higher wages will result in greater overall demand, and employment will shift from sectors where productivity growth was higher to other sectors.
5/7
The point is that if you pay people, they will spend it on goods and services, and if one set of goods and services get cheaper (where productivity growth is high), this just leaves more money to spend on other goods and services.
6/7
China's problem is not that a surge in AI-related productivity will leave Chinese workers unemployed. It is that the many decades during which wage growth lagged productivity growth has left domestic demand extremely weak and overly reliant on non-productive investment to...
7/7
drive politically-determined GDP growth targets.

The solution is to raise wages, although with Chinese manufacturing competitiveness so dependent on the very transfers that keep wages low, this won't be an easy solution either.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelxpettis

Feb 26
1/5
SCMP: "“China needs to move decisively towards consumption-led growth,” Sonali Jain-Chandra, IMF mission chief for China, said in an interview with the South China Morning Post."
scmp.com/economy/china-…
2/5
Yes, but how? The IMF has urged China to put into place a stronger social safety net, but even if China were to do so, until it is credible (which will take years, even decades) it will have little impact on current consumption.
3/5
I'd argue that the only sustainable way "to move decisively towards consumption-led growth" requires a major shift in the distribution of national income away from either businesses or the government (or both) towards workers and middle-class households.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 25
1/5
Bloomberg: "The scale of the problem is staggering. Trade data released Thursday showed a record $112 billion gap between what China reported exporting to the US and what US Customs said actually arrived last year."
bloomberg.com/news/features/…
2/5
"Put simply," Bloomberg continues, "that suggests that as much as a quarter of what Asia’s top economy shipped to American shores last year slipped under the tariff radar."
3/5
It also suggests why a hodgepodge of sectoral and bilateral tariffs are less efficient than a simple tariff on all imports. While the former mostly shift trade around, the latter is equivalent to a currency devaluation for a country that doesn't intervene in its currency.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 24
1/6
Bloomberg: "Instead of fighting over quotas and rules, officials should be rolling up their sleeves and thinking honestly about where the EU has a fighting chance of competing — not “picking winners, but letting the losers go.”"
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
2/6
This might be perfectly good advice in a "normal" trading environment, in which countries maximize exports in order to maximize imports and domestic consumption, trade is broadly balanced, and production shifts according to comparative advantage.
3/6
But that is not the world we live in. Consider China. It accounts for roughly 18% of global GDP, only 13% of global consumption, and a massive 31% of global manufacturing.

But it did not get there by “picking winners, and letting the losers go.”
Read 6 tweets
Feb 24
1/4
As this WSJ article points out, countries are keeping their exports competitive in the face of US tariffs by increasingly subsidizing them, with the subsidies ultimately being paid for in the form of suppressed consumption.
wsj.com/economy/trade/…
2/4
This means that we are increasingly caught up in a globalized Kalecki Paradox: when one country subsidizes manufacturing exports at the expense of wage growth, it can grow more quickly, but when all countries do it, they collectively grow more slowly.
engelsbergideas.com/notebook/europ…
3/4
That's because by reducing demand, they are also reducing demand for their exports. They have to double down to remain competitive, even as a collective doubling down worsens the overall outcome.

As the article points out, this makes the US deficit the key variable.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 24
1/7
Reuters: "China's biggest solar firms shed nearly one-third of their workforces last year, company filings show, as one of the industries hand-picked by Beijing to drive economic growth grapples with falling prices and steep losses."
reuters.com/business/world…
2/7
"The job cuts illustrate the pain from the vicious price wars being fought across Chinese industries as they grapple with overcapacity and tepid demand. The world produces twice as many solar panels each year as it uses, with most of them produced in China."
3/7
With Chinese manufacturing competitiveness so dependent on the very transfers that weaken domestic demand, China and the world are caught in a trap. The world cannot continue to absorb a Chinese manufacturing sector that is growing so much faster than domestic demand.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 13
1/5
The New York Fed finds that "U.S. firms and consumers continue to bear the bulk of the economic burden of the high tariffs imposed in 2025."
libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is…
2/5
That is exactly how it should be. Tariffs are effectively a tax on consumption and a subsidy to production (of tariffed goods). They work by transferring income from households (net importers) to producers of tradable goods.
3/5
The idea that Trump's tariffs would be paid for by foreigners was always nonsense. If they were, as I have often pointed out, they would have little to no impact on trade flows or on American deindustrialization.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(