Comment by maxglute

Both JP and SKR increased gdp/productivity ~10-20x when they had <2 TFR by increasing % of workforce to skilled/tertiary (advanced economies have skilled workforce approaching 70/80%). PRC is at ~20% while adding more skilled workforce than roughly OECD combined. Structurally China will add more just STEM in next 20 years than US projected to increase population, i.e. if every US newborn and immigrant (assuming current levels) are STEM, US will merely match PRC STEM generation. PRC also adding 80m other tertiary or vocational skilled ontop of that. For strategic competition, the structural demographic trend you should compare is PRC peaking at roughly 2x-3x US skilled workers who will be in workforce for 50+ years, i.e. greatest high skill demographic divident in recorded history. Meanwhile they'll be shedding 100s of millions of low productive workers. Imagine PRC workforce profile adding 5 japans and losing 3 nigerias. Another caveat being about 200m of population decline will be inefficient farming households that can be effectively replaced with 20m modern ag workers. Or 600m low productive (bottom 2 quantiles who are undereducated / old / left behind by modernization) contributes to like 5% of GDP, i.e. their consumption / productivity is comparable to a few 10s million of high value workers. Then consider PRC is also adding more industrial robotics / automation than RoW combined. The question is whether US can compete with PRC with multiple times more skilled talent and larger industrial base than they have now, both increasing at rates that US is structurally unable to close gap on for decades short of AGI / von neumann machine hailmary (which granted is a real possiblity, but then we're also in a world where PRC is spitting out incubated humans).