I think it will be more like US/UK relationship. China had a good chance to be like US if they would have been politically liberal, though I don't think they would have been so well off economically since political instability is costly.
India's governance is a derivative of UK, so most likely just like UK with a 20 times bigger market.
Does anyone have a good reference to competition vs compliance in the airline industry? US has a very competitive airline industry, and hence the incentives for regulations seems to be quite high.
On one hand, since Pakistan has a small fleet (60 planes across 3 airlines per wikipedia), I would assume it's highly competitive and there isn't any room for error/bribing. It's also possible that it's very competitive so not much incentive to invest time in getting a license?
It's also quite odd that Pakistan has really stagnant airline industry while almost all other economies have growing airline transporation. It was 9.63Mn in 2016, and down to 6.88Mn in 2018. Per https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Pakistan/Airline_passengers....
Heavily subsidised gulf carriers (many of which were founded by ex-PIA cadres...) have ate the lunch of the few Pakistani private carriers. PIA used to be nation's pride from its better days, so it's politically hard to rectify it when people with statist sentiment now run the establishment.
Just like Pakrail, and PSM, PIA will be kept afloat, and safe away from privatisation.
Khan's administration took down Sharif, and Punjabi old money people, now come Pathan old money people, and people with even stronger conviction that having a state job legitimately entitles them to run state companies like a family business.
Just out of curiosity. How has Kahn done in your opinion. I don't follow the news too much but I am curious. It just seems like with Pakistan it is impossible to get an objective unbiased opinion anywhere of how things are really going.
> Just out of curiosity. How has Kahn done in your opinion.
Mixed feelings. He cleaned up the state... a bit. People rightfully raise his, and his officers' lacklustre execution skills. Just like two previous establishments, Khan too bogged down in networks of local elites, and old money people with whom he did horsetrading in order for PTI to come to power. At least, unlike the previous leaders, he recognises it as a problem.
He came to power on the promise of undoing the system of clan elites dominating the country, but that's kind of hard to do when your own lieutenants, and backers are made of the same elites...
Pakistan is effectively split in between three huge ethnocentric elites, Sindhi/Seraiki Bhutto dynasty, Punjabi Sharif, and Pathan Khan. Pathan elites were prominent with military, hence Khan's coming to power. And there is a strong statist culture, where state companies used to provide the most lucrative jobs in the country. And there is a culture where people believe that being made a boss is a fully legitimate entitlement to run a state company/ministry/corporate unit like a family business, and there is nothing wrong with that.
A huge generational struggle is happening with people who want to end it vs. ones who don't.
The a massive brain drain that Pakistan experienced after Zia's coup, and mass immigration of anybody of talent will take years to reverse, and undo the negative selection effect.
Thanks! Just out of curiosity, do the gulf carriers keep PIA in high regard and have a friendly relationship or they are continuously trying to bring it down?
The whole "we have grounded people with fake license" sounds like someone knew about it previously, and they are conspiring against PIA. I don't think PIA would be aware of fake licenses and keep them as well? or it took them just a few weeks to find out people with fake licenses?
> Thanks! Just out of curiosity, do the gulf carriers keep PIA in high regard and have a friendly relationship or they are continuously trying to bring it down?
Pakistani airlines were not the only ones whom Gulf carriers have brought down. They dominate the entire region, and rightfully so (aside from heavy subsidies.) Their service is superb.
PIA used to be a much more higher-end airline, and it was on top of global ranks before the troubles started in the country. A lot of Pakistan's talent called it quit at that point, and immigrated en masse, aviation cadres included. A lot of them settled in the UAE, where they crossed paths with the gulf money, and set the foundation for many of Emirati airlines.
Naturally, conquering Pakistani market was very easy for them given their local knowledge.
> I don't think PIA would be aware of fake licenses and keep them as well?
They would. The phenomenon started with Gen. Zia (who died in an airplane crash, ironically.) The country has been ruled by three political dynasties that effectively normalised the state when state companies were given away to children, relatives, and friends to be ran like family businesses.
A double digit of all professionals in the country are fake degree holders, and that's not surprising in a country where now two generations of people were raised internalising the idea that earning money straight, and fair was made impossible as such, per-design.
That's a highly rosy history. I flew PIA from Tokyo to Karachi with my parents in 1985. Our unanimous conclusion: never, ever again.
I don't have an axe to grind with them. My mother's uncle was head of maintenance for them in Karachi, and a good family friend the station chief in Paris. Sadly, like many other Pakistani institutions, it was overtaken by incompetence and corruption, long before the Gulf carriers burst into the scene (and ate European carriers' lunch, not just third-world ones like PIA or Air India).
I think 1985 would be long after the troubles have started. PIA agreed to effectively create its own competitor, Emirates, in 1985 by leasing them their crafts, and pilots not because they did well at the time.
I would bet that marketing departments for companies like Unilever have a hard time showing ROI on Facebook advertising. Why not get some marketing attention for cutting your spend?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Facebook ad that wasn’t trying to get me to do something, to go to some page or to click through to a store full of tracking garbage and buy something. Surely for all of those you can very easily measure RoI?
I’d understand this argument for something like YouTube where most ads seem to be TV style and not trying to get me to click away to buy something immediately, but Facebook ads seem to always want me to go do something they can trivially track.
Advertising isn't necessarily about buying something right now. There is some focus on building familiarity so the next time someone buys something they buy [brand X].
The ROI of that effect is typically real, noticeable and impossible to directly attribute.
That doesn't mean that works for them. I hope the vast majority of purchases of Dove, Breyers, Klondike, Lipton, Vaseline, etc. can't be connected to social media impressions.
Yeah, not just ROI, even within Unilever, no more unicorn colored toothpaste for kids or Daniel Craig co-branded deodrant for getting laid quickly, since the movie has been postponed. Recession brings a lot of conservatism in the big corporations, and when the new products aren't being launched, not much to advertise!
Don't worry much about Brexit, I was quite worried about it myself and I lost the chance to buy a house at a cheaper price. Brexit is turning out to be quite positive for the UK, and the media claims that the companies will move out is backfiring and they are moving into the UK now.
I have lived in SF / Boston / London / Portland, and I think London has the bits of all. Comparing to the west coast, London has equal or better food culture, similar political vibe but much more diverse yet localized within the city, the hustle and bustle of living in a true city, the architectural beauty and most importantly quite nicely located with accessible sites of natural beauty within the UK and Europe.
I think the only thing that is negative about London vs SF is the weather :-/ Also, it's not a very friendly place to move at the start of your career, quite closed for newbies and an old boys club so that's a caveat.
OK, so the only part I'll respond to is the Brexit thing.
Firstly, Brexit has still not happened in any real sense (there's a transition period till the end of the year).
Secondly, the UK government appear to want a minimal trade relationship with the EU, which will hit services trade pretty hard (and the UK exports lots of services).
The likelihood is that many large companies will need to move staff/assets to the EU to retain their licenses.
For me, specifically (as I'm a data scientist) this probably means that data products out of the UK are going to be tricky to sell.
I would expect that there will be a drop in London property prices, but a larger drop in jobs.
Don't get me wrong, London is a great city, but I (personally) would stay away from moving there till at least next year, as the implications around Brexit and trade should be much clearer by then.
I don't even have any counter arguments to make, you can speculate as much as you want, the home prices were suppose to drop drastically and I was waiting for it. They went up after the withdrawal agreement was signed :-/
I was under impression that whatever you just mentioned would have happened by now, but Nissan and Unilever are now moving to UK and all the speculations are going down the drain.
I have come to a conclusion that all the anti-brexit hysteria has been priced in, and indecisiveness is proving more costly as time goes by!
Totally. I'm in a similar position (wanting to buy a house, but concerned at the insane prices), so I totally get you. Maybe coronavirus will accomplish it. Something something market, irrational, solvent.
So, the Unilever thing is a stock move, that really only occurred because the shareholders in the City didn't like it (being removed from the FTSE would have been very bad for their share price).
My understanding is that Nissan (and all the car-makers) rely on frictionless trade in goods, which probably isn't going to happen. I believe that they will probably invest in the UK for the domestic market, but we'll see.
Again, nothing has practically changed in terms of trade, and will not until January 1st of next year. We'll see I suppose.
Well, that means UK does have a pretty amazing leverage to keep jobs in the country. I am one of the least politically aware person, but I have come to a conclusion that Brexit isn't going to be as good as it is being claimed by people who have voted for it. It's also not going to be as bad as people who voted against it claim to be.
As an outsider, for something as zero-sum as buying a home where supply is low, cost of waiting and indecision can be pretty high.
I would trust this comparison more if it was NYC / Hong Kong / London etc
But yeah I like Europe-area economic and financial centers for proximity to the rest of Europe and they are all centrally located in a diagonal line from London to Dubai.
I wish the US had a similar centrally located clusters, instead of the coasts at the far extremes of the continent.
Any reason why you have to publicly disclose why you are pulling out of a deal? Sure, you did something you believe in is right, but then going to press and telling them about your bravery sounds like a PR move.
After leaving SF in 2018, I have worked from Oxford/London/Mexico City/Istanbul. I would totally avoid Istanbul, I have been harassed by police officers way too many times in attempt to get bribes.
If I were to work with an American company as an engineer then London/Oxford is really good. The timezone difference is quite appropriate to take meetings without asking for too much rescheduling and adjustments, and the London food is way better than any city in the US, plus the location is quite appropriate to travel anywhere within Europe. It's not cheap, but city life is worth it. I don't quite like Oxford, but my family lives in Oxford, so it's kind of nice to be home and everything is taken care of yourself.
If I was in meeting heavy role like Product Manager, then Mexico City is impeccable. Good food, bay area weather, reasonable cost of living, just a quick flight away from bay area if you have to visit and easy to get visa as well. It's not at what you see in the news, and there are more starbucks on Reforma than they on Market St. in SF.
I think this is more or less just a political statement for the republican base. These changes have been discussed for a long time, and conservative publications / reddit have been calling for them since the unemployment numbers went up. It's not going to have much impact, and as mentioned in other posts, it only affects Infosys/TCS types consulting shops which were already revamping their organizations to work around these changes since 2014. It's election year, so not very surprising to weaponize immigration.
It's quite disappointing that the US has decided to politicize two core pillars, healthcare, and legal immigration. I think both of these should be delegated to a bipartisan body, like the judiciary.
It's also disappointing to see the senators miss an opportunity to revamp the whole program. As an Indian, who did no go to grad school in US but worked at one of the FANGs, I think H1-B/L1-B should be just scrapped all together and every foreigner who graduates from an American university should get a green card. It will hurt people like me from coming to US, but generally it will be quite good for the US university system and the tech industry, and also a blessing in disguise for people like me.
Isn't it a solved problem? US universities attract best students from all over the world, from practically every society/country/culture. It's way more diverse, selective, and productive to let universities to decide who gets to come than a rule-based system via DHS.
I am sorry if I come across any condescending, but that is how most of the current masters programs are operated. Generally, masters are considered cash cow programs that funds other research and also brings a lot of commerce to the college towns. There are some exceptions, but most of them do qualify for my hypotheses.
That being said, why is it a bad thing then? If the people are spending money to get some quality education that can be regulated within United States, then I don't see any downside in delegating the vetting process to the universities. 4 years in the United States, one family visit per year and it brings a lot of commerce to the country. If they don't perform well, then it's always upto the university to make the judgement.
Because then universities are materially interested to let everyone in. With job offers the company is both spending extra, and needs the candidate to actually perform well in the position.
India's governance is a derivative of UK, so most likely just like UK with a 20 times bigger market.