あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]50Olol5 14ポイント15ポイント  (16子コメント)

No, otherwise India and China would've owned the market already. The real reason is because of China's growing middle class and globalization where we are homogenizing cultures.

[–]Webemperor 17ポイント18ポイント  (15子コメント)

So, technically population?

[–]50Olol5 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (14子コメント)

No, having a population of 1 billion poor people will not mean anything. Having a population of 300 million middle class people makes a huge difference. Otherwise our movies would be catering to Indians, Nigerians, and Indonesians a lot more.

[–]Roflsaucerr 12ポイント13ポイント  (13子コメント)

What? No, it's both, but mostly their population. Their population is 4 times that of the United States. A fourth of their population could go see a movie and there is no feasible way an American movie, not counting revenue in other countries, could outperform. An eighth of their population and half of the American population would need to go.

Yes, it's only now relevant because of their growing middle class. But that fact only matters because their population is so massive.

[–]50Olol5 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (12子コメント)

No, decades ago they still had many times the population of the US. It didn't change anything because the price of a movie ticket would've been much better spent buying a week's worth of food for your family. Today, the Chinese middle class population (which didn't exist at all 50 years ago) do not have to worry about meeting the basic necessities of living, and have money to spend on luxuries like movies.

What you're implying is that everyone in China is middle class and every American is middle class, which is not even remotely close to being true.

[–]march20rulez 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

So number of Chinese middle class> us middle class.

So....population

[–]lordlazyeye -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, because 50 years ago number of Chinese middle class < US middle class.

So...no, not population.

[–]geoffrey007 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

So...population

[–]lordlazyeye 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Population of the middle-class is a lot different than population of a country.

[–]OK_Soda 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The idea here is that a much smaller percent of their total population needs to be middle class for their middle class to be bigger than ours. If their population were the same size as ours, their growing middle class would matter much less. When they reach OECD standards, their middle class will be much larger than ours because their population is much larger than ours.

[–]50Olol5 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

The problem with that argument, which everybody replying to me is putting forth, is that it would be implying that population growth = middle class growth.

[–]OK_Soda 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That isn't the argument that anyone is putting forth. Just for simplicity's sake, assume everyone in America is middle class. So about 320 million people. From 2001 to 2011, China's middle class grew from around 3% of the population to around 18%, or from 39 million to 234 million. If China's population had been the same as America's, it would have gone from around 10 million to around 60 million and no one would really care because it would still be a small fraction of the American market. But 18% of 1.3 billion is a huge number. China's growing middle class only really matters globally because its population is so big to begin with, or else you'd hear people talking about the growing middle class in Peru or wherever.

[–]MyNameisObanion -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's ok to be wrong buddy. You wouldn't be wrong if you just conceded that this is a population thing. The middle class in China growing means that more people can go see movies. That middle class is part of......The population in China!!! All you are doing is talking about a specific part of the population so maybeeeeee just shhhhh.