#53005: Ronald Brak — 12/08  at  07:03 PM
Just to be clear up any possible confusion some people might have I will mention that if India and China produce large numbers of scientists it is good for the United States, not bad. Americans will be able to use research and buy products these countries produce which will make American lives better. However, to the extent that America is not developing research and new products itself, American lives, and the lives of all the world's people will be poorer.

For example, with a scientifically weak America it might take twenty years to find a cure for HIV infection. With a scientifically strong America it might only take fifteen years.

#53009: — 12/08  at  07:33 PM
For example, with a scientifically weak America it might take twenty years to find a cure for HIV infection. With a scientifically strong America it might only take fifteen years.

I think you are missing part of the argument. Say America stops producing pogo-stick designers, and a whole bunch of pogo-stick designers in China pick up the slack. You suggest the only problem is that less pogo-sticks are being designed.

Imaging no one in the US knows how to make pogo-sticks anymore (it doesnt matter, the chinese will design them for the US). What happens if the US suddenly has a huge demand for pogo-sticks (maybe a pogo-stick war, maybe a pogo-stick disease/vaccine, who knows), and if they cant get the pogo-sticks from china (for some reason) the US can no longer make their own, not because of a lack of desire, but because the no longer have the ability.

What if the world suddenly needs a HIV cure NOW. (even more than is needed now) Say you can get it from someone sneezing. What happens if it only infects americans, and noone else wants to help. Its going to be good if there already is a HIV cure, but if there isnt, the more people able to make one the better.

sorry for the mind-flatulence that is the above.

#53011: Rick @ shrimp and grits — 12/08  at  08:07 PM

that the focus on reading and math as required subjects for testing under the federal law, No Child Left Behind, has turned attention away from science

I don't think a focus on reading and math is a bad thing. After all, if a student is able to read and can understand what numbers mean, I can teach that student chemistry. A basic understanding of what science is and the scientific method would also be a plus, but I can remedy that in my class.

No Public School Left Standing, er, No Child Left Behind has other problems, I think, but a focus on reading and math as important subject areas doesn't really bug me that much.

#53014: Ronald Brak — 12/08  at  08:28 PM
With reguards to a pogo stick shortage, I don't think a country with advanced pogo stick technology like China could stop a backward pogo stick technology country like the U.S. from copying their pogo stick designs and producing rip off versions, so a lack of pogo stick designers might not result in a lack of pogo sticks in the U.S. Of course, U.S. pogo sticks wouldn't be as advanced or as good as Chinese pogo sticks and they would always lag behind in technological development. In addition, U.S. companies would miss out on the profits that come from developing new pogo stick technology. But if the U.S. is lucky, China might open pogo stick assembly plants to take advantage of the U.S.'s now comparitively much lower wage rates which would help in the transfer of pogo stick development technology to America.

Of course, if America suddenly needed to develop anti gravity pogo sticks to say battle mutant calimari wrestlers, then the U.S. is in trouble. China is going to need it's entire supply of anti-gravity pogo sticks for it's own defense. America would be reduced to defending itself with inferior pogo sticks, which would fill me with great sadness.



advanced country like China could stop

You have a good point with your pogo stick shortage with reguards to a pogo stick shortage


If America stopped producing pogo stick designers, America could rip off designs from China and copy them at little expense. This is what happens to first world products in many developing countries and if you are in a charitable frame of mind you can think of it as



Yes you have a good point about "What if the U.S. has a great demand for Pogo sticks now?" A scientifically weak America will be in a worse position than a scientifically strong America. But in general,


But a scientific discovery is something that once you have it's often very cheap to copy. For example it cost billions of dollars to nuclear develop mit might cost billions of dollars to find a drug that cures HIV, but the drug itself might only cost twenty cents to manufacture. research is something that is hard to develop find that's not usually a good way to look at supply problems.

#53015: Ronald Brak — 12/08  at  08:35 PM
Oh dear! I left a the daft of my last comment on pogo sticks in. Ignore everything after the second paragraph. (Or indeed, you may wish to ignore the entire thing.)

#53017: — 12/08  at  08:45 PM
If I'm not mistaken, the Fordham Institute and FOundation have some definite neocon leanings (the president is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, and was an asst. secretary of eduction under BIll Bennett).

I leave it for the students to point up the irony.

#53020: — 12/08  at  08:58 PM
Amazing post. thanks.

#53028: — 12/08  at  10:11 PM
I don't think a country with advanced pogo stick technology like China could stop a backward pogo stick technology country like the U.S. from copying their pogo stick designs and producing rip off versions

That would be fair enough, as long as the technology gap is not allowed to develop. Intel produces computer chips. I have a science background and I have a fair idea about theyre made, but i have no chance of making my own.

Imagine AMD decided "we dont need this science stuff, we can just buy our chips from intel." and start into the apple-pie business. Maybe in a year or two they can say "Man, was that apple-pie business a bad idea" and start back on the computer chips. But give it long enough and they might as well start from scratch.

"AMD pies and chips" might be able to compete with Intel, but they are going to be at a huge disadvantage. Particularly if they base their chip designs on passages from the bible.

#53032: Jim Harrison — 12/08  at  10:31 PM
Countries need technically trained folks not only to invent new technology but also to adapt technology from other countries. These days, it takes a lot of training even to steal.

Trackback: Incompetent Design Tracked on: The Politburo Diktat (216.227.210.33) at 2005 12 08 19:28:53
Seed: The Other I.D. - An interview with Don Wise, creator of “incompetent design” So is there intelligence in the design [of the human body]? No, no there isn’t. The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton,...

#53034: — 12/08  at  10:53 PM
I think the point that the Fordham foundation is trying to make is not that the US will be crippled without access to advanced pogo stick technology, but rather the US economy will be weaker in comparison to the economies of countries that have a greater number of scientists and engineers.

A big part of the strength of any economy is the amount of intellectual capital available in the country. Without that, there's pretty much just the infrastructure and cheap labor that makes an economy strong (natural resources run out eventually, and are bad to depend on) -- think China right now, versus Taiwan. China's economy (in a global sense) is based on the fact that it's a cheap place to manufacture cheap things. Taiwan's economy is coming up with new things to sell *and* selling them cheaply, with its much more educated work force.

The Fordham institute is pointing out that bad science education leads means that there will be less engineers and scientists in the US, so companies will either compete over the smaller pool of candidates here (at a greater cost) or hire overseas. We've already seen a situation like this, in the IT industry.

#53041: — 12/09  at  03:56 AM
we don't need more americans becoming scientists. if the u.s. could attract the best from india and china the quality of american research would be assured. attracting talented immigrants has ALWAYS been the key to american success and progress. increasingly they can't, because of the poor quality of life for most immigrants in most parts of the states. there are more choices now, more diverse and tolerant settings. meanwhile, the u.s. becomes more insular and weird.

i started a phd in the u.s. but I'm now in singapore. the weather, the food, the facilities, the people, the stipend and travel budget, the long weekends in java or bali..it's hard to think of what isn't better here (ok, the beer. i'd kill for an anchor steam). on warm evenings in february we sip gin and tonics by the pool and watch fruit bats eat the mangos hanging above.

Anecdotally, the asian and european students here kick the asses of american students. A lot less annoying, too (i have a whole rant about the behavior of american grad students at international conferences. as clownish as the worst stereotypes, vapid loud-mouths with incredibly overdeveloped beliefs in their own abilities. if americans had to compete with, say, indian students on equal footing they'd be lucky to get into college). it's hard to imagine what policy band-aids could prevent the u.s. from slipping farther. increasingly it's one choice of many, and far from the most attractive one.

anyway, if you can't beat'em, recruit'em. it's funny how the u.s. stopped seeing itself as a nation built by immigrants when the immigrants stopped being white.

#53046: — 12/09  at  05:57 AM

it's funny how the u.s. stopped seeing itself as a nation built by immigrants when the immigrants stopped being white.

There's a certain irony in this, considering how much was done by slave labour.

#53049: — 12/09  at  07:16 AM
Miko wrote:

we don't need more americans becoming scientists.

Immigrant talent is a bonus, not a necessity for American progress.
That these talented immigrants chose to come to America is an
indicator that America could offer them something that their
home countries could not.

if the u.s. could attract the best from india and china the quality of american research would be assured.

If the US can get the politicians and theocrats out of the classrooms and
get companies to stop trying to get talent on the cheap the quality of
American research will be assured.

there are more choices now, more diverse and tolerant settings. meanwhile, the u.s. becomes more insular and weird.

........"tolerance" in Singapore? Could you elaborate why you think
Singapore is more tolerant than the US? Do you mean "free" to
do whatever research that will bring profits but no chewing gum?

#53051: BugHunter — 12/09  at  07:37 AM
Do we really need more scientists? A better public understanding of science, sure... but the US and Europe are facing a glut of scientists as it is. The only advantage of cranking out more scientists (or importing them from China and India) is to keep the wages of existing scientists down and to trap more of them in the post-doc pool where they become cheap labor.

Without an improvement in science funding, salaries, and potential for advancement, there isn't much point in making more scientists. The ivory tower is no shield from basic economics.

#53072: — 12/09  at  09:17 AM
To BugHunter,
My impression is that we're not talking about making more scientists necessarily - we're talking about improving the scientific training of everyone. There's certainly a big difference. I think the real fear is that we won't be able to rely on importing scientists and engineers from other countries when other places in the world become more favorable for science.

Besides, for what it's worth, my anecdotal evidence is that american graduate students are pretty crummy on average compared to their nonamerican counterparts. I don't mean they're not as smart, of course - I just mean they are less technically able, and that this has an effect on their ability to understand science enough to be effective practitioners. And I've spoken to a high school teacher who has recently (within the last 10 years or so) noticed a real change in the level of basic competence of her students. I'm curious if my local observations are born out by others - I suspect it may depend on your field somewhat. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

#53096: — 12/09  at  10:43 AM

Anecdotally, the asian and european students here kick the asses of american students. A lot less annoying, too (i have a whole rant about the behavior of american grad students at international conferences. as clownish as the worst stereotypes, vapid loud-mouths with incredibly overdeveloped beliefs in their own abilities.

As an American who got a PhD (humanities, tho) I'm afraid I have to agree with you there. When I started grad school in the mid-80's I was appalled at the vapid egomaniacs who seemed to constitute about 90% of each entering grad class at my university. Extremely full of themselves, quite eager to belittle what their fellow students were doing, and not even friendly in any kind of sincere way. It was a very depressing experience for my first 2 years of grad school, coupled with all those required classes I took that had nothing to do with my specialization.

However, there was one very distinct pattern: when you checked back 7-9 years later, the narcissist types were very poorly represented among the students who actually stuck it out and filed PhD's. Most of the really insufferable types had long since bailed and taken 9-5 jobs in the private sector, while the guys who actually finished their dissertations were much more likely to be the modest, quiet ones.

What this says about the 'grad student type' in America, I leave to the reader.

#53097: Alon Levy — 12/09  at  10:43 AM
the weather, the food, the facilities, the people, the stipend and travel budget, the long weekends in java or bali..it's hard to think of what isn't better here (ok, the beer. i'd kill for an anchor steam).

The only thing I know objectively about is the stipends, which aren't particularly high here; NUS pays S$1,500 per month, which translates to US$11,000 per year, which isn't that high by American standards.

"tolerance" in Singapore? Could you elaborate why you think Singapore is more tolerant than the US?

If you're rich, straight, and not particularly politically active, then Singapore is very tolerant of you. If the socio-political climate weren't heavenly for the conservative upper class, nobody from the West would ever immigrate here.

#53257: — 12/10  at  12:03 AM
Some clarifications are needed about Singapore. I think it's very tough to grow up here, the education system is very narrow and conservative, the modes of accepted behavior and ways to be considered "successful" are relatively few. I'm talking about foreigners who come here...a very different issue.

Tolerance--on the books Singapore has some severe and draconian laws, and the non-recognition of gays at the official level is appalling. However, I've never heard of gays being beaten to death, dragged from vehicles, or left for dead tied to barbed wire fences here. The kind of day to day hate crime that occurs in the U.S.--based on race or religion or sexuality--is unheard of.

Chewing gum is not illegal here. They just don't sell it. Who fricking cares? I see quality of life studies that say San Francisco is a great place to live...I did for 5 years, and I loved it. But how many thousands live on the street there? How many Oakland kids die servicing the coke habits of Montgomery street financiers and the dot-com shitheads? The suffering of others is not considered to be a factor in the quality of life of the middle class and above.

40 years ago Singapore emerged from colonialism as a filthy port and a collection of villages where people died of malnutrition, TB, and malaria. Now, NO ONE here lives under conditions anywhere near as bad as the US poor. Singapore has made tough decisions, and I would never defend the Singapore government on all counts, but they have provided their people with safety, dignity, economic opportunity, and a living standard unparalleled within thousands of miles of here. Politics here IS a joke, and is offensive to any ideal of participatory democracy. But maybe it's not crazy to think that providing healthy living conditions, health care, jobs, and security can come first, followed by the opening and liberalization of the political system and social institutions. It's a lot more liberal than the U.S. was at 40 years old, or at 150 years old. Assuming social history and progress should proceed the same way everywhere in the world is ridiculous.

Details: stipends are low at NUS. At the research institutes (where most of the research is happening, and where most foreigners work), they are around $2500-$2800 per month, plus bonuses(!!) that add up to around 15% of annual salary. Post-docs make a lot more and get big housing allowances to boot. PIs get all this, plus send their kids to some of the best private schools in the world for free. The PhD stipend is not a huge amount of U.S. dollars, but what you can buy with it in Singapore in terms of housing, food, etc (and what you can get on vacation in the region) makes it about twice the average US stipend, I would guess. And income tax is around 4%.

#53263: Alon Levy — 12/10  at  03:30 AM
Now, NO ONE here lives under conditions anywhere near as bad as the US poor.

And yet somehow the level of inequality here is even greater than in the US. The government here is doing a remarkable job at hiding the poor where no one will think about looking. Maids, for example, have living conditions that are absolutely horrible; for instance, 50% get no days off, and their workweeks easily surpass 80-90 hours per week.

The suffering of others is not considered to be a factor in the quality of life of the middle class and above.

If you measured quality of life at the 10th percentile rather than at the mean or the median, Singapore and the US would both be considered third-world countries. "We're better than the US" isn't much consolation, considering that for the bottom 30-40% of the population, living in the US is a nightmare. Apologizing for Singapore's economic policies on the grounds that on the surface the American levels of poverty don't exist in Singapore is like apologizing for Pinochet on the grounds that he killed fewer people than Stalin.

But maybe it's not crazy to think that providing healthy living conditions, health care, jobs, and security can come first, followed by the opening and liberalization of the political system and social institutions.

If the PAP cared at all about liberalization, they'd do it right away. Contrary to the rhetoric of Lee Kuan Yew and Mahatir Mohamad, political liberalization doesn't hurt anyone's quality of life or economic standing. On the contrary, it often promotes economic growth by fostering more creativity and independence, two traits that even the government admits Singapore lacks.

The Singaporean miracle isn't. As Paul Krugman shows, every country with a reasonably competent government and a starting point significantly behind the first-world average can grow very quickly: Taiwan, Hong Kong, post-Mao China, Singapore, South Korea, Israel, post-communist Eastern Europe, and Turkey are all good examples of this.

#53266: — 12/10  at  05:44 AM
And yet somehow the level of inequality here is even greater than in the US.

There are a lot of ways to talk about inequality. I'm not sure what you mean. As you say, life's a nightmare for the lower 30-40% of the US. Which Singaporean's live in remotely comparable conditions? Both countries have really disgustingly rich people (Singapore probably has more per capita), so where's the "more inequality?"

Musing on inequality, walk through the engineering department of any university in Singapore and try to keep count how many young women you see--it will be a lot. Now do the same in the U.S. and try to find more than one or two.

Maids, for example, have living conditions that are absolutely horrible; for instance, 50% get no days off, and their workweeks easily surpass 80-90 hours per week.

It's not a defense of the shitty maid system, but maids (and Tamil and Bangladeshi workers) are not Singaporean. The relevant comparison is to a slum in Jakarta, not to a more socially just Singapore. I know some socially (my wife's research is partly on Indonesians living overseas) and their experiences are varied...the majority are fairly happy to be in Singapore, have days off, and are gaining language skills (and some even office skills) that will allow them to get good jobs in Indonesia. For a few, it's a nightmare. Much of Singapore's success has been through exploitation of their poorer neighbors, as with any wealthy country. There is a lot wrong with the maid system, but the conditions you describe are, in fact, against Singaporean law. Though these laws are almost impossible to enforce, there are quite a few British and Australian women sitting in Changi prison for maid abuse, and a lot more Singaporeans. Maids rights here are better protected than, say, Mexican migrants' in Texas.

Of course the PAP does not care about liberalization, they want power (and clearly have pathological control fetishes). So why has Singapore ONLY gotten more liberal in the past few decades? It's a forced move...you can't have an affluent, educated populace and prevent it.

The Singaporean miracle isn't. As Paul Krugman shows, every country with a reasonably competent government and a starting point significantly behind the first-world average can grow very quickly: Taiwan, Hong Kong, post-Mao China, Singapore, South Korea, Israel, post-communist Eastern Europe, and Turkey are all good examples of this.

I don't know about those comparisons...the quality of life has not improved for anyone in China except in a few cities, compare this to about 700 million rural poor for whom the clock stands still. Taiwan is a travesty of corruption with some of the worst pollution and city living in Asia. Israel...no comment. It seems a bit much to discard the material comforts and political liberalization (at least compared to some of those examples) of Singapore--great public transit, clean air and water, tropical greenery everywhere, law enforcement, safety, education--and say that equivalent economic growth is just as good or an equal achievement. It isn't. The Singapore miracle isn't about GDP, it's about what it's like to live in Singapore compared to Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Aceh, Taipei, Bangkok, Hanoi, Manila, even Hong Kong, and every other place that now suffers the consequences of making the colonizers filthy rich.

#53317: Alon Levy — 12/10  at  12:09 PM
There are a lot of ways to talk about inequality. I'm not sure what you mean.

The USA's Gini index is 0.46; Singapore's was 0.476 in 1999 and is now probably higher.

I don't know about those comparisons...the quality of life has not improved for anyone in China except in a few cities, compare this to about 700 million rural poor for whom the clock stands still.

But China is rapidly urbanizing, so more and more people are coming to the cities to share in the wealth. And even in the villages, the clock most definitely doesn't stand still; for a start, peasants don't starve to death anymore the way they did under Mao.

Taiwan is a travesty of corruption with some of the worst pollution and city living in Asia.

...and with a higher literacy rate than Singapore.

Israel...no comment.

Despite a money-draining occupation, an unemployment rate that American presidents are lynched for, ongoing racial discrimination, excessive fertility, a third-world workforce participation level, and plenty of American-style poverty, Israel maintains a standard of living higher than Singapore's.

It seems a bit much to discard the material comforts and political liberalization (at least compared to some of those examples) of Singapore--great public transit, clean air and water, tropical greenery everywhere, law enforcement, safety, education--and say that equivalent economic growth is just as good or an equal achievement.

That's what standard of living comparisons do: they distill indicators of the levels of health, education, and wealth into one quality of life indicator. On all three, Singapore's achievements are fairly average for newly-developed countries. The rest are mostly luxuries; public transit is no substitute for making sure the poor have more money in their pockets.

The Singapore miracle isn't about GDP, it's about what it's like to live in Singapore compared to Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Aceh, Taipei, Bangkok, Hanoi, Manila, even Hong Kong, and every other place that now suffers the consequences of making the colonizers filthy rich.

For a foreigner, living in Singapore is great, no doubt. But compare the experiences of a 5th-percentile resident of Little India and the experiences of a 5th-percentile resident of rural South Korea.

It's not a defense of the shitty maid system, but maids (and Tamil and Bangladeshi workers) are not Singaporean. The relevant comparison is to a slum in Jakarta, not to a more socially just Singapore.

Similarly, no one should be concerned with how the American immigration system causes Mexicans to be exploited, because they're still better off than they'd be in Mexico.

Maids rights here are better protected than, say, Mexican migrants' in Texas.

How many hours per week do illegal Mexican immigrants work in Texas - 60? And again, don't compare Singapore to the US, a country that is just as screwed up. Compare Singapore to countries with levels of inequality that aren't so obscene, such as France or Canada.

#53394: — 12/10  at  10:57 PM
http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html

I don't see Tapei, Seoul, Tel Aviv, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Istanbul, Prague, etc anywhere on this list. In fact, Singapore's the only non-Japanese Asian city on here.

...and with a higher literacy rate than Singapore.

This is a demographic and historical fluke...Singapore decided that for economic reasons Mandarin should be the official Chinese language spoken. Most Straits Chinese spoke Hokkien (and were uneducated under the British). Everyone who grew up after the new education system is literate in at least two languages. (And yes, the mother tongue policy is silly.)

But compare the experiences of a 5th-percentile resident of Little India and the experiences of a 5th-percentile resident of rural South Korea.

Again, it's not an excuse, but these guys aren't Singaporean. But go to Little India on a Sunday evening and ask 10 (or 10,000) guys what life was like in their village in Tamil Nadu and how they feel about living in Singapore, if they're making enough money to send to their family or get married when they go home. When a few Bangladeshi workers were killed in the highway collapse, the Singapore court recommended jail time for the (European) heads of the contracting company. This kind of accountability is rare in any country.

At any rate, I accept most of your points...I think Singapore has serious sociopolitical problems and is an endlessly debatable topic. And it's easy to pick particular stats and comparisons framed a certain way to support any position.

I just find it infuriating to listen to Americans and Europeans gripe about how Singapore does everything wrong. The Brits used it as a cash cow and then surrendered it to years of brutal Japanese occupation without a fight, despite having superior forces. Europeans and Americans have the most bloody awful histories of domestic injustice, and even worse records abroad, which they've never come to terms with. Take the Netherlands...there's a liberal socialist European state. In the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam it says the Dutch got rich through "trade"(!), but I didn't see anyone laughing who read it. Many French people still claim Vietnam was not a "colony" but a "protectorate." Bill Clinton called Soeharto "our kind of guy." These kinds of ironies are the crux of the southeast asian postcolonial situation.

So Singapore's uptight and a sham democracy. Talk to a Singaporean...they know it, they have opinions. They don't just swallow government propaganda or the local media without thought. The average taxi driver is more up on current world events than most foreigners (and any Americans) I meet here. It's always changing, and there are more and more informal channels of dissent and open debate arising all the time. The government is constantly playing catch-up with its people.

Meanwhile, the white people jeer from sidelines, everything figured out, apparently confident their "democratic values" put them in a position to judge. Mahatir got one thing right, it's hard to take this kind of hypocrisy seriously.

#53395: — 12/10  at  11:38 PM
The USA's Gini index is 0.46; Singapore's was 0.476 in 1999 and is now probably higher.

Ah, you mean income inequality. This does not consider social services or any other non-personal income benefit derived from the state, such as subsidization of health care, housing, etc, which Singapore does in a huge way.

Is this really what "equality" means? I mean, a country's Gini index would be unchanged by making all minoriteis slaves (property, not people) and barring women from holding jobs. Actually, it would probably improve, since those people are the ones with the low-paying work to start with...

#53438: Alon Levy — 12/11  at  02:01 PM
There's a tendency among many apologists for authoritarianism not to listen to criticism using bogus claims that "you aren't perfect, either." No, the West isn't perfectly democratic or tolerant; and if you read my blog posts, you'll see that I vociferously attack it for that. It's irrational to say that you can't be criticized for being 80% black because the best that currently exists in the real world is 40% black rather than pure white, or because the people criticizing you aren't purely white.

The only reason people adopt this view is to hide their own shortcomings. Hence, because the US supported Latin American fascists, Cuba is perfect and above any criticism; because the US and Europe don't have complete gender equality, no one is ever allowed to criticize Islam's enslavement of women; because Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions of people, only a communist would ever dream of criticizing CIA-approved fascism; because the Shah was a dictator, the Ayatollahs are perfect...

So don't tell me how come everyone else isn't perfect. No one is; perfection isn't attainable in the real world. But that doesn't excuse relativism: to say that the Earth is spherical is wrong, but it's a lot closer to the truth than to say it is flat; similarly, the socio-economic system of the Netherlands can be improved on, but it sure beats the crap out of Singapore's.

Ah, you mean income inequality. This does not consider social services or any other non-personal income benefit derived from the state, such as subsidization of health care, housing, etc, which Singapore does in a huge way.

Actually, it does. Suppose the cost of health care in a country is $2,000 per year per person, all of which is born by individuals. Then most people will spend approximately that on health care; obviously the rich will spend more than the poor, but not that much more. Now, suppose that the government pays the entire bill. It pays for it with taxes, which are presumably progressive. Suddenly the rich pay a lot more than they did before, since they're subsidizing the poor. The key fact is that the Gini index looks at post-tax income, which includes government subsidies to health care, education, housing, etc.

I mean, a country's Gini index would be unchanged by making all minoriteis slaves (property, not people) and barring women from holding jobs.

Not really. Making all minorities slaves will cause minorities' income to crash, which will increase the Gini index. If by the same token you'd make sure that slaves aren't counted in the census in the calculation of Gini then the increase will be much smaller (but still existent, as the main beneficiaries from slavery are those who own many slaves, i.e. the rich), but that will be cheating, no different from refusing to count illiterate people in the census and then saying your country's literacy rate is 100%.