P.T. Black, a lifestyle research consultant in Shanghai, listed what he sees as "the eight most common misunderstandings about China" in an interesting column published in our sister publication AdAgeChina.

The top item on his list was "China is America in the '50s (or Japan in the '80s, or Mexico in the '90s or ...)." Black argued: "Everybody loves a good historic analogy, but China is too big, too complex and too thoroughly integrated with the rest of the world. The country's consumer culture is leapfrogging its own unique path."

That reminded me of some heated discussion at the US-China Global Brand Summit I was invited to attend last fall. An American consultant with quite a bit of China experience stated that China is America in the '90s, which doesn't sound so bad, especially considering the relatively slow growth in the U.S. in the past two decades.

Still, the comment was challenged by a Chinese professor from Beijing University, who claimed that the time element is tricky in the comparative analysis of two nations. It makes better sense to compare snapshots of two countries at the same point in time.

That argument is valid in the sense that China currently has so many characteristics that the U.S. didn't have in the '90s or '50s, such as the 384 million Internet users, and a 50 percent penetration rate of mobile phones.

As Black rightly alluded, China's consumers are catching up with their peers in the West. From electronics to high fashion to luxury cars, the savvy and sophisticated Chinese wealthy are at the very forefront of global consumer trends. Chinese children are growing up watching Sesame Street, Harry Potter and American Idol, while their grandparents may still have a collection of Mao's Little Red Book.

The landscape is just as complex and diverse in manufacturing. State-of-art factories and very dated technologies co-exist in peace, serving different sections of the vast spectrum of global consumers.

No matter whether a Chinese company exports to America or Africa, making iPhones or soap boxes, as long as it makes money, it will continue to exist and contribute to the Chinese economy. That's why China is unique.

Here is my quiz of the day for you: do U.S. households spend the most on A. housewares, B. dairy products, or C. fruits and vegetables?

The answer, according to the International Housewares Association (IHA), is that U.S. households spent more on housewares than on dairy products, and just slightly less than on fruits and vegetables.

In its fresh-off-the-press State of the Industry report, IHA said the average U.S. household spent $609 on housewares in 2008.

Based on data from its annual membership survey and government stats, IHA gave some good insights that may help U.S. manufacturers to better position themselves:

• More than half (58 percent) of IHA member companies produce all their products offshore. Another third (34 percent) make some products in the U.S.
• Virtual retailers distributed 13 percent of the 2008 housewares sales, which was slightly down from 2007, but gains were seen from manufacturers' direct-to-consumer Web sites.
• Housewares manufacturers may need to follow their audiences closely as they "migrate from the traditional print media to online options."
• Consumers are becoming thriftier and more price-sensitive for the immediate future.

I look forward to covering this year's International Housewares Show, scheduled for March 13-16 at Chicago's McCormick Place, with my colleague Rhoda Miel. Our past coverage focused on latest global business and design trends, Made-in-USA products, sustainability, and so on.

Moreover, we plan to do some video reporting at this year's show. We welcome news leads and ideas.

For those who are like me -- struggling with my 2010 New Year's resolutions, let's give ourselves a second chance, with the lunar New Year, also called the Chinese New Year or the Spring Festival -- for it's the start of the spring season on the lunar calendar.

The zodiac sign for 2010 is the fierce, brave and competitive tiger, boding well for the year to come, which, coincidentally, will kick off on Sunday Feb 14, also Saint Valentine's Day.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, our readers, for your continued interest in Plastics News, the PN China sites, and the China Blog, and wish you a prosperous lunar New Year!

The global recession didn't make a dent in the dominance of Chinese products in the global market. According to a column (in Chinese only) on the Chinese Web site of the Wall Street Journal, however, Chinese exports are still in a "miserable" situation.

The author, Liu Gang, defined the "misery" as an extracting but unrewarding task.

On the surface, he said, the Chinese government subsidizes Chinese manufacturers to sell products at lower prices in overseas markets than in the domestic market. Ultimately, it is foreign consumers that Beijing really is subsidizing, while domestic Chinese consumers are charged premium prices for the same products.

"We use our money to subsidize foreign consumers and still get criticized by them, why both?" Liu was quick to answer his own question: "The only benefit is domestic jobs."

Then, why doesn't China replace these export-focused jobs with positions that serve the domestic market? The reasoning usually stops at an ostensible statement: domestic demand is still limited.

Is that really so?

Beijing, as I see it, has been making efforts to boost domestic consumption, by providing subsidies to auto and appliances purchases, for instance.

But the best way to bolster Chinese purchasing power is to reduce the non-manufacturing costs associated with an inefficient distribution/retail system and the lack of trust and credibility.

Why would shrewd Chinese factories export their products for razor-thin profit, when the same products are sold for significantly higher prices in the home market? Because it's a headache to get paid by domestic buyers, companies have told me over and over.

Liu called for the government to take real action to reduce distribution costs and restore business credibility and trust. He even suggested using export subsidies to vouch for domestic payments. That way, he said, made-in-China products will be able increase sales within China, rather than suffering low margin and getting scolded overseas.

Just like how oxo-biodegradable plastics recently raised debates in the U.S., household items that contain melamine, such as tray and plates, have been in the spotlight in China, fueled by the long-lasting quibbling between two Beijing-based trade associations in the past couple of years.

A new round of debate started just before the Chinese New Year, as the International Food Packaging Association labeled melamine trays as potentially dangerous, which prompted a quick response from the China Plastics Processing Industry Association's subdivision of melamine plastic products.

In a news release, CPPIA said the criticism of melamine products is unfounded. "As long as the consumer follow the manufacturer's instruction -- such as avoid using melamine products in a microwave oven and avoid exposing them to high heat, these products are safe." The release called IFPA's warning "misleading."

IFPA, however, pointed out in a Dec 2009 research paper that the use of melamine is not its target of attack. The real problem lies in the widely available substandard "melamine" products in China. The manufacturers of these "fake melamine products" take short cuts by using cheaper urea-formaldehyde resin underneath a thin layer of melamine on the surface.

Even though the Chinese government has been trying to regulate melamine household products by requiring production approvals, the measures have yet shown real effects in fending off subpar products.

IFPA's warning to the public on melamine trays in general has some merit, but since the average consumer has no capacity to evaluate the quality, the warning could adversely affect those companies that make standard quality melamine products.

The biggest question hovering over any Western business looking for partners, suppliers or distributors in China probably is whether the Chinese candidate is trustworthy, reflecting the lack of credibility and a track record system in that nation. The question plagues Chinese domestic companies as well.

The China Plastics Processing Industry Association, a quasi-governmental organization based in Beijing, has started to tackle that problem with an unprecedented "enterprise credit evaluation" program.

According to CPPIA's official documents, with the approval from China's Minister of Commerce, the trade group is working with "third-party experts" to rate plastic firms on a voluntary basis.

CPPIA said the program is not for profit, but to serve the industry. It charges a "preliminary rating fee" of 9,000 yuan (US$1,397), plus other fees in later stages, to initiate such a comprehensive credit evaluation of a business entity.

The first group of 41 companies in the program all received AAA in the preliminary rating, I assume the highest score possible. The list was posted on CPPIA's Web site for public review and comments for 10 days.

While factories in China's manufacturing hub in the Pearl River Delta continue to suffer labor shortage, especially after the Chinese New Year, most companies are not willing to raise wages to attract workers.

A recent survey by the local labor department in Shenzhen's Longgang district reveals that only 15 percent of the 103 surveyed firms plan to give very modest raises. Most of the surveyed companies are plastics and electronic manufacturers, according to a report from Nanfang Daily.

These companies believe that the main reason for the latest labor shortage is limited supply of migrant workers. About 70 percent of these companies said their current headcount is lower than a year ago.

Based on published data, the average monthly wage in Shenzhen was 1,600 yuan (US$234) in 2007 and 1,800 yuan (US$264) in both 2008 and 2009 -- overtime pay included. In other words, wages increased 12.5 percent in 2008 but became stagnant in 2009.