China's gap between the urban rich and rural peasantry

[39degN]

no, they do all kinds of things legally or illegally! and only go back when they get the money their families back home expect them to get.

It's another story, you mean the only thing we can do to lower the criminal rate is to not allow peasants into cities?

So are you suggesting that he should move to the rural areas? Is it fair to him that someone moved in and kicked him out?

If that became true, it can only prove that he is a loser in competition, nothing about kicked anybody out, you mean a person needn't to do anything to contribute this society is deserve to be fed by all only because he/she is born in big city? China is an agricultural country, strictly speaking there are no real modern cities before, it's increasingly immigrants joining building those cities. One person doesn't allow to be joining in only because that he/she kisses the hare's foot?

I am sure cities should have their right to take care of their own citizens first.

Rural area should have their right to take care of their own residents first too, but the country doesn't allow them to do so. So when residents in big cities enjoying their increasing salary, the price of basic food supplies are still so low. Is that fair for peasants?

As same as some big cities, there are lots of mid-big cities, their open policy later coming 15-20 years, when they were allow to be open, everything is too late, the limited resource distributed to those "God" blessed cities already, and those mid-big cities finally missed its opportunity to became bigger one, is this fair for them?

I am poor, why can't I share Bill Gates' wealth? Why is my neighbor richer than me? Why did I not win the lottery? too bad... I still have to think of a way to make a living.

Oh, Quest, your logic is a little bit confusing, nobody wants to rob of bill gates's money, but people need a real fair competition environment, even compete with bill gates.

So is that fair to XXX citizens that their jobs are being taken away? no!

So is that fair to other city citizens that their developing opportunities were taken away several years ago? No, but you have to use it.

sorry for 跟你唱反调, Quest!

[wushijiao]

I read this same powerful NYTimes article and was going to post it. Anyway, I don't there is anyway to go from a rural, farming, state-run economy to a market economy without massive poverty. And I think the Jiang Zemin-style trickle down economics should get more merit than they do in the Western press. It seems like the story, "a regime that came to power backed with strong rural support is now struggling to live up to its promises to its former base" is a great and interesting to newspaper readers in the West.

I don't know what the solutions would be. I would suggest:

1) Spend less on the military

2) Spend more on lower level education

3) Build less "development zones"

4) Increase transparency and honesty (like honest investigative reports, as shown in the article), which will lead to human dignity

5) Develop a free press to avoid waste

Although, I think China has spent amazing amounts on infrastructure, which is great.

Also, speaking of the rural v. urban, I read that "Zhongguo Nongmin diaocha" was banned.

[Ole]

I don´t want to comment on anything, but just

contribute this statistical bit of information found in People´s Daily Online

http://english.people.com.cn//200408/02/eng20040802_151568.html

Ole

[Ian_Lee]

Actually there are some more ways to alleviate the problem.

In many other countries or societies, the church and NGOs pick up a big role in taking care of the underprivileged in the urban and rural areas.

But in PRC, this kind of institutions is more or less absent.

[bhchao]

Is there a progressive or regressive tax system in China? Income-earners in the US pay progressive taxes. In other words, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes.

As Wushijiao mentioned, reducing military spending would be one of the possible solutions since that will free up resources that could otherwise be used to invest in rural areas. Reducing taxes significantly on the peasantry and reducing the power of local officials can also be another solution. I have heard instances of rampant corruption among local provincial officials and abuses of rural residents. It does not make sense to tax the rural peasantry heavily when all the wealth and biggest sources of tax revenue are located in the cities. I am not saying taxing urban residents heavily, but making the system more progressive could help alleviate the problem.

[ala]

if there are lots of lower skill workers in a city, it will certainly cause lower skill work's wage decrease, and the wage's decrease will simply cause the workers cant afford a living in the big city, they'll finally back to their hometown, on the other hand, if the workers improved their skill in the

What are you talking about? "Back to their hometown"??? Most legal residents of Shanghai are 3-4 generation Shanghainese. It's the equivalent of telling Americans to go back to Europe. Given such circumstances, does it make sense for the residents of cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou to be protective of their hard-earned wealth? You bet; VERY PROTECTIVE. These are cities with stable populations in the tens of millions.

Also, if everyone's wage decreases in the city, then real estate prices come crashing down as well. Tell me how that is going to promote economic growth.

meanwhile if any urban citizen has no any skill' date=' he cant afford living either, so I m afraid urban life is not suitable for him, because he has no qualification. we called this natural selection, it's the real spirit of free market economy. [/quote']

His qualification will still be higher than most unskilled rural migrant workers. Because he can speak the local dialect and is familiar with the urban environment. This is true anywhere. Also skilled workers ARE WELCOME in the cities currently, certainly in Shanghai.

In reality, what you actually propose is for all urban centers in China to become third-world concentrations of low-skilled workers, all equally impoverished. Perhaps even send out some high-skilled workers into the rural areas "to develop the countryside." It's been tried before, and it failed miserably. There is a reason why the northeast and inner regions are not developing today, because it is too costly and inefficient, and because we are in a less planned economy than in the past. Development cannot be equal because existing mentalities, conditions, and situations are not equal; and we can only hope for them to become equal through national wealth. Again, some people are going to get richer than others; and it is not random.

Oh, Quest, your logic is a little bit confusing, nobody wants to rob of bill gates's money, but people need a real fair competition environment, even compete with bill gates.

Where does the resource to create this environment of fair competition come from? The money-makers. Quest's logic is fine, you seem to think people will do work and produce change without money.

Treating people in different ways only because their born places are different is really a funny policy for a country.

This is an unfortunate legacy of the Communist Party, in any case, the solution is to approach the problem via pragmatic Jiang Zemin-style economics rather than the premature and suicidal socialist policies you are proclaiming. We've tried the latter already and it got us to this point.

[Ian_Lee]

Bhchao:

Actually the personal income tax burden on urban residents is already quite high. It is about 30% including the same kind of deduction like social security and medical as does in US.

Of course, compared to the rural area, the latter's taxes have more varieties

One of the problems I see is that the overlapping bureaucracy in the government apparatus. In every administrative level -- provincial, municipal, county -- there is a dual hierarchy. For instance, in the province, there is a governor and a party secretariat. Moreover, there are numerous vice governors and numerous deputy party secretariats.

Same with the municiapl and county levels.

If the bureaucracy can be substantially downsized, there will be less red tape and less tax levied.

But of course more people will get the pink slip.

[39degN]

Dear ala, if your mission was distorting my words, you made it.

What are you talking about? "Back to their hometown"??? Most legal residents of Shanghai are 3-4 generation Shanghainese. It's the equivalent of telling Americans to go back to Europe. Given such circumstances, does it make sense for the residents of cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou to be protective of their hard-earned wealth? You bet; VERY PROTECTIVE. These are cities with stable populations in the tens of millions.

Also, if everyone's wage decreases in the city, then real estate prices come crashing down as well. Tell me how that is going to promote economic growth.

If you look the context closely, even my English is poor, you can find it too that the lower-skilled workers meaning the newly coming to cities peasants, not the so called legal residents.

His qualification will still be higher than most unskilled rural migrant workers. Because he can speak the local dialect and is familiar with the urban environment. This is true anywhere. Also skilled workers ARE WELCOME in the cities currently, certainly in Shanghai.

Catch my point, for heaven sake.

In reality, what you actually propose is for all urban centers in China to become third-world concentrations of low-skilled workers, all equally impoverished. Perhaps even send out some high-skilled workers into the rural areas "to develop the countryside." It's been tried before, and it failed miserably. There is a reason why the northeast and inner regions are not developing today, because it is too costly and inefficient, and because we are in a less planned economy than in the past.

你的特长从来都是把问题胡扯得很远, take off our hats to you!

The events you have mentioned is not for developing economy I m afraid, don't confuse politics and economy pls, if you had the ability to distinguish those two different concepts.

Development cannot be equal because existing mentalities, conditions, and situations are not equal; and we can only hope for them to become equal through national wealth. Again, some people are going to get richer than others; and it is not random.

It's true for sure(it partly explains why there are lots of poor guys even in shanghai),but policy favoritism is another story.

Where does the resource to create this environment of fair competition come from? The money-makers. Quest's logic is fine, you seem to think people will do work and produce change without money.

policy makers, at least in china till right now.

This is an unfortunate legacy of the Communist Party, in any case, the solution is to approach the problem via pragmatic Jiang Zemin-style economics rather than the premature and suicidal socialist policies you are proclaiming. We've tried the latter already and it got us to this point.

Sounds like some kind of gas leak from body, when I have supported the so called socialist policies, Dear ala?

What I insisted is a freer marketing economy, did I make myself clear?

We would thank God if you talking about things not from your pathetic localism perspective.

[ala]

Dear ala, if your mission was distorting my words, you made it.

Where does the resource to create this environment of fair competition come from? The money-makers.[/quote']policy makers' date=' at least in china till right now. [/quote']

I know what your point is. Except you seem to continue to forget that policy and money go hand-in-hand. For example public education is not an easy task, I can write the greatest policy, but without money and without other resources, it is not satisfactorily attainable. Policy without taking into account the bottom line is just empty words. Ultimately the money comes from somewhere and it is important that that money is spent wisely and economically, not just for policy sake.

If you look the context closely, even my English is poor, you can find it too that the lower-skilled workers meaning the newly coming to cities peasants, not the so called legal residents.

My mistake then for not reading between the lines, but there are plenty of unskilled legal residents in the city, and I don't see how your English is at all relevant here.

Catch my point, for heaven sake.

Again, your point has been blatantly obvious to me.

The events you have mentioned is not for developing economy I m afraid, don't confuse politics and economy pls, if you had the ability to distinguish those two different concepts.

policy favoritism is another story.

Once again, you suggest in using politics to achieve what are essentially economic goals. The only favoritism that the nation has taken since the late eighties has been that of the free market, and cutting former "policy favoritism" AWAY. Do you know the history of policy favoritism in the PRC? It sure as hell ain't in Shanghai.

Sounds like some kind of gas leak from body, when I have supported the so called socialist policies, Dear ala?

Haha. It's socialist to think that equality can be obtained through policy and collective goodwill, and at the same time convieniently forgetting to take into account scarce resources. I understand your unfairness argument, but your solution is that of a "fair policy," which is an oxymoron when you don't have the sustainable resources yet.

We would thank God if you talking about things not from your pathetic localism perspective.

You don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with Shanghai or eastern coast cities, what I have said is in the interest of the entire country. Shanghai is but an example.

[39degN]

I know what your point is. Except you seem to continue to forget that policy and money go hand-in-hand. For example public education is not an easy task, I can write the greatest policy, but without money and without other resources, it is not satisfactorily attainable. Policy without taking into account the bottom line is just empty words. Ultimately the money comes from somewhere and it is important that that money is spent wisely and economically, not just for policy sake.

Yeah, they go hand in hand, when policy comes, money comes. (people know what I mean) that's why 宋子文家族发迹了.

Once again, you suggest in using politics to achieve what are essentially economic goals. The only favoritism that the nation has taken since the late eighties has been that of the free market, and cutting former "policy favoritism" AWAY. Do you know the history of policy favoritism in the PRC? It sure as hell ain't in Shanghai.

I have never suggested such kind of stupid things, what I suggest is cutting the "policy favoritism" on several "Godfather blessed" cities away, I hope I made myself clear this turn.

Haha. It's socialist to think that equality can be obtained through policy and collective goodwill, and at the same time convieniently forgetting to take into account scarce resources. I understand your unfairness argument, but your solution is that of a "fair policy," which is an oxymoron when you don't have the sustainable resources yet.

Hehe, then you seem more like a communist, because whatever you do in this forum, you do it only for serving your obvious agenda, wow, propaganda.

What I have said not for supporting some new policy or admiring policy economy here, but just the opposite, for letting the partial policy disappear at all. less policy limiting, more marketing selection, you somehow supporting my point here.

which is an oxymoron when you don't have the sustainable resources yet.

Yes, just as I have mentioned, the paragraph below partly explains why some cities don't have the sustainable resources any more.

As same as some big cities, there are lots of mid-big cities, their open policy later coming 15-20 years, when they were allow to be open, everything is too late, the limited resource distributed to those "God" blessed cities already, and those mid-big cities finally missed its opportunity to became bigger ones

I also wish those had no deal with policy, but facts told us, yes, they did.

You don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with Shanghai or eastern coast cities, what I have said is in the interest of the entire country. Shanghai is but an example.

Yes, I do.

I really wish throughout reading your posts here, I can find something not from your shanghailism or postshanghailism complex.

[ala]

Hehe, then you seem more like a communist, because whatever you do in this forum, you do it only for serving your obvious agenda, wow, propaganda.

Get your left, right, liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, capitalist, social democratic, liberterian straight first. You are very confused to think I'm Communist.

What I have said not for supporting some new policy or admiring policy economy here, but just the opposite, for letting the partial policy disappear at all. less policy limiting, more marketing selection, you somehow supporting my point here.

Uh... THAT IS MY POINT.

what I suggest is cutting the "policy favoritism" on several "Godfather blessed" cities away, I hope I made myself clear this turn.

"Godfather blessed cities" like Guangzhou and Shanghai are blessed in that they have LESS policy favoritism than other cities. Do you understand that? They are dictated more by market demands, productivity, and efficiency. True, some policy favoritism still exist when compared to rural areas, such as Hukou and easier access to resources. But these are not new policies, and a market system has developed within these constraints already.

The problem with Hukou, residence permit, is that you cannot create policy to remove Hukou without being responsible to the economic strains this will inevitably cause. The question is who will carry this burden and how will this burden be distributed? The State? the provinces? the cities? China doesn't have the tax and legal system to achieve this in a satisfactory way, not at this moment. That's what I have been saying so far.

your shanghailism or postshanghailism complex.

You mean federalism.

[Ian_Lee]

Well, it seems Quest should welcome those rural migrant workers to stay instead of rejecting them. The Pear River Delta region is short of two million migrant workers. Read:

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,265468,00.html?

No wonder those officials in Guangdong are so cocky nowadays (and no wonder a county party commissar could lose HK$1 million in Casino Lisboa and got detained)!

[Quest]

Well, it seems Quest should welcome those rural migrant workers to stay instead of rejecting them. The Pear River Delta region is short of two million migrant workers.

The job market has already been saturated. many people cannot find jobs, and others get laid off. crime rates skyrocketed. Guangzhou was so peaceful before the 1990s.

[39degN]

"Godfather blessed cities" like Guangzhou and Shanghai are blessed in that they have LESS policy favoritism than other cities. Do you understand that? They are dictated more by market demands, productivity, and efficiency. True, some policy favoritism still exist when compared to rural areas, such as Hukou and easier access to resources. But these are not new policies, and a market system has developed within these constraints already.

you wanted to build a deep water port, greenlighted, I want to built one, not allowed.

you can freely manufacturing any kind of cars, I wanted to create a joint-venture car co. with even BMW, not authorized, or shuffled through, caused delay and missed marketing opportunity…

countless such kind of crazy things existing is because of i have more policy favoritism than you?

让你放手去干，把别人手脚绑住，却成了对别人的偏袒了，你觉不觉得自己逻辑有问题？

然后等自己肥硕起来后，回过头来认为差距是别人太差造成的，是不是典型的得了便宜卖乖？

I have no interest to continue this sophism, enjoy it yourself.

题外话：

西方国家早期靠压榨工人破坏环境完成资本原始积累，自己壮大之后自然有了一系列劳工福利措施，和环保措施，然后开始对资本主义初级阶段的国家例如中国品头论足，如蔑视工人人权，福利措施不利，对地球环境破坏严重，忘了自己是如何发展起来的。

放~，我如果在资本原始积累阶段就实行你现在的福利制度，采取措施环保，恐怕再过20个世纪也无法追上你们了，因为我的企业成了福利院，根本不会有任何效益可言。

[ala]

you wanted to build a deep water port' date=' greenlighted, I want to built one, not allowed.

you can freely manufacturing any kind of cars, I wanted to create a joint-venture car co. with even BMW, not authorized, or shuffled through

[/quote']

People like to invest in areas that can provide a return. BMW does not have a joint-venture with Shenyang because Shenyang does not have the required infrastructure and skilled workers. To build the infrastructure and to train the workers would be cost prohibitive. If you insist in building one just so that the people in Shenyang can be employed regardless of the cost and efficiency, then that is leading by policy and Communism. And where does the resource to build it come from?

countless such kind of crazy things existing is because of i have more policy favoritism than you?

No, it's because you (northeast, inner areas) HAD more policy favoritism before, and as there is less policy favoritism in general NOW, you now lose because you have always been less efficient, and the only reason you existed in the past and were equally well off was because of communist distribution of resources.

You still don't get it, and I'm tired. Your neo-Communist logic doesn't impress me.

[39degN]

People like to invest in areas that can provide a return. BMW does not have a joint-venture with Shenyang because Shenyang does not have the required infrastructure and skilled workers. To build the infrastructure and to train the workers would be cost prohibitive. If you insist in building one just so that the people in Shenyang can be employed regardless of the cost and efficiency, then that is leading by policy and Communism. And where does the resource to build it come from?

if huachen does not have the required infrastructure and skilled workers, how come BMW decided joint venture with them, you mean BMW directors board are all idiots? who on earth are busenisspeople? they or your communist government? a company's investment even should be controled by nation this is marketing economy by your robber logic? yours is typical communism thought.

No, it's because you (northeast, inner areas) HAD more policy favoritism before, and as there is less policy favoritism in general NOW, you now lose because you have always been less efficient, and the only reason you existed in the past and were equally well off was because of communist distribution of resources.

You still don't get it, and I'm tired. Your neo-Communist logic doesn't impress me.

if you have any history knowledge, you will realize northeast had a not bad industry infrastructure during the russian-japanese age before the communist gov. was built, it's PRC's ridiculous planning economy policy caused its today's situation, but i didnt talk about northeast, i was just talking about all the non shanghai-like(not including guandong and zhejiang, because of shanghai 's special situation) places.

[ala]

you will realize northeast had a not bad industry infrastructure during the russian-japanese age before the communist gov. was built, it's PRC's ridiculous planning economy policy caused its today's situation, but i didnt talk about northeast

Yes. The problem with the Northeast wasn't in infrastructure, it has been in low labor efficiency, high corruption, and pervasive iron-bowl mentality. But today, much of their infrastructure is also now outdated.

I agree, government should stay out of economics as much as possible. The additional task however requires the government to establish an environment of stability where economic growth can be maintained; this is essential if the government wants the resources to achieve the equality you are talking about.

I am against "Robin Hood" economics, which the government has maintained from 1950's till recently. To me that is the genuine "robber logic."

[39degN]

Yes. The problem with the Northeast wasn't in infrastructure, it has been in low labor efficiency, high corruption, and pervasive iron-bowl mentality. But today, much of their infrastructure is also now outdated.

I agree, government should stay out of economics as much as possible. The additional task however requires the government to establish an environment of stability where economic growth can be maintained; this is essential if the government wants the resources to achieve the equality you are talking about.

I am against "Robin Hood" economics, which the government has maintained from 1950's till recently. To me that is the genuine "robber logic."

You see we are increasingly getting agreed. I'm against it either, but what I want to say is, this kind of economics is still maintaining right now in china, because of there're still Robin Hood robbing northeast's resources, because no matter we make how many profits in oil, gas, coal, steel, car, aeroplane, ammo industry, the profits belong to this country, sadly those kind of industries are the major in northeast, it directly caused the low labor efficiency, high corruption, who should've been responsible for this freaky economy structure? The government! for several decades, what the government have been done in northeast? Did they really want northeast develop its economy? What they have been doing are just robbing resources, colonizing, developing ammo industry, treating it as a military base, when it lost its importance on military use, finally they forgot it, ignored it, and cutting the throat of its developing, what I said is not a condemnation or complaint, I just hope northeast and many other northeast in china can have a fair competition environment in marketing economy, but not so many policy limits(witch every knows are obstacles, not only you know it) , because of the limits are not free marketing economy claimed.

as for the so called low labor efficiency and high corruption, yes, it existing, but what I want to say is, before 1980s, the efficiencies are all in the same level all around china, why they are so different today is because, your open policy was coming earlier than us for incredibly almost two decades, let minority get rich first is a wise policy, but let a few region get rich first by dint of unfair policy is not a right decision-making after all, because according to Matthew effect, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, the later comer will never catch up with the early birds, the gap between rich (even city) and poor (city) will certainly became CCP's nightmare one day.

anyways we cant change the past, but we can hold the future, does the northeast(and other northeasts)'s lower efficiency and high corruption不可救药, made us making decision to give it up? We have to 因噎废食 after all? no, how come? As everyone knows, low efficiency is caused by low level management and administration, but not the nature of workers, with BMW's international experience in management, investment and training, why you are so sure they will not as efficient as your shanghai workers? BMW prefer to take the "risk", why Chinese government cant?

There are always so many ugly things have auras of glory, I do really not hope there are some doing in the name of reform or marketing economy. I would like also to mention that, not only the shanghai-like cities have their glory and dreams.