Professor Lang Xianping's data has always been low, and it is always inconsistent with mainstream statistics, such as China's wage level.
Professor Lang said that China's gross wages account for only 8% of GDP. Isn't that too low? However, one thing is certain, regardless of whether Lang Xianping's data is close to reality; However, according to CICC's statistics, there are 900 million low-income groups in China with a monthly average of less than 2,000, and the proportion of total wages in GDP will not be too high in any case; Therefore, the improvement of people's livelihood should be put on the agenda.
First of all, it should be noted that the low proportion does not mean that the Chinese must be poor, and no matter how low they are, they are richer than the people in Africa, which is no problem at all; The question is that since it is proportional, it is not about how strong the economy is, but about a balanced relationship under the same level of economic development, that is, in the distribution relationship between finance, enterprises and individuals, do we pay attention to the fate of middle and low-level workers? To clarify this question, let's first look at the share of wages in other countries.
Let's put it this way in the United States, the proportion of total wages in GDP in developed countries is above that of Britain, France, Germany, and Canada, and some people have made an estimation based on the average number of employed people based on these data, and the per capita labor remuneration in the United States is 10,000 US dollars, Germany 10,000 US dollars, and British US million US dollars.
Of course, some people do not accept Lang's data, so there are a lot of anti-counterfeiting on the Internet, many people have made calculations, the process is too complicated, only to say the results, the relatively high anti-counterfeiting results are between -, per capita labor remuneration is 10,000 yuan, assuming that this data is closer to the truth, it still feels not high.
Then the problem arises, since it is a proportion, it is not a comparison between rich and poor, but a balance of interests of all parties when dividing the cake. The cake is limited, who is the big one?
It is estimated that people living in cities must not have a strong feeling that China's low proportion is mainly due to the large number of low-income groups. In other words, although China has entered the industrial country, the proportion of farmers is still very high.
A professor once said that China's economic development should "wipe out the peasants," but this benevolent brother did not explain what he said, and as a result, he was scolded by the peasant brothers for being a bloody dog.
In fact, "exterminating the peasants" is something that is often talked about in economics, and it does not mean to harm the peasants, but not to seek death? It means that in order to realize the mechanization of agriculture, everyone has become a farmer, and more peasants have moved into the city.
In the words of *** Hu Zucai, it is like this: The life of the Chinese people has entered a stage of relative prosperity and prosperity, 1800 million farmers have moved to the cities to enjoy a higher quality of urban life. This is also the "extermination" of the peasants.
Isn't that wonderful?
Therefore, it is not important to crack down on counterfeiting, the important thing is to see the distance, why is the proportion of our wages lower in the same total relationship? That's the problem. We are a socialist country, we are the people's country, of course, we have institutional advantages, and we are more capable of caring for the lives of low- and middle-income groups and increasing the proportion of wages in them.
Why is China's wage share low? Is it the result of capitalist exploitation? Or is the industry not developed enough, or is the social security mechanism not perfect enough? This analysis of the underlying logic is perhaps more important.
Whose responsibility is it? How to change?