/kloc-the reference significance of German social welfare thought in the 0 ~ (th) century to contemporary China.

In the German welfare model, "* * * decision" between companies and enterprises is not only the strong performance of trade unions, but also the main means for trade unions to rely on collective bargaining system to improve wages and benefits, and it is the main feature of German-style "work welfare". The legal status of "* * * decision-making" of German enterprises is more manifested in long-term commitment and lifelong employment in Japanese enterprises, which is the main feature of Japanese-style "work welfare". Therefore, in terms of labor-capital cooperation and workers' welfare, although it is closely related to occupation, enterprises are very important in Japan. In the eyes of workers, employers are parents, while in Germany, class is more important. In the eyes of workers, they are two opposing groups.

The first revelation is that the construction of China's welfare system should have a clear goal, otherwise it is easy to take detours one step at a time. At present, China's welfare system is at an important historical juncture with the largest legislative density. A Law on Social Insurance and a Law on Social Assistance are being proposed. When all systems are established and rigid, it is difficult to reverse them. This is a lesson from Japan. The oil crisis of 1973 frustrated Japan's "first year of welfare", and the "revolutionary movement" on welfare system initiated by British Thatcherism and Reagan economics in the global capitalist world in the 1980s made Japan even more at a loss: on the one hand, it had to meet domestic wishes, cope with foreign pressure and develop welfare system, on the other hand, it had to take measures to maintain the family center in traditional Confucian culture in East Asia because of fear of westernization of welfare system. This contradiction is manifested in the welfare policy, that is, the expansion of welfare expenditure and the contraction of welfare appear alternately.

The second revelation is that from the world economic crisis and Japanese experience and lessons, we can draw a conclusion that the selective mode is more flexible and more adaptable to economic fluctuations, which is more in line with the traditional Confucian culture and the current level of economic development in China. Of course, as I said just now, the level of expenditure has little to do with the level of economic development. The key issue is to choose a model that conforms to the long-term interests of China society and people. The characteristic of the selective mode is that the level of the contributory insurance system should be appropriate, and the non-contributory insurance system should be built with great efforts, not biased, distorted or too high. In this regard, we should learn from the lessons of Japan. The selective model emphasizes the target group of expenditure. Obviously, the national assistance system is not suitable for China's national conditions, because its ability to cope with external demand and economic fluctuations is poor.

This is the third revelation: the construction of social security system and social security legislation should be done within our capabilities and not exceed the level of economic development. Otherwise, some legislation will be haste makes waste. In my opinion, the Labor Contract Law implemented in China in 2008 has some lessons. South Korea has had two similar lessons. First, South Korea enacted the Medical Insurance Law as early as 1963, but for various reasons, including inconsistent understanding and insufficient financial resources, it was not implemented in the end. The result is that 14 is partially implemented in 1977, and 12 is fully implemented in 1989. Secondly, when South Korea began to implement the national pension system in 1988, it implemented a scheme with lower rate standard and higher treatment level, that is, the system goal of "low rate-high treatment". Later, because it had been living beyond its means, it increased the financial burden of the state. It is predicted that this system will be in deficit by 2036 and the fund will be exhausted by 2047. Therefore, South Korea had to carry out "annuity law reform" twice in 1998 and 2007 to adjust the rate standard and treatment level.