What is the minimum welfare?

If there is no welfare, the people will be responsible for you. For example, in Greece, as you can see, now that welfare is reduced, people will protest like this. In this case, the welfare is high and low, but it will certainly not be negative, because it is the demand of the people, not the gift of the emperor.

The welfare reform in China in recent years is a gradual process before zero welfare. Past lowest level

Some farmers pay for medical treatment at their own expense, and the initial income of workers in general countries is higher than that of farmers, but there are still

Basic level of free medical care, while senior cadres have higher initial income and enjoy full free medical care.

Medical treatment. Now farmers have the "new rural cooperative medical system", which is still lower than the medical insurance level of employees, and the proportion is higher.

The medical treatment of senior officials is lower, but it is better than nothing. Compared with the past, it is from "

Negative high welfare has become negative low welfare, which is still negative, but the negative is less and far from zero.

The critical point of welfare is approaching, which is still progress or gradual.

Southern Weekend: Your "* * * with the bottom line", in short, is an appeal to all social factions.

Strive to realize the minimum freedom rights and social security. In your previous article, you thought

Farmers in China have been in a state of "negative welfare". Articles in * * *

I also hold this view because I wrote it earlier. After the implementation of the "new rural cooperative medical system", the situation is worse than ever.

It's better now, but can we consider having a minimum social security? in your eyes

How to define the "lowest" in the book?

Qin Hui: I recently answered this question in an article on HowNet: "The lowest.

Welfare Degree "must be positive welfare. Of course, our progress in welfare over the years.

It should be said that it is not small. When I wrote this article in the11990s, the welfare coverage rate in China was very low.

There are basically no farmers. "Compulsory education" has not been implemented, and the government provides old-age care and medical care.

Regardless of farmers, even in cities, not all of them are in charge, and the coverage rate is very low. the many

It's not good at all.

Things are different now. Although the level of social welfare in China is still very low, it is very complicated.

The coverage is indeed much wider, especially in the near future, as China may realize.

The coverage of so-called rural basic medical insurance is basically complete, although the level is not high.

It is covered, so the so-called "minimum welfare" is still not a goal to pursue.

And then what?

In my opinion, the so-called minimum welfare, of course, should talk about the coverage of welfare, but more.

In fact, what is important mainly refers to the "positive adjustment" nature of welfare as an equal means. Modern literature

The welfare of Ming Dynasty can be high welfare or low welfare, but at least it can't be.

"Negative welfare". The bottom line of * * * can't find the concept of "negative welfare" in this book.

Yes, but this phenomenon existed at that time. What is "negative welfare"? For example, we now give

Farmers also provide welfare, and welfare gradually begins to penetrate from top to bottom, which is of course an improvement.

But so far, this has not changed the consistent feature of our past welfare: it has not

It operates according to the principle of helping the weak, but according to the principle of privilege materialization. That is to say,

It means that privileged people have high income and high welfare, while those with few privileges have low income and low welfare.

There is no privilege at all. For example, if you have no "unit", you have no income at all. At the same time,

You'll never get any benefits. For example, in China before the reform, there was no "blind flow" of the unit

Of course, no one will care about your housing, pension, medical care, etc.

So this kind of welfare, if you want to do statistics, you will find that it is expanding inequality.

Wait, it's not narrowing inequality. If we add secondary distribution, Gini coefficient.

It will get bigger, not smaller like developed countries. There was no welfare at the bottom before.

Now that welfare has penetrated into the bottom, it has not actually changed this situation, although we

Some benefits are given to the bottom, but some benefits increase faster.

For example, I mentioned in an article that Jiangsu is the best "new rural cooperative medical system" in China.

In recent years, the local government has exceeded the national target. In 2007, the state stipulated new farmers.

The merged fund should reach everyone's 50 yuan, and Jiangsu had already reached 76 yuan, surpassing the whole country.

The prescribed 50%. However, this standard is still much lower than that of urban workers, and it is the beginning of urban workers.

The initial income has been higher than that of farmers. But the medical treatment of employees is still far less than that of officials. At that time,

In such a big province as Jiangsu, only10.4 million cadres can enjoy full medical care at public expense.

The welfare medical fund owned by an individual can be 6000 yuan, which means that the medical benefits exceed.

Farmers are 90 times, but the initial income is not more than 90 times that of farmers. That is to say, such as

If welfare is included in income, it will still be more unequal than the initial distribution, rather than changing.

More equal. Therefore, this welfare is still a "negative welfare".

But this is of course progress, because the original farmers had nothing, and the original welfare was all.

It belongs to workers, especially officials, and now farmers have a little, anyway.

Still negative welfare, but it's not that bad. For example, it used to be negative 5, negative 10,

Now it has become negative 1 and negative 2, which is also progress, but it has not yet dropped to "zero welfare" (2

After the second distribution, the Gini coefficient remains unchanged (neither rising nor falling), that is, its influence on distribution.

The ring is still negative, but it is less negative than before and should be affirmed.

There are two ways to change negative welfare: gradual and radical. The gradual way is through gradual increase.

Increase the welfare of the lowest level and control the welfare of the upper level, and reduce the intensity of reverse adjustment, or

It is from "negative high" to "negative low" and gradually becomes "zero welfare" (not necessarily without happiness

Benefit, but welfare distribution is given according to the proportion of initial distribution, and inequality has neither increased nor decreased.

The adjustment effect is close to zero), and then it becomes a positive welfare, so it has western significance.

Difference between high welfare and low welfare.

The welfare reform in China in recent years is a gradual process before zero welfare. With the river mentioned above.

Take Su as an example: In the past, the bottom peasants paid for medical treatment at their own expense, and the general state employees were earlier than the peasants.

The initial income is high, but there is still a basic level of public medical care, and the initial income of senior cadres is more.

High, but also enjoy full free medical care, which is "negative high welfare." Now farmers have "

The new rural cooperative medical system is still lower than the medical insurance level of employees and the medical treatment of senior officials, but

Something is better than nothing. Compared with the past, from "negative high welfare" to "negative low welfare", it is still "negative", but the negative is less, close to the critical point of zero welfare. This is still progress.

It can also be said that it is gradual.

Southern Weekend: You mean "negative welfare", no matter how high or low, it's not what you said.

Minimum welfare "?

Qin Hui: Yes, just like a negative number, regardless of its absolute value, it is less than zero, of course.

Any positive number.

This problem does not exist in the welfare of democratic countries. We know that western countries have high welfare and low welfare.

The difference between welfare, the so-called high welfare is its large coverage, for example, in medical care,

Europe is basically covered by the whole people, the United States is very poor, and the medical benefits provided by the federal government only cover it.

Covering 18% of the population, which is a very small proportion, so Obama called for medical reform.

But the question is, the so-called low welfare is low coverage, but who is covered? as soon as...

It is the poorest people and the most vulnerable group. Before Obamacare reform in the United States, federal funds

The medical benefits paid by the government cover the poor below the poverty line and the elderly over 65.

There is no problem for these two kinds of people to look down on illness. Some people say that there is something wrong with American medical care, while others look at it.

Not sick, indeed, but those people are not at the bottom, but at the middle and lower levels. they don't

Some people are poor or old and can enjoy free medical care, but you are not very rich. if

You are unwilling to buy commercial medical insurance because of your good health (this kind of insurance is really not cheap).

In case of injury, you don't enjoy medical benefits or buy commercial medical care in the United States.

Insurance, paying cash to see a doctor is really expensive, and the so-called look down on the disease means.

It's this. But in the United States, it is impossible for the upper class to enjoy welfare, while the poorest people below cannot enjoy welfare.

It is out of the question.

Housing is even more obvious. America will never give the president a room. The presidency is futile.

Stay in the palace. That's your official residence, not your welfare room. Forty years in America

Presidents take turns living in the White House. I haven't heard of sending a set to every president. You can solve it yourself as soon as you leave office.

Decide on housing. But unemployed blacks in America can apply for welfare housing. There are no welfare homes in America.

There are many in Europe, and they are being demolished in recent decades, because welfare housing communities will produce others.

The problem is that the so-called slums in the United States are not shanty towns, but welfare houses built by the government, the largest.

The problem is that the public security is worse. The house is actually built well. It must have been built by the government.

It's welfare, but it's definitely not for officials, it's all for the poor, and

Most states actually make it clear that only the unemployed can apply.

Before the reform of our country, housing allocation began with senior officials, so wait for ordinary staff. have

"Unit" means that ordinary people may not have got the house yet. If there is no unit (unemployment), who cares?

If you live, no one cares if you can't live, but building your own house is still an "illegal building".

When the chengguan come, maybe the chengguan will beat you up. This is a negative welfare.

So I think this negative welfare is a big problem. Our current progress is still negative welfare,

However, the degree of "negation" is not that high. If you use mathematical language, you are facing North Korea.

"Zero welfare" is approaching. Only after this critical point, after the welfare changes from negative to positive,

There is a question of high and low. By then, welfare will be positive, liberal and social.

The argument of democrats will become a real problem, and social democrats will agree with it.

Engage in Swedish style to make welfare higher; Laissez-faire is disapproval and approval.

Because welfare can't be high, even think that zero welfare is enough, but who will advocate negative?

What about welfare? These arguments are all problems after welfare turns positive. Now "negative welfare"

Can there be such an argument in the state of?

Southern Weekend: After the European debt crisis, some critics thought that the high welfare concept of European countries.

Will shake.

Qin Hui: Both high welfare and low welfare in the West are based on the requirements of ordinary people.

You don't have to ask so many questions. For example, the American people emphasize freedom more and don't want to pay more taxes.

Ask for high welfare, but people in other countries may also ask for high welfare, such as Sweden.

But ordinary people can't just want benefits for senior officials, can they? It is precisely because welfare is based on ordinary people.

Demands that if you don't give it to the people, you will be accountable, and if you give it to the people, you will not be grateful. the original

Ordinary people pay taxes to let you do this, and it's not that you are an official who pays for charity. What makes you feel?

Hmm? Sweden is a high welfare country called "from cradle to grave", which is under the responsibility of the state, but

You heard that the Swedes are grateful to the government, a prime minister is long live, and a king is a benefactor.

Have such remarks?

On the contrary, if there is no welfare, the people will be responsible for you, for example, everyone can see it.

In Greece, welfare is now lower, and people protest like this. in?that?case

There are high and low welfare benefits, but they will certainly not be negative, because that is the demand of the people, isn't it?

This is a gift from the emperor.

But if welfare is a gift from the emperor, the emperor will definitely give it to those who he thinks are given to him first.

With people, heroes, powerful people, and so on, there are only a few people left to consider, and the old ones.

Man is his hobby, not a responsibility that can be questioned. If he is willing to give, you have to give.

Be grateful, he won't give it to you and can't complain.

We know that European welfare countries have recently faced a payment crisis, and "welfare diseases" have been criticized.

Disease, and the laissez-faire market in the past was criticized as inequality. But this "blessing"

Ironically, the criticism of "commercialization" and "marketization" simply moved to China. Some experts pointed out that

Don't have any illusions about China's welfare medical insurance. He said, "Britain is free."

The result of medical care is to queue up, and you have to queue up as a minister or prime minister. But if it's free in China,

Medical care, the result is that it doesn't matter if people who have no rights have to wait in line for more than ten years, but there are

People with connections or power don't line up. "This article has caused a heated discussion on the Internet, but it is the most interesting.

I think the quantitative discussion is like this: "Yes, it is really ordinary people who engage in free medical care in China."

If there is a long queue, officials will not line up. But for many years, China has been engaged in the fast knot of "market-oriented medical care".

What about the fruit? Doesn't it mean that ordinary people spend a lot of money to see a doctor, and officials don't pay for it? "

The first revelation of this problem is: indeed, "welfare" and "marketization"

There may be advantages and disadvantages, but in China, we can talk about "welfare" and "market" in general.

It's just a scratch The key is: our "welfare" is not the kind of welfare of others, I

Our "market" is not others' market! Others engage in welfare, maybe officials, hundreds.

Everyone has to queue up, but our "medical benefits" are just ordinary people waiting in line; others

The government and the people may have to spend money to develop the market, but our "medical marketization" is only

People have to spend a lot of money. In this case, we talk about welfare state and welfare state.

How can laissez-faire not work? It is better to face up to your negative welfare problem first, which is what I am doing.

This "* * * has a bottom line" means.

Liberals and Social Democrats can't argue endlessly about negative welfare.

Yes, neither liberals nor social Democrats will approve of negative welfare, and

And their ideas can resist negative welfare. For example, if you are a liberal, you

Is opposed to high welfare, then you should clearly only oppose being an official under the condition of negative welfare.

Some people enjoy high welfare because only they are the beneficiaries of high welfare. Farmers either don't

It's good, or just a little. What is there to object to? It turned out to be more than the west.

Any minimum benefit is lower. What do you object to? If you are really a laissez-faire,

In this case, we must clearly oppose the welfare of the privileged class.

But what if you are a social Democrat? If you call for welfare, of course you have to be the weakest.

Potential people ask for welfare, and they beg as a responsibility, not as an imperial favor. They can't.

It is certainly impossible for people to appeal for welfare for senior officials when they are grateful. If the left succeeds in increasing

Bottom welfare, if the Rightists successfully curb the high welfare of the powerful, isn't it promoted by * * *?

Turn negative welfare into positive welfare? What's there to argue about? So move on to one

In a certain period, it will gradually become zero welfare, and further development will become positive welfare. reach

At this time, the level of welfare will become a realistic problem. Before that, "high and low"

The welfare dispute has no premise and is a false question.

But now one of our worst phenomena is that people who oppose welfare actually go.

Everything is aimed at the poorest people, saying that people can't have this and that, but

There is no way to get the high benefits of being an official. However, some people who advocate high welfare oppose the right of restriction.

Force, so there is no way to avoid welfare. Once it is done, it is the first official. For example, insurance now

A house with obstacles. Originally, the system of affordable housing was also controversial in the west, including what I just said.

The welfare residential areas in the United States are regarded as slums and are often discussed in the United States.

Yes

But in China, on the contrary, the serious problem is the two characteristics of affordable housing.

Zheng: "Affordable housing is given priority to civil servants, and low-rent housing is not given to migrant workers." Most of us now

And "affordable housing" is the so-called affordable housing, which is given priority to officials. The weight of affordable housing is very small.

Low-rent housing is also built for people with urban household registration, and poor households with urban household registration do not have it now.

How much money is not China's sense of superiority, because cities all over the world are poor.

Democracy is made up of immigrants from rural areas, not just China. It's just us and him

The difference between them is that they admit that these new immigrants are urban poor, but we don't. we

They are called "migrant workers" and "outsiders". This is the difference.

If you just want to protect the old citizens, there are not many old citizens in the west who need your protection.

Yes The so-called slums, people who live badly in any country, are basically urbanized.

A newcomer in the process. If the so-called affordable housing is not aimed at them, you do it.

Why? Isn't it a negative welfare? It's all about being an official, whether it's freedom in the west.

Who can agree to this practice, a socialist or a social Democrat? So the so-called welfare

It's not China's problem that houses turn into slums.

China's question is simple. If it is the right wing that opposes welfare, I will propose affordable housing.

Never give priority to civil servants. On the other hand, if I were a leftist, I would give priority to low-rent housing.

Give it to migrant workers, or you will say that you are a liberal or a Social Democratic Party? You what?

Neither.