In 2019, Fudan University scholar Zhang Weiwei mentioned on a TV program, "40 million people in the United States are in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty." That's nearly one-sixth of the US population.
Was Zhang Weiwei lying? No. According to data from the US Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the poverty rate in the United States in 2019 was 10.5%, with approximately 34 million people. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people in poverty in the United States has increased. In 2020, the actual number of people in poverty in the United States should be around 42 million.
So, was Zhang Weiwei right in saying that the United States should learn a lot from China, including its experience in poverty alleviation? Unfortunately, his conclusion is completely wrong, even though the data he quoted is correct. The reason is that Professor Zhang, intentionally or unintentionally, changed the definition of the poverty line. The definition of the poverty line differs greatly between the United States and China.
What is China's poverty standard? According to Liu Yongfu, the director of the State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development, in March 2020, China's poverty standard includes "one income, two no worries, and three guarantees." "One income" refers to the national income standard, which is the unchanged price of 2,300 yuan per capita annual income for farmers in 2010, which is approximately 4,000 yuan based on price and other indices. "Two no worries" means no worries about food and clothing, which has already been achieved. "Three guarantees" refer to guaranteed access to compulsory education, basic medical care, and housing security. In other words, China's poverty line standard is approximately an annual income of 4,000 yuan, which is actually lower than the World Bank's "extreme poverty" line.
So, what is the poverty standard in the United States? In 2020, the poverty line standard in the United States is an annual income per capita below $12,760, which is approximately equivalent to more than 84,000 yuan. If it is not a single person but a family with children, the per capita standard increases. For a family of four, the poverty line standard is an annual income below $26,200, which is approximately equivalent to 170,000 yuan. This is the standard for most areas, and some areas in the United States have even higher standards. The "extreme poverty" population in the United States refers to those with an income level below 50% of the poverty line standard mentioned above, which means a per capita income below 85,000 yuan is the extreme poverty standard in the United States. In China, an annual income of 170,000 yuan is already considered a high income, except in major cities.
Of course, looking at income alone without considering prices is not enough. Ultimately, purchasing power needs to be taken into account.
The main expenditure for people in poverty is basic food and clothing. In terms of food alone, meat, eggs, and milk in American supermarkets are cheaper than their counterparts in Beijing supermarkets. Vegetables, on the other hand, are about twice as expensive as in China because they require manual planting and care. In terms of clothing, buying a T-shirt for $10 at Walmart is similar to buying a T-shirt for 60-70 yuan in a small county in China. If you go to a discount supermarket like Outlets, it's even cheaper. So, in terms of basic expenses, the United States and China are similar, or at least not significantly more expensive in China. Therefore, the statement made by Professor Chen Ping, who criticizes the United States in China while buying a villa in the United States and marrying his daughter to an American, that "an income of 2,000 yuan in China is better than an income of $3,000 in the United States" is completely nonsense and can only deceive the Chinese people who do not understand the situation.
The US federal government provides various social welfare programs for people in poverty, mainly focusing on healthcare, food, housing, and child rearing.
[1] The United States does not have a government-driven unified welfare healthcare system. Most Americans have commercial health insurance, so the federal and state governments provide medical insurance for people in poverty.
[2] Food stamps are available for poor families living below the poverty line, and they can receive varying amounts of food stamps each month according to the standard.
[3] The government has multiple programs to subsidize housing for the poor, such as rent subsidies and low-interest housing loans. Low-income elderly people can live in senior apartments. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is specifically responsible for the operation of low-income rental housing subsidies. According to the department's definition, low-income individuals refer to those with incomes below 30% of the median income of local families.
[4] Children from families below the poverty line can receive free lunches in public elementary and secondary schools. Compulsory education in the United States lasts for 13 years: one year of kindergarten and 12 years from elementary school to high school graduation. Public schools are free. Whether buying or renting a house, enrollment is based on school districts.
[5] The US Department of Agriculture's Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program specifically subsidizes pregnant women, mothers during the postpartum period, and breastfeeding mothers from poor families. This program is not limited to US citizens and is available to anyone living in the United States.
Therefore, poverty in the United States has a completely different connotation from poverty in China. So, many retired people in China who receive a monthly pension of over 10,000 yuan want to go to the United States and become "people in poverty." Now you finally understand the reason. These retired people will never get up early unless there is a benefit.
China's economy has a large overall size, but the per capita income is very low. China has a large population, and even though the proportion of wealthy people is very low, the absolute number of wealthy people is not small. To revitalize China, rejuvenate the nation, and achieve the "rise of China," there is still a long way to go. Those who constantly deceive the Chinese people about how wealthy and powerful China is every day are mostly doing business in the name of patriotism. Chen Ping's tricks have been exposed and no longer have a market in China. Zhang Weiwei, intentionally or unintentionally, confuses the fundamental differences between the poverty lines in China and the United States, which objectively misleads many people's understanding. Due to his association with prestigious universities and state-owned enterprises, he still receives lecture fees of over 100,000 yuan.
"Rice boxes for migrant workers are better than what middle-class families in the United States eat," "In one hour, we can sink all US aircraft carriers," "We are far ahead in terms of clearing the field," "Almost all of China's modernization from 0 to 1 comes from the West," these outrageous statements come from Zhang Weiwei. Does Zhang Weiwei really not understand? Any discerning person can see that he does. He is just catering to a certain group's needs and is fundamentally a low-level red, or even a high-level black.
Some people have searched on WeChat and found that both Sima Nan and Jin Canrong's WeChat public accounts belong to the same company, Beijing Zhongyi Wutian Information Technology Co., Ltd. Websites like Qichacha can show that Rao Jin holds over 95% of the company's shares. Jin Canrong's other public account, "Political Commissar Canrong," is operated by Nanjing Lingsi Technology Co., Ltd., where Rao Jin also holds over 95% of the shares. Chen Ping and Zhang Weiwei's WeChat public accounts belong to the same company, Shanghai Observer Network Information Technology Co., Ltd., which is also the operating entity of Observer Network. If there were no huge profits, these people would only need to register their own media accounts to express their views. Why would they need to be associated with commercial companies? Zhang Weiwei receives over 100,000 yuan for a lecture in a state-owned enterprise. How much money have these people made? Only the tax authorities know. It probably starts at several million yuan and goes up to tens of millions.
In April 2008, Rao Jin participated as a guest on the CCTV-2 program "Dialogue." There was a professor from Renmin University of China in the audience who spoke three times. According to the video, the professor's first statement was, "To make a great country, the key is to seek truth from facts." The professor's third statement was, "We still have many problems. Don't let foreigners only see the tall buildings, but also let them see the migrant workers who build those tall buildings. These migrant workers are truly suffering. If you want to talk about China's problems to foreigners and do it better than them, then they will respect you, and that's when China truly becomes powerful. We have confidence."
If Professor Zhang truly has a sense of patriotism, he should not only talk about achievements but also discuss problems and ways to improve. The host believes that it should be at least a 70-30 ratio, meaning that you should talk about 70% achievements and also discuss three areas for improvement. But Professor Zhang only talks about the good and does not mention the shortcomings. Therefore, only criticizing the United States without considering its achievements and only praising China without discussing areas for improvement is essentially just exploiting the Chinese people and doing business in the name of patriotism. Professor Zhang and his like-minded people clearly understand this.