Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> China for example, sends huge number of electronics and all kind of other consumer goods that Chinese produce by sweating in 12 hours shifts in 6 day work weeks in exchange for imaginary numbers

That's more a function of subsidizes instead of foreign preference for USD.

Chinese median household incomes (Yuan 34,000 or around $4,700) are much too low to spend on most goods at scale [0], and most of the money that could be spent on expanding the social safety net (and thus incentivizing Chinese consumers to spend instead of save) is spent on industrial subsidizes like tax holidays, a regressive income tax system comparable to the US, and subsidizing various redundant but provincially influential SOEs that can't compete with domestic private sector players (eg. traditional Chinese automotive players like SAIC and Chery versus BYD), and this is reflected in Chinese spending data as well as StatsChina's breakdown of spending by urban and rural Chinese [0].

You are going to be dependent on foreign exports if your domestic consumers can only spend around Yuan 4000/$550 a year on transportation and telecom combined. Even factoring for PPP, it is difficult as these metrics are low in comparison to peer countries from a developmental standpoint.

A lot of the "overproduction" that has made Chinese goods globally dominant is a result of that misalignment between consumers and production.

Expanding the social safety net in China would dramatically enhance Chinese competitiveness over the long term, but top level leadership remains explicitly opposed to what they call "Welfarism" [1]:

"福利主义典范国家，中产塌陷、贫富分化、社会撕裂、民粹喧嚣，这不乏警示— 防止落入“福利主义”养懒汉陷阱"

"In countries that use a welfare model, the middle class is collapsing, the rich and the poor are polarizing, society is torn apart, and populism is rising. This is a warning - Prevent yourself from falling into the trap of "welfarism" to support lazy people"

[0] - https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202501/t202501...

[1] - http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2021/1116/c40531-32283350.htm...

China definitely has industrial policy supporting its manufacturing, but the wages argument is begging the question. The USD, as the global reserve currency, is over-valued; if an alternative system were used (eg. the Bancor) and the Yuan allowed to float, then those 34,000 Yuan would buy a lot more and the median US wage would buy less.

Hypothetically yes, but the lack of social safety net means most of that hypothetical purchasing power expansion in China is moot.

China has a medical debt problem [0], education pricing problem [1], and private sector capital crunch [2] similar to that of the US. This makes it much more difficult for the median household to spend in China because there is an incentive to keep saving.

In isolation an $8,000 EV looks cheap to us earning a salary in the West, but that is still 1.7x the median household income (so half of all Chinese households have even less money to spend). For half of Chinese households, that's the equivalent of your median American household purchasing a Maserati. And healthcare costs can reach the $8k-15k price point in China for critical operations.

The reality is, the median Chinese household is significantly underpaid compared to their peers in Thailand [3] or Malaysia [4] - either incomes have to rise to allow Chinese consumers to consume as well as cover health+education spending, or the central and provincial governments will have to dramatically expand social services in order to cover rising costs.

The Chinese consumer cannot replace the American consumer without an expanded social safety net giving some breathing room to spend instead of saving.

[0] - https://www.ft.com/content/4d892cd4-e7ef-446d-85c4-93262a7a3...

[1] - https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/high-cost-educat...

[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-18/china-pri...

[3] - https://www.nso.go.th/nsoweb/storage/survey_detail/2023/2023...

[4] - https://open.dosm.gov.my/dashboard/household-income-expendit...

What I mean is that if the CNY properly appreciates relative to the US dollar, that CNY60k ($8,000) EV becomes a CNY60k ($16,000) EV. The median Chinese wage goes from CNY 34k ($5,000) to CNY 34k ($10,000). Meanwhile imports of agricultural products and other things into China becomes cheaper, and the cost of food gets lower.

Most expenses an average Chinese worker pays might be unaffected given how self-reliant China is, but in theory at least the wage gap between Chinese and US workers would close significantly this way, even if the gap in living standards do not.

> Meanwhile imports of agricultural products and other things into China becomes cheaper, and the cost of food gets lower

Food costs are already dropping in China [0]. That is not what is dampening Chinese spending.

> if the CNY properly appreciates relative to the US dollar, that CNY60k ($8,000) EV becomes a CNY 60k ($16,000) EV. The median Chinese wage goes from CNY 34k ($5,000) to CNY 34k ($10,000).

But a critical surgery will still cost $8k-16k nominal (or $16-32k using your purchasing power multiplier) and education spending by households is rising in nominal, and that is what is dampening consumer spending in the middle and lower quartile.

> Most expenses an average Chinese worker pays might be unaffected given how self-reliant China is, but in theory at least the wage gap between Chinese and US workers would close significantly this way

But the products which a median American consumer purchases doesn't directly overlap with that which the median Chinese consumer purchases (and vice versa). So it's a moot comparison.

[0] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1446926/china-monthly-fo...

... Yes. Although, you've phrased that like it's in some way a rebuttal to what I wrote, when it's actually consistent with what I said.

Because your point is that the wage gap between the US and Chinese household would close significantly - yet it does not.

Even with those multipliers, the wage gap between your median Thai and Malaysian household and your median Chinese household is significant, let alone with an American household.

The wage gap cannot be solved until there is a serious expansion in China's social safety net if China wishes to continue to use a production driven growth model.

This is what Japan, Germany, the US before Reagan, South Korea, and much of Eastern Europe did when they reached similar developmental precipices to China today.

China can see a significant jump in living standards similar to that which Poland saw over the past 15-20 years if the social safety net is expanded.

Thai workers are not paid in the global reserve currency, so that is irrelevant. The wage gap will shrink because USD will come down relative to CNY. I make no argument that Chinese wages will increase in CNY, nor that the gap will close all the way to zero.

My point is a reserve currency doesn't help the median Chinese in any shape or form, nor does the USD being a reserve currency help the median American.

There are benefits to being a reserve currency at the macro-scale, but they are not felt by the vast majority of households, and any attempts at making the CNY a competitive reserve currency would require dramatically reducing currency controls along with increasing the independence of the PBOC from political leadership, and leave the lower tier of Chinese workers open to job loss and outsourcing [0][1][2][3] as low-to-medium complexity industries remain the primary employment generator in Chinese manufacturing.

This is the exact same thing that happened to Thai, Malaysian, and Mexican manufacturing workers during the 2000s when they hit plateaus similar to China today.

Finally, the US's dominant position is the cause of the USD as a reserve currency, not the other way around [4]. Having a reserve currency is orthogonal to having great power status, as can be seen with the rise of China.

A rising tide lifts all ships - the China story will stagnate if a serious effort at helping the bottom half of Chinese does not develop.

[0] - https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cfer-202...

[1] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13602381.2025.24...

[2] - https://sysengi.cjoe.ac.cn/EN/10.12011/SETP2023-0562

[3] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03797-6

[4] - https://www.ussc.edu.au/the-reserve-currency-myth-the-us-dol...

"the China story will stagnate if a serious effort at helping the bottom half of Chinese does not develop"

So 800,000,000 people raised out of extreme poverty is a lie? Sounds like the bottom half is being well taken care of over there.

None of what I said detracts from China's success in eradicating extreme poverty.

That said, the majority of Chinese households are still significantly less well off than their peers in other upper middle income countries as stats have shown multiple times.

I don't see why anyone would be so virulently opposed to moving some industrial subsidy spend to expanding healthcare, revamping the current insurance system, providing better quality schools to reduce the cost burden lower tier Chinese households have when spending on education, increasing rural retirement pensions, reforming Chinese income taxes to be less regressive, etc.

Raising household disposable incomes by $2000 a year would help increase GDP growth from 4% to 5% (back of the napkin math) - and that too in a sustainable manner. And this is something that is fairly doable by expanding social services and welfare accessibility. This would also solve much of the overproduction problem that has lead to trade wars globally.

Could it be possible that the CCP is concerned that such an increase in household disposable income could lead to an increased risk of uprising?

> I don't see why anyone would be so virulently opposed to moving some industrial subsidy spend to expanding healthcare...

This is because many media outlets, whether intentionally or unintentionally, promote the 'China collapse theory,' making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from curated information.

Take the FT article you cited earlier as an example. As someone living in China with parents who have chronic illnesses, let me describe what healthcare is actually like here:

My father and grandfather both have diabetes. They use NovoRapid insulin at about 40 RMB(6 USD) per pen, requiring 1-2 pens monthly (totaling 100 RMB, 14 USD). Domestic Chinese brands cost roughly half that price.

My mother and I have hyperlipidemia. Lipitor costs about 70 RMB(10 USD) monthly, while domestic alternatives cost around 10 RMB (2 USD).

China's healthcare system features centralized procurement policies where the government negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies. To have your products included in the insurance formulary and reach more patients, manufacturers must reduce prices.

While this system has some issues (which we could discuss later), nearly all medications—including imported ones—are significantly cheaper in China than in the US.

Two years ago, my grandfather spent his final two weeks in ICU at a cost of 120,000 RMB (16700 USD). Insurance covered 100,000 RMB (14000 USD), leaving us with 20,000 RMB (2700 USD) out-of-pocket.

Regarding insurance coverage:

Rural and urban insurance have different reimbursement rates, but generally cover over 50%. My parents' retirement income is about 4,000 RMB (560 USD) monthly—relatively high for urban workers. In tier-3/4 cities, most retirees receive over 1,000 RMB (140 USD)monthly.

Now examining your cited article: Those two farmers never participated in any insurance programs. Having never contributed to:

- Pension funds (hence receiving only the minimum 150 RMB, 20USD monthly—standards vary by city, e.g., ~1,400 RMB,200USD in Shanghai)

- Medical insurance (400 RMB lowest level, 55USD annually, fixed.), making them ineligible for reimbursements. Rural insurance even allows retroactive payments-coverage begins three months after payment, regardless of preexisting conditions.

While such cases exist, they're exceptionally rare. In my entire life, I've only known two families who didn't enroll in insurance—both were wealthy enough to purchase private coverage.

It must be sad to have this kind of beliefs and still see median salaries and consumption growing all across China for the last 20 years.

Nothing which I said detracts from that.

China has been one of the most significant economic growth stories in modern history, but the policies used to grow from 1980-2019 are differnet from those that China needs from 2020-2060

China is now in the same developmental band as Thailand, Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, etc. And if China does not wish to get stuck in the middle income trap, holistic growth across all income strata is needed - not the current k-shaped economy that has developed.

And this is a fairly mainstream position in Chinese economic academia as well, but policymakers are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

That's just another strain of the doomsday economics that has been applied to China at least since 2005. Yet, the Chinese economy and its government have proven to be able to overcome all these supposed huge obstacles that would stop the Chinese growth at any moment... So I urge you to rethink your theories based on reality of what the Chinese people are capable of doing.

> In isolation an $8,000 EV looks cheap to us earning a salary in the West, but that is still 1.7x the median household income (so half of all Chinese households have even less money to spend).

You're looking at China the wrong way. A better way to view it is as two countries - a developed urban one, tied to a developing, rural one.

The latter is currently bigger than the former, so it drives any median wealth metrics down. A lot.

But for the past 40 years, the developing part of it has been shrinking - while the developed part has been growing. On that kind of trajectory, that median divide of wealth is currently where the 60th percentile was a decade ago, and in a decade, will be where the 40th percentile is today.

Where does the median urbanite in China stand, compared to her Thai or Malaysian counterpart?

> You're looking at China the wrong way. A better way to view it is as two countries - a developed urban one, tied to a developing, rural one

This is how I am looking at China, and this is ALL THE MORE reason that development needs to be spread out much more equally.

Urban China isn't that much richer either - median urban household income is CNY 43,000/$6,000 [0] - so on par with Thailand and half that of Malaysia's.

And rural China is in a worse position - CNY 19,600/$2,700 [0]

Ignoring the bottom half of China (urban and rural) is going to set China up for failure long term.

Having well developed cities (in reality a couple megacities that are also 直辖市) but a significantly underdeveloped hinterland and urban underclass will only lead to extended instability.

Furthermore, it isn't that expensive to expand the social safety net in China. The Chinese income tax system is severely regressive and is comparable to the US system, and the provinces and municipalities that generate the majority of growth for China can easily divert portions of their total production to either expanding their own social safety nets or subsidizing those of adjacent provinces.

Just by my back of the napkin math, expanding social services such that it becomes the equivalent of $2,000 per household would automatically add 1% to China's GDP growth rate, and also alleviate the overproduction trade war issue, as that would give significant breathing room to the bottom half of Chinese consumers.

It's just pigheadedness to not divert some amount of spending into education and healthcare.

> On that kind of trajectory, that median divide of wealth is currently where the 60th percentile was a decade ago, and in a decade, will be where the 40th percentile is today

Past trajectory cannot be used to predict future trajectory. Even the IMF forecasts Chinese GDP growth to drop to 3% by the end of this decade. It is much more difficult to lift the bottom 50% of Chinese households in that kind of a macro environment.

It is just plain complacency to ignore this trend.

> Where does the median urbanite in China stand, compared to her Thai or Malaysian counterpart

On par with their Malaysian or Thai urban counterparts based on HDI [1][2], but based on household income, they are roughly at the same median household income of Thailand, and half that of the median Malaysian household, so worse off than their Malaysian or Thai urban counterparts - and let's be honest, there's a reason you bump into plenty of "Cina" migrant workers doing blue collar work in KL, Johor, Klang, or Penang like bus driving or working as the help at Malaysian Chinese owned businesses, just like how there are plenty of white collar Chinese immigrants in Malaysia.

And if we decide to use a subnational lens as you insisted on your post, we can see that the majority of Chinese provinces are much more deprived than their Malaysian or Thai counterparts, which itself highlights the need for the Central and Provincial governments to really concentrate on expanding social welfare.

[0] - https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202501/t202501...

[1] - http://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/malaysia-...

[2] - https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/table/shdi/CHN+THA/?levels=1+...

>> ...median urban household income...

You seem to miss the word 'disposable' when you cited the chart and table in [0] you linked to.

China's nominal GDP per capita is already on par with Malaysia's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

Does your analysis on the relative standards of living of China's and Malaysia's populations still stand?

It's been more than 10 years since I last visited China. I've been to Malaysia a couple of times not too long ago. From what I see from random social media clips of regular people, their urban standards of living do not differ much.

I mostly agree with your points. Social inequality in China is pretty serious, and it’s gonna take a lot of smart policy moves to fix it.

But when we compare China to other countries, we do have to consider some unique factors. The cost of living in China is really low, which means that even if people have similar income levels to places like Thailand, their actual quality of life can be better in some ways. For example, China’s “vegetable basket project” keeps food prices super low across the country. There’s no property tax, firefighting services are free, and rural healthcare is cheap—even if it's not on par with what you'd get in big cities.

That said, the government still needs to do more to boost domestic consumption. The current setup is okay, but it’s still nowhere near the living standards in developed countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com