In today's fast-paced Chinese society, the topic of cost of living and income levels has always been the focus of public attention. Recently, Xu Shanda, former deputy director of the State Administration of Taxation, sparked widespread discussion. He believes that as long as one person in a family is employed and the monthly income reaches 4,000 yuan, the whole family can live a very good life.
This view has sparked heated discussions on social media, with some questioning its reality and others arguing that it reflects the disparity in living standards between different regions and groups. Let's dive into this question and analyze the rationality and limitations of this view from multiple perspectives in history, economics, and society.
Looking back at China's economic development since the reform and opening up, it is not difficult to find that the income level has changed dramatically. In the early 80s of the last century, the per capita disposable income of urban residents was only about 500 yuan, and by 2022, it has exceeded 47,000 yuan. This leapfrog growth has undoubtedly improved the quality of life for most Chinese.
At the same time, income disparities between regions and between urban and rural areas are widening. Against this backdrop, Hsu's argument seems to reflect more of an average, even skewed, perspective of less developed regions.
Although Hui's argument may sound surprising at first glance, if we analyze it carefully, we will find some plausible factors. He emphasized "one-person employment", which means that there may be multiple members of the family who share the cost of living. In traditional Chinese family structures, it is not uncommon for multiple generations to live together.
Although the monthly income of 4,000 yuan may seem insignificant in first-tier cities, it can indeed support the basic life of a family in many third- and fourth-tier cities and rural areas.
There are also significant limitations to this view. It ignores rural-urban and regional differences. In first-tier cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, a monthly income of 4,000 yuan may not even cover the cost of renting. It does not take into account the various necessary expenses of modern life, such as education, medical care, pension, etc.
This view also seems to underestimate people's desire for a better quality of life, as well as the new needs brought about by social development. From a historical perspective, China's income levels and living standards have indeed been rising. In the early days of reform and opening up, "food and clothing" was the goal of most people. In the 90s, "well-off" became a new pursuit.
Today, people are paying more attention to improving the overall quality of life, including spiritual and cultural life, health security, children's education and other aspects. Defining a "good life" in terms of just one income figure is clearly an oversimplification. Another factor to consider is inflation. While nominal wages are growing, rising prices are also eroding purchasing power.
Especially in key areas such as housing, education, and healthcare, costs tend to rise faster than wages. As a result, many households may not necessarily have a significant improvement in their quality of life, even if their income seems to be substantial.
Hui's argument also provokes reflection on the definition of a "good life". Today, with the continuous enrichment of material life, people's requirements for quality of life have far exceeded the basic needs of food and clothing. Spiritual and cultural life, personal development space, and social participation have all become important indicators to measure the quality of life.
Defining a good life solely by income level no longer fully reflects the complexity of modern society. This argument also ignores the importance of the social security system. In modern society, the quality of life of a family is not only determined by income level, but also closely related to the accessibility and quality of public services such as medical care, education, and elderly care.
The role of the social welfare system cannot be overlooked when discussing the standard of living. It is worth noting that Hui Shanda's views also reflect a simple attitude towards life, calling on people to learn to be content and happy while pursuing a higher standard of living. In today's consumerist society, this view is undoubtedly a cautionary tale.
We must also be wary of absolutizing this view so that it does not become an excuse to hinder social progress and personal development. Although Hui's argument has sparked controversy, it also provides an opportunity to rethink the relationship between income, quality of life and social development.
When judging whether a family can live a good life, we need to consider not only income figures, but also regional differences, cost of living, social security, personal development opportunities and other factors. At the same time, we should also recognize that as society evolves, so does the definition of a "good life".