The dilemma of contemporary youth: Not having or having fewer children is selfish, they do not understand "dedication and sacrifice", and they do not take the cause of the party and the country seriously; if they have children, or have too many children, they are unable to raise and educate their children. To become the talents needed by the country and society...
In the future twenty or thirty years from now, we can even foresee that there will be as many graduate students as dogs and doctoral students everywhere (if the government maintains the status quo of education and does not intervene). At that time, because of the incompetence of their parents, our children will have to struggle with a bachelor's degree certificate and look for jobs every year but have no jobs every year. After the children can no longer gnaw at the old man, they have to gnaw at the country. In order to eliminate absolute poverty, the country has to spend a lot of money to ensure their basic survival throughout their lives, including housing, medical care, elderly care, etc. - which has become a burden on the progress of the country and society. Or maybe the country gives up some upgraded industries and returns to labor-intensive industries , so that they can directly guarantee their employment, but is this possible?
Once the cost of machinery is far lower than the cost of labor, and the efficiency of machinery is much higher than the efficiency of manpower, let alone returning to labor-intensive industries, even if you want to imitate Roosevelt work-for-relief is impossible - because the more The more basic labor productivity is invested in production, the more losses will be incurred. Therefore, instead of providing work-for-work relief or supporting small and medium-sized enterprises to expand production and increase jobs, it is better to directly send money...
In the labor market, in order to protect the safety of workers and their families For basic survival, labor costs will continue to increase with the development of society. However, people’s basic labor productivity is fixed and is far lower than the average social productivity. The more industrialized a country is, the more so (people’s knowledge and the ability to use tools are not included in people’s basic labor productivity. This is explained further below).
The future development trend of science and technology is that automation and artificial intelligence will completely replace those simple, highly repetitive tasks. Therefore, society's demand for the general working population is gradually decreasing, while the demand for highly sophisticated technical talents is gradually increasing. If the education problem is not solved, the "unemployment" poverty problem caused by population growth will become a common social norm. If the country does not give up on these poor people and implements welfare security policies, it will drag down the country's fiscal and economic development, because welfare fiscal expenditures cannot inject vitality into economic development, and once the economy fails to develop healthily, the country's finances will become even more difficult to maintain. By supporting the original welfare policy, this vicious cycle will make our country repeat the mistakes of the "high welfare" trap of Western developed countries. What if the country abandons these poor people? This fundamentally violates the foundation of our country as a socialist country, and its consequences are simply disastrous.
What if the country solves the education problem so that our descendants have sufficient knowledge and the ability to use tools, and become useful talents in the era of highly industrialized society? That doesn’t mean every one of them will find a job, either. To put it simply, social production is determined by social needs, not social productivity. A highly industrialized society with a large population cannot guarantee full employment, or in other words, every worker with matching abilities put into production will only end up with resulting in product
