Ethnic riots rock China’s Uighur area, 27 killed

[Unkotare]

I am addressing the OP. .

You most certainly are not. Read the OP again.

 

[Unkotare]

Shut up China Man.

I think I told you that I am not Chinese. You remember that, right?

 

[ChrisL]

From the last wiki link I posted. Notice the bold sections.

China’s growth has been so rapid that virtually every household has benefited significantly, fueling the steep drop in poverty. However, different people have benefited to very different extents, so that inequality has risen during the reform period. This is true for inequality in household income or consumption, as well as for inequality in important social outcomes such as health status or educational attainment. Concerning household consumption, the Gini measure of inequality increased from 0.31 at the beginning of reform to 0.45 in 2004. To some extent this rise in inequality is the natural result of the market forces that have generated the strong growth; but to some extent it is "artificial" in the sense that various government policies exacerbate the tendencies toward higher inequality, rather than mitigate them. Changes to some policies could halt or even reverse the increasing inequality.[12] (See List of countries by income equality.)

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Sir Arthur Lewis noted that "development must be inegalitarian because it does not start in every part of the economy at the same time" in 1954. China classically manifests two of the characteristics of development that Lewis had in mind: rising return to education and rural-urban migration. As an underdeveloped country, China began its reform with relatively few highly educated people, and with a small minority of the population (20%) living in cities, where labor productivity was about twice the level as in the countryside.

In pre-reform China there was very little return to education manifested in salaries. Cab drivers and college professors had similar incomes. Economic reform has created a labor market in which people can search for higher pay, and one result of this is that salaries for educated people have gone up dramatically. In the short period between 1988 and 2003, the wage returns to one additional year of schooling increased from 4% to 11%. This development initially leads to higher overall inequality, because the initial stock of educated people is small and they are concentrated at the high end of the income distribution. But if there is reasonably good access to education, then over time a greater and greater share of the population will become educated, and that will ultimately tend to reduce inequality.

The large productivity and wage gap between cities and countryside also drives a high rate of rural-urban migration. Lewis pointed out that, starting from a situation of 80% rural, the initial shift of some from low-productivity agriculture to high productivity urban employment is disequalizing. If the flow continues until the population is more than 50% urban, however, further migration is equalizing. This pattern is very evident in thehistory of the U.S., with inequality rising during the rapid industrialization period from 1870–1920, and then declining thereafter. So, the same market forces that have produced the rapid growth in China predictably led to higher inequality. But it is important to note that in China there are a number of government policies that exacerbate this tendency toward higher inequality and restrict some of the potential mechanisms that would normally lead to an eventual decline in inequality.[12]

 

[ChrisL]

IOW, it seems as if China is heavily invested in its more "urban Silicone Valley" type areas but basically ignores the people in the more rural areas who are the MOST needy.

In 2009, according to the China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the urban per capita annual income at US$2525 was approximately three times that of the rural per capita annual income.[14] This was the widest income gap recorded since 1978.[14] Urban-biased economic policies adopted by the government contribute to the income disparities. This is also known as the ‘artificial’ result of the rural-urban divide. In terms of the share of investments allotted by the state, urban areas had a larger proportion when compared with rural areas.[15] In the period 1986-1992, investments to urban state-owned enterprises (SOE) accounted for more than 25% of the total government budget.[16] On the other hand, less than 10% of the government budget was allocated to investments in the rural economy in the same period by the state despite the fact that about 73-76% of the total population lived in the rural areas.[16] However, the burden of the inflation caused by the fiscal expansion, which at that time was at a level of approximately 8.5%, was shared by all including the rural population.[16]Such biased allocation of government finances to the urban sector meant that the wages earned by urban workers also include these government fiscal transfers. This is not forgetting the relatively higher proportions of credit loans the government also provided to the urban SOEs in the same period.[16] Meanwhile, the wages earned by the rural workers came mainly from growth in output only.[16] These urban-biased policies reflect the importance of the urban minority to the government relative to the rural majority.

 

[ChrisL]

I am addressing the OP. .

You most certainly are not. Read the OP again.

I was trying to, until you butted in like a rude dickhead.

 

[ChrisL]

Now this excerpt below reminds me a lot of our school system here in the US, except it is the opposite. The inner city schools are the poor ones that receive less funding, while the suburban/rural schools are much better funded. It seems as if this could be a big part of our problem with inner city schools. I always thought that funding should be distributed equally amongst the schools. However, this seems to really ANGER conservatives who feel that if they pay higher taxes because of living in a nicer area with nicer schools, then they should be able to retain the BEST as far as education is concerned. I, however, feel that ALL of our children deserve equal opportunity in education, rich, poor or middle class. IMO, that belief is going to HURT America in the long-term when it comes to education, thereby leading to more crime and poor people in our country.

Education is a prerequisite for the development of human capital which in turn is an important factor in a country’s overall development. Apart from the increasing income inequality, the education sector has long suffered from problems such as funding shortages and unequal allocation of education resources,[20] adding to the disparity between China’s urban and rural life; this was exacerbated by the two track system of government’s approach to education. The first track is government -supported primary education in urban areas and the second is family -supported primary education in the rural areas.[21]

Rural education has been marginalized by the focus on immediate economic development and the fact that urban education enjoys more attention and investment by the central government.[21] This lack of public funding meant that children of rural families were forced to drop out of school, thus losing the opportunity to further their studies and following the paths of their parents to become low skilled workers with few chances of advancements.[20] This leads to a vicious cycle of poverty. Due to limited educational resources, urban schools were supported by the government while village schools were provided for by the local communities where educational opportunities were possibly constrained depending on local conditions.[21] Thus, there still exist a huge gap in teacher preparation and quality of facilities between rural and urban areas.

The two track system was then abolished in 1986 & 1992, to be replaced by the Compulsory Education Law and the Rule for the Implementation of the Compulsory Education Law respectively.[22] Despite the emphasis of China’s education reform on providing quality and holistic education, the rural schools still lack the capacity to implement such reforms vis-à-vis their urban counterparts.[20] The rural areas lack the educational resources of the urban areas and the rural areas are considered to be falling below the educational benchmark set in the cities.[23] Teachers are more attracted to urban sectors with higher pay and a slew of benefits. In addition, rural villages have a difficult time finding quality teachers because of the relatively poorer standard of living in villages. As a result, some rural teachers are not qualified as they received college degrees from continuing-education programs, which is not the best type of further education one could receive.[24]

As a result, rural students often find themselves neither competitive enough to gain admissions to colleges nor employable for most occupations.[20] Rural residents are increasingly being marginalised in higher education, closing off their best opportunities for advancement. This is especially prominent in Tsinghua and Peking University where the percentage of rural population studying in the two universities have shrunk to 17.6 percent in 2000 and 16.3 percent in 1999, down from 50 to 60 percent in the 1950s. These numbers are the most recent reliable data that has been published and experts agree that the number might be as low as 1 percent in 2010.[25]

 

[ChrisL]

What China (and the United States) needs to do, IMO, is to fund all schools equally. This would HELP to break the cycle of poverty. If you are born into a very poor rural area with no good schools and no opportunities, then the cycle of poverty continues in these areas, which in turn effects crime levels. I'll bet this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of the Uighurs and other poor people in the more rural areas. They cannot get good jobs because they lack a good education!

 

[Unkotare]

I am addressing the OP. .

You most certainly are not. Read the OP again.

I was trying to....

No you weren't. Why not try now?

 

[Unkotare]

From the last wiki link I posted. ]

Read that part to yourself out loud. Your source is Wikipedia...


........

 

[Unkotare]

What China (and the United States) needs to do, IMO, is to fund all schools equally. This would HELP to break the cycle of poverty. If you are born into a very poor rural area with no good schools and no opportunities, then the cycle of poverty continues in these areas, which in turn effects crime levels. I'll bet this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of the Uighurs and other poor people in the more rural areas. They cannot get good jobs because they lack a good education!

First of all, failing schools do not fail because of funding.

Second, the issues with Xinjiang do not stem from a lack of funding to the educational system. It is much more complicated than that.

 

[ChrisL]

From the last wiki link I posted. ]

Read that part to yourself out loud. Your source is Wikipedia...


........

Everything is referenced and can be checked. THAT is what the little number in brackets after each excerpt means. Duh.

 

[ChrisL]

What China (and the United States) needs to do, IMO, is to fund all schools equally. This would HELP to break the cycle of poverty. If you are born into a very poor rural area with no good schools and no opportunities, then the cycle of poverty continues in these areas, which in turn effects crime levels. I'll bet this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of the Uighurs and other poor people in the more rural areas. They cannot get good jobs because they lack a good education!

First of all, failing schools do not fail because of funding.

Second, the issues with Xinjiang do not stem from a lack of funding to the educational system. It is much more complicated than that.

You are wrong. Read the links and educate yourself. You want to take the opinion of the "world bank" though, which deals with strictly the financial aspects and NONE of the finer details.

 

[Unkotare]

What China (and the United States) needs to do, IMO, is to fund all schools equally. This would HELP to break the cycle of poverty. If you are born into a very poor rural area with no good schools and no opportunities, then the cycle of poverty continues in these areas, which in turn effects crime levels. I'll bet this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of the Uighurs and other poor people in the more rural areas. They cannot get good jobs because they lack a good education!

First of all, failing schools do not fail because of funding.

Second, the issues with Xinjiang do not stem from a lack of funding to the educational system. It is much more complicated than that.

You are wrong. Read the links and educate yourself. You want to take the opinion of the "world bank" though, which deals with strictly the financial aspects and NONE of the finer details.

What exactly is it you think I'm wrong about?


You never answered my question. Have you ever been to China?

 

[Unkotare]

From the last wiki link I posted. ]

Read that part to yourself out loud. Your source is Wikipedia...


........

Everything is referenced and can be checked. THAT is what the little number in brackets after each excerpt means. Duh.

Wiki......

 

[Unkotare]

What China (and the United States) needs to do, IMO, is to fund all schools equally. This would HELP to break the cycle of poverty. If you are born into a very poor rural area with no good schools and no opportunities, then the cycle of poverty continues in these areas, which in turn effects crime levels. I'll bet this has something to do with the dissatisfaction of the Uighurs and other poor people in the more rural areas. They cannot get good jobs because they lack a good education!

First of all, failing schools do not fail because of funding.

Second, the issues with Xinjiang do not stem from a lack of funding to the educational system. It is much more complicated than that.

You are wrong. Read the links and educate yourself. You want to take the opinion of the "world bank" though, which deals with strictly the financial aspects and NONE of the finer details.

What exactly is it you think I'm wrong about?


You never answered my question. Have you ever been to China?

Oh that's right...you once spoke to someone who went to the Olympics! Quite the expert, you are!

 

[Vikrant]

Chris L,

There is a difference between Chinese government and Chinese people. Yes, Chinese government is oppressive. It oppresses people in Tibet and Xinjiang. However, Chinese people themselves are a victim of the Chinese government. So it is callous on your part to engage in cruel stereotype by posting those pictures. That kind of tactics can be applied against any culture or people. It is wrong. Please do not do that on this thread.

Objective of this thread is to highlight the predatory nature of Chinese government. Let us stick to that. Please do not engage in racism against Chinese folks. They are good people.

 

[Unkotare]

Chris L,

There is a difference between Chinese government and Chinese people. Yes, Chinese government is oppressive. It oppresses people in Tibet and Xinjiang. However, Chinese people themselves are a victim of the Chinese government. So it is callous on your part to engage in cruel stereotype by posting those pictures. That kind of tactics can be applied against any culture or people. It is wrong. Please do not do that on this thread.

Objective of this thread is to highlight the predatory nature of Chinese government. Let us stick to that. Please do not engage in racism against Chinese folks. They are good people.

You will now be accused of fervently advocating Communism. I know it makes no sense, but that seems to be the way she 'thinks.'

 

[Vikrant]

You will now be accused of fervently advocating Communism. I know it makes no sense, but that seems to be the way she 'thinks.'

LOL.

Yes, I am bracing for it. But, I am hoping she will be kinder to me because I exercised great caution in voicing my disagreement with some of her posts.

 

[ChrisL]

Chris L,

There is a difference between Chinese government and Chinese people. Yes, Chinese government is oppressive. It oppresses people in Tibet and Xinjiang. However, Chinese people themselves are a victim of the Chinese government. So it is callous on your part to engage in cruel stereotype by posting those pictures. That kind of tactics can be applied against any culture or people. It is wrong. Please do not do that on this thread.

Objective of this thread is to highlight the predatory nature of Chinese government. Let us stick to that. Please do not engage in racism against Chinese folks. They are good people.

That was a joke and done to annoy the other rude poster. It has nothing to do with racism.

 

[ChrisL]

You will now be accused of fervently advocating Communism. I know it makes no sense, but that seems to be the way she 'thinks.'

LOL.

Yes, I am bracing for it. But, I am hoping she will be kinder to me because I exercised great caution in voicing my disagreement with some of her posts.

Yes, I don't appreciate being called an "idiot" or other such names. If someone is going to treat me like that, then they had better expect to get it back 2 fold.

That is why I'm just ignoring China Man. I don't even use the ignore function for China Man because his posts are so insignificant and inconsequential.