Who's 13 bucks a day to feed? - The "Step-Age security" illusion that was drawn up by the social security for 226 months.

Introduction:

> 30 years of work, 25 years of contributions, 226 months in total. First pension for the final life: $396. The blogger adds:

A detailed pension chart from Guiyang, Guizhou, has recently caused extensive acid and vibrations on the Internet. The figure shows that banks are now in a state of emergency, and it says “2026-10-17 old-age benefits +396.00”. The mother, who spent her whole life trying and making up for her grievances, had to survive her retirement with a figure that would plunge her family into silence. This real, individual tragedy, with a near-cruel end, has broken the last illusion of “social maintenance” for hundreds of millions of bottom workers.

I, 30 years of hard work and 396 dollars of late

The text in the cut-off chart describes the most typical life course for an employee of an ordinary enterprise: hard work, the experience of the times, during which the social security was forced to be cut off for a period of time because of unemployment and illness, and the company only pays for it for a long period of time at the lowest level. Thirty years of service, 25 years of work, and finally, the banker Kari's “old-age treatment” of $396 per month.

What does $396 mean in today's provincial capital city? The average daily is only $13. This money may not be available in modern cities for even the most common snacks, more than for water, electricity, property and medical and medical expenses that older persons may face at any time. The mother, who has paid almost all her youth and all her labour, has contributed to the functioning of society for life, but when she is old and needs social retrogression for the most basic dignity of her life, the system gives her only handouts to maintain her breath limit.

. ii. At the bottom, where is the “guarantee”?

For too long, the public has been inculcated in the notion that paying social security is a legal obligation of every worker, and more so a “safe sense of security” for his or her later life. People were young and endured the pain of being paid off, hoping to get a decent exit from old age.

However, this bill, “30 years for $396”, completely shattered the myth. Social security is not a legal charity, much less a gift from the manager. It is essentially a public contract, a statutory pension right that workers have earned for decades of sweat. In this system, one finds a paradox of great inequality: when young people pay, the mechanism emphasizes “compulsory, responsible and committed”; When older people need to be delivered, the mechanism is spitting out a number that is not even sustainable for basic life. If a system of safeguards fails to meet the minimum level of food for the contributor, it not only loses its “guarantee” intent, but must also be subject to a rigorous public scrutiny of its reasonableness.

iii. The fear of the pool and the collapse of the public's sense of security

When the bottom-up workers see their fellow citizens who are so diligent and who, at retirement, are on the margins of the “13 yen a day”, a great fear of the future is spreading among the younger generation. The logic of the design of such a mechanism, which is often a matter of doubt to society about its ability to deliver, is that it is only possible to spend its youths and to spend its money on the meagre funds of its age.

People have to start to calculate: are the money that young people pay today, whether to invest in their future or simply to act as “taggers” in the pool? If this is the end of a 30-year-old employee working in a business, who is responsible for the general public ' s sense of security in the face of the more severe future of support ratios and uncertainty?

When you were young, you paid for it. The tragedy of this noble mother has sent a strangulation to all: who is this system that feeds on?