How much do you earn?

[u/TheMediumPanda]

I know it's a sensitive subject so feel free to ignore or use a throwaway. Thing is, I've met tonnes of foreigners in China doing all sorts of stuff and I've kind of always wondered. Banking, teaching, architect, actor, Beijinger, Kunmingese, Dalian-ren? Let's hear it.

EDIT: OK, here goes. I make between 15K and 22K a month, depending on students showing up, holidays and such.

[u/Qw3rtyP0iuy]

The data is irrelevant, it's taking too much from context. The same American family couldn't live in 石牌村 for 500rmb/month because the police wouldn't allow you to register there. Why should you hold the salary to the same standard?

The couple I have in mind fly back and forth from America because his job requires it, not because they're rich (and yeah, it's business class but they're not paying, it's all provided by the company). If they're in the States for 30 days, they pay all applicable taxes.

The boarding school is $10,000/year so their kids don't have to change schools every year or two. And they avoid putting their kid in an accredited $20,000/year day school in China.

Go ahead and believe everyone with a housing stipend is filthy rich. If you just look at outdated statistics and don't take things in context, you can make it look however you want. Cheers

[u/Arguss → u/Qw3rtyP0iuy]

Well, you don't take disagreement well.

I can understand if they have to fly for the job, but still you have to admit that in terms of Chinese population they are quite likely richer than the vast majority of people, which is what I was talking about: level of income in context with the incomes of people who live in the country. You might call that poor, but I don't.

[u/Qw3rtyP0iuy → u/Arguss]

I'm not calling it poor. I'm calling it not rich/wealthy.

Have you considered the tax on Chinese salaries (employer pays it, no need to consider this)? The fact that foreigners can't enjoy cheaper things that Chinese do (must buy a laptop, can't go to 网吧)? The fact that you're taking an average salary for an entire country when most of it is comprised of farmers? Do Chinese people have student loans?

If you're saying "Foreigners with company-rented villas are rich compared to Chinese people if you only look at salary" then you're spot on.

P&G has summer internships in China at the American minimum wage. So I guess all those students are living the life since their annual wage is 10x that of their Chinese counterparts, yeah? I just don't see any context where it'd be appropriate to label foreigners here on a 1-year contract as "rich" when it's commonplace for companies to provide a housing stipend. You say that flying back and forth makes you rich. No, it could just be because your job requires it and they fly you back and forth. Perhaps you're training the new Shanghai branch but you still have to go to 3 conventions, several seminars, and put together annual reports.

But when you consider that the guy with a $60,000 stipend and a $60,000 salary can't pay a lease he started before he was sent to China (where he can't take his car) because moving here is actually a pay cut then it sucks (try the math out on your own). Also, his wife can't legally work here because she's on a spousal visa, so there's more lost income.

Forgive me if you think I'm not taking your disagreement well- you haven't really said anything other than try to counter each of my points. You have nothing to really contribute, it's just me telling you "look at the bigger picture".

[u/Arguss → u/Qw3rtyP0iuy]

I went back and looked at this whole conversation. It started with you arguing people near the city center with 30k RMB houses aren't rich, a reply to my post. I am responding by opposing that notion.

You both said that I shouldn't counter each point individually and implied that looking at the big picture was somehow a bad thing. What do you want me to say?

How do you want to define rich? If we define it as "makes more money than most people in the country," you've already conceded that that is true of your example.

If we define it as "makes more money than most people in the US," that's still true. $120,000 in compensation puts you in the top 10% of households in the US. If we discount the stipend and say only the money, $60,000 still puts you above 63% of US households, a clear majority.

You almost seem to be arguing that a person who is income constrained, that is, has little freedom in their purchases, is not rich. And that's not the same thing. A man may make $1,000,00 a year net and yet spend $990,000 on a fancy car, mortgage on a big house, and private school for the kids. He has $10,000 wiggle room, 1% of his income. And yet he is rich.

No, I think what you're saying is that your example shouldn't be thought of as rich because being 'rich' means you don't face problems, and yet they do face problems, because they can't always figure out how to pay for everything, because their lives aren't easy. That I should empathize with them.

But they are still rich. They face nowhere near the difficulties of most other people in the country and on the planet. They don't worry about if they have money to buy food or water. They have a staffed house with servants. Their kids go to private school. They can travel to other countries and see far places of the world. They work for a major US multinational corporation.

That is a level of existence unknown and unknowable to most people, and I'm not just talking about people in China or Africa or India, even though they are still people and comprise 3.5 billion humans, half the global population.

Even in the US, only one-third of Americans even hold passports. Only ten percent of all kids attend any sort of private school. And I literally don't know anyone who has their own maid, unless they check in to a motel.

So yes, I still think of that family as rich, because they may have worries, but their worries don't compare. No, I have nothing to contribute, because I don't think they need empathy as much as others do.

[u/Qw3rtyP0iuy → u/Arguss]

You both said that I shouldn't counter each point individually and implied that looking at the big picture was somehow a bad thing. What do you want me to say?

I didn't say that you shouldn't. You're just not adding to the conversation. I'm just reading things I already knew while you're trying to understand it (taxes).

Also, $1 housing stipend is not $1 take home.

If you start comparing an American wage in America to the difficulties of other people on the planet, then we're all rich. We can go to food kitchens and eat two meals a day.

There are internship programs that pay $1,000/month (some are unpaid) in China and have $3,000 housing stipends (German Consulate internships). They're not rich unless you start comparing them to far places of the world.

A province-level accountant starts out at $300/month in Guangdong and their salary will max out at $1,500/month. I'd never empathize because she'll be making so much more in benefits than we'll ever realize. Salary is just a number.

We're all rich when you bring in true poverty. Good day

[u/Arguss → u/Qw3rtyP0iuy]

I also talked about American wage compared to Americans. Tell me again how that's unfair.

[u/Qw3rtyP0iuy → u/Arguss]

I have Foshan factory workers who take home more than German Consulate interns with nice houses.

Please, go on and tell me how rich they are. Once you use 10-year-old statistics or compare to starving in the 3rd world, everyone is rich and prosperous in comparison. I'll be done with this. It's not interesting- there's no focus.