Reprinted: Zhihu Q&A - Why do ordinary workers in developed countries earn so much higher than their counterparts in developing countries?

Backup and reprint, invade and delete.

The original author knows Wang Zijun (public account: Wang Zijun's broken thoughts. B station cooperation: Wang Ge's broken thoughts)

Transfer from Zhihu: https://www.zhihu.com/question/424070082/answer/1507449483

Copyright belongs to the author. For commercial reprints, please contact the author for authorization, and for non-commercial reprints, please indicate the source.

Thank you.

Because developed countries define the international division of labor.

The topic mentioned some of Mr. Yuan's views, which are also some important reference points for this topic. I list them as follows:

So why do some countries fall into the middle-income trap? Because their economic lifeline is objectively controlled by foreign countries, subjectively they are not working hard enough to do research and development.

Why are developed countries rich? ...what is the immediate cause? There is one and only one, and that is advanced technology.

...to form a closed loop of technology leadership - monopoly position - excess profit - investment in research and development - technology leadership.

The level of technology determines the upper limit of a country's productivity.

Mr. Yuan's text is to explain that "China will not fall into the middle-income trap", and these points are placed in the original text, which is in line with the logic of the original text.

However, the subject has changed the context, and these views cannot be rigidly applied.

Because Mr. Yuan's original text has a tacit fact (at least I think so): China is trying to break through the international division of labor system.

My personal opinion ha:

Rely on power to establish a system; through the system, a clear division of labor; use of the division of labor; distribution of profits.

According to more or less profits, and then based on the will of the country, institutional preferences, and the foundation of the people, we can see how much of it can be allocated to scientific research and development, and how much can produce scientific research results.

And even if there are leading scientific research results, whether it can be widely used is the first hurdle. It is very likely that your country is small or has a low income, and a large number of scientific research results cannot find application scenarios in the short term, such as Eastern Europe after the Cold War.

Even if it can be applied, turning the model in the laboratory into a product that can be sold, it is difficult to easily achieve a monopoly. Because at this time you have to face political interference at home and abroad, such as taxes, such as tariffs;

At this stage, there will be domestic and foreign competitors seeking non-technical means to slow down your monopoly speed, while increasing research and development to match your technological advantages;

For example, German industry before the First World War.

Well, even if you are fierce and monopolize your teeth, it is still not so easy to achieve excess profits. Because your opponent may also directly close the market through prohibited means, thereby threatening you to hand over most of your profits.

For example... Germany before World War I. (Angry: the site under the sun!)

Therefore, the closed loop of technological leadership - monopoly position - excess profit - investment in research and development - technological leadership is not easy.

The survivors are biased, and there are more hiccups in the middle.

Simply put, workers in developed countries generally earn more than those in developing countries, which is the dividend of technological leadership;

But at a deeper level, the dividend of leading technology is also due to the international division of labor;

And why is the international division of labor so divided, it is also out of the rules of the game formulated by power;

In the end, why is the power so strong, and behind it is a mixture of national resource endowments, geography, institutions, population, traditions, and historical advantages.

Of course, whoever has the bigger fist has the most cake, there is nothing wrong with this.

Therefore, you can't just look at the leading technology of the opponent and only pay attention to the technology. This is to see the flowers and leaves without seeing the rhizomes.

It is completely reasonable for scientific researchers to call on the state to increase investment in scientific research. But an important era background can be added to the public:

The essence of the current international order is a hegemonic order. We must not only lead in science and technology, but also overthrow the hegemony in order to solve the fundamental problem.

Otherwise, the most direct trouble is that "the state increases investment in scientific research, and the talents and achievements it cultivates go to foreign countries."

People have harvested the main profits through hegemony, and naturally they can use the harvested profits to harvest your scientific research results.

Isn't one of the important pillars of U.S. Empire's technological leadership relying on harvesting global scientific research elites?

Of course, after doing all the above, there is still the most core distribution issue.

For a period of time, Europe and the United States were technologically advanced, and the income of ordinary workers did not change at all (in fact, it declined, such as miners and textile workers).

Without the ancestors who rushed forward with real bullets from the military, police and gangsters, where did the descendants come from these minimum wages and weekends?

It is they who really let the workers in developed countries have higher returns, and it is these people who fundamentally resist the profit distribution mechanism.

These people should not disappear in this kind of topic.