Please watch the two lecture videos before this week's online discussion. You can click at the lower right to run the videos at full screen. The powerpoint includes a narration. You're welcome to show this video or the ppt to your students. Please do not repost either to the web. The ppt will be available for download in a few days.

Going a little bit back in our previous class, we talk about the chinise goverment were planning to ger rid off poverty by 2020.  How can they achieve that when thet have the Hukou's System which defferentiate one social class from anothe one. As we know now, almost all over the world not too many wants to work in farms or do agricultural work. And by holding a child from studying or obtaining higher education it means to keep people in doing the job they do not want to do, or it is like to take their freedom of choosing what they want to do. It is like imposing the will of the party eventhough it might be good for the people.

With respect to the goals of China's presidente of rejuvenating China by taking away the universal values of people that seems like going back instead of going forward in the system.  Chinese piople will object to these?

More on Last Train Home, a brilliant suggestion by Natalie:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/lasttrainhome/

This film may be available from Netflix or Amazon Prime.

Hi Genaro,

The objective of Hukou system was to put restriction/control on the social mobility. The registration of Hukou is based on the location of residency. Althought there are agricultural and non-agricultural Hukou, it was not meant to differenciate one social class from another one. After the restriction got loosened, more people from rural area went to urban cities (small or major ones) to look for employment opportunities. Students go to universities and colleges in big cities in hopes of staying in the cities. 

With increasing amount of migrants in big cities, it is understandable for local governments to put restrictions on what benefits one can get according to his/her Hukou. It's not difficult to see the reason is to maintain the resources and benefits for Beijing residents. Migrants are not "illegal" in Beijing. They just cannot get houses or cars in Beijing. Again, it is understandable. Imagine giving the rights to all 21.7 millions people in Beijing to purchase houses and cars? Look at the situation we have in LA. Most of people who want to purchase houses got pushed out of the LA county. We cannot even afford housing in LA even if we have legal status and stable income here. Traffic in LA is another huge issue too. I commute from Ontario to downtown LA each day to work. I stay at school till 7pm so that I can go home with less traffic. I cannot imagine what LA traffic and housing will look like in another decade. Beijing is facing the similiar issue now.

I know it sounds very brutal that Beijing is "getting rid of" low class population. The question here is why they are "low-class"? There are migrants in Beijing work white-collar jobs who still don't have Beijing residency. They are not considered as low-class but they don't get the benefits as Beijing residents either. What Chinese central governmnet needs to consider is whether "getting rid of low-class population" is an effective solution to current situation. Why don't these people want to stay with their families in their hometowns but rather be "low-class citizens" in big cities? How come they couldn't get the same quality of education back in their villeges? These are the root of them being classified as "low-class". It is not the migrant status. It is the lack of education and skills.

Although I understand that the Chinese government built the "Three Gorges Dam" to supply more electricity to help local people's daily life and the indurstry in the region, I don't think it was the best solution to elevate industrial standards by sacrifying the very best beautiful nature not only enjoyed by Chinese people but also tourists from all over the world.  The Chinese government could raise more money to build dams else where along the Yangtze River by protecting such a beautiful tourist site. They were indeed Three Gorgous. More environmental protection is needed。

Here is a link to the old "Three Gorges" scenes.  People cried when seeing what hav disappeared.

http://www.sohu.com/a/235023374_800284

The Hukou system is a complex issue.  It does hinder mobility and educational opportunities for children, but massive migration from rural areas to big cities seems a non stopable trend which posts social problems. Such a trend creates inbalance of national economy.  Farms need farmers to produce corns, rice, and other agricultural products, but are short of young people who are willing to stay to work; industries in cities have supplus of young people who are unemployed but don't want to go to countryside to do farming work. 

As Nira notes, the hukou system was implemented to restrict the movement of people. It was partly a security measure so as to simplify keeping track of everybody, but also it was a planning measure. For decades, China was short of food. Those with urban hukou (or non-agricultural hukou 非农户口) were entitled to food allocations. They received grain ration coupons, egg ration coupons, oil ration coupons, and so on. They purchased these items at subsidized prices. The agricultural hukou people did not receive such coupons. The idea was that they would simply eat some of what they grew and the rest would be purchased by the state at subsidized prices. Until the 1980s, people with urban hukou were said to eat "state grain."

Under the planned economy, the state was responsible for educating, caring for, and employing those with urban hukou. Those in the countryside were to provide these things via their communes and production brigades. It was a big deal in 1985 (or so) when the state decided to make all teachers state employees. Before that, rural teachers received differential wages and benefits because their pay depended on what the commune was able and willing to pay them. This led many of the best rural teachers to look for other opportunities.

Nira is right that the push back on hukou reform or abolition is tied to local governments. The local government's revenue base is limited and local officials fear that paying to educate and care for all local residents would be too heavy a burden. Local residents LUCKY enough (and it is just LUCK) to be born to a woman with urban hukou status have a bit of a lifeboat mentality. They enjoy these benefits and fear that if others have to be cared for, their benefits will be reduced. (Of course, many in America feel similarly about migrants from other countries.) The cost of migrant labor is lower because their benefit rates are lower. This is what makes it possible for cities in China to function. Many urban hukou holders realize this. They wonder who will cook food, who will build things, who will provide child care, if those with agricultural hukou are forced to live farther from the city.

Shanghai recognized that to maintain its population and vitality, it had to let those with agricultural hukou send their kids to school. It began allowing this, though only to the high school level. It is worth noting that students with Beijing hukou get preferential admission to Beijing's colleges (though not to the most prestiguous schools). The same is true for Shanghai and for provincial capitals. Students from outside urban centers actually have to score higher to enter those colleges. It's a system designed to keep parents and their students who enjoy urban hukou status happy. It's aimed at social stability. Of course, it's the same reason that California residents pay lower tuition/fees at California state schools. Officials want to keep locals happy.

Because China's economy and society have changed a lot, hukou is not as all important as it was. (In the 1970s or early 1980s, you might not consider a potential spouse who had hukou in a different place, since movement was difficult. Even getting a job was hard without the right hukou. These things have changed.) But it still matters a lot and it is discriminatory. It is based on who your mother is, not where you are born, and not what intelligence you possess or the skills you acquire. It is an ASCRIBED status, like caste, not an AQUIRED status, like college graduate. It shapes your access to opportunities.

Even critics of the hukou system acknowledge that for a long time it prevented migration to cities and the creation of slums. Beijing didn't become like some cities where large slum areas grow outside the city center. But the hukou system created and reinforced social distinctions that had real consequences, even in terms of mental development and life expectancy.

Here is an interesting article on a family forced to move:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2018/0612/China-s-forced-evictions-One-migrant-family-s-story

Here are a couple of recent talks at USCI about rural education.
Scott Rozelle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ctHVgmOckk&list=PLZoSvm2n7tkeawn0FtSCcRRBS_3RWztds&index=5&t=0s

Pat Yang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpO1TX2g-co&index=5&list=PLZoSvm2n7tkeawn0FtSCcRRBS_3RWztds