Summary of the Core Content
Professor Zhang Dandan from Peking University’s statement that “flexible employment is inherently a benefit” has sparked dissatisfaction among 320 million flexible workers. The root of their discontent lies in four major issues with social security: the high contribution thresholds that are almost financially crippling, the annual increases in the contribution base, the high proportion of funds allocated to the pooled fund at the expense of individual accounts, and the difficulty in applying for the 4050 subsidy program. The article calls for policy adjustments to ensure that social security truly meets the needs of the flexible employment population.
1. High Social Security Contribution Thresholds: Working Hard for Nothing
Flexible workers who contribute to the employee social security system have a minimum contribution base of 60% of the local average wage, with a 20% rate. When healthcare is added, the annual expense can be prohibitive. For example, in Inner Mongolia, where the average wage in 2023 was 8,105 yuan, the minimum monthly pension contribution was 972 yuan, amounting to 11,700 yuan per year; healthcare costs amounted to 4,963 yuan, for a total of 16,600–19,500 yuan per year. A food delivery worker with a median monthly income of 6,000 yuan would spend a quarter of their annual income on social security. After paying for social security, they are left with little money for rent, household expenses, and food—this is not just a financial strain; it’s a literal “cutting into one’s flesh.”
2. Annual Increases in the Contribution Base: Small Increases Add Up to a Heavy Burden
What flexible workers fear most is the annual increase in the contribution base. In Fujian, the base increased by 13% in 2025, resulting in an additional 107 yuan per month, or 1,280 yuan per year; in Inner Mongolia, it increased by 3%, amounting to an additional 300–400 yuan per year. Although it may seem like a small amount, for a family with both flexible workers, this can amount to 500–2,000 yuan more per year. The “compound interest effect” is even more alarming: a 10% annual increase over 10 years would raise the monthly contribution from 1,000 to 1,105 yuan, an additional 1,200 yuan per year. The current burden is just the starting point, and it will only get worse in the future.
3. Contribute 20% but Only 8% Goes to the Individual: Where Does the Money Go?
The pension contribution rate for flexible workers is 20%, but only 8% goes into their individual accounts, with the remaining 12% going into the pooled fund that pays the pensions of current retirees. For example, in Inner Mongolia, out of the 11,700 yuan contributed annually, only 4,670 yuan goes to the individual, while 7,000 yuan goes towards supporting other retirees. In contrast, employed workers contribute 8% personally, with the remaining 16% covered by their employers. Flexible workers are effectively “working two jobs”—one to support themselves and one to fund the pooled fund. Moreover, the future pension replacement rate is only 38% (meaning they would receive 2,000 yuan in retirement for every 1,000 yuan contributed now). This leads many to stop contributing.
4. The 4050 Subsidy: Out of Reach Due to Industry Discrimination
There is a 4050 subsidy program designed to assist older flexible workers, but the application requirements are stringent: one must be registered as unemployed, certified as having “employment difficulties,” pay in advance, and then receive the money back, with restrictions based on industry. For instance, in a southwestern province, the community authorities consider self-employed journalists to be ineligible for the subsidy, only recognizing street vendors. However, the income of self-employed journalists is often low: 70–79% earn less than 5,000 yuan per month, and 65% earn less than 1,800 yuan. A survey in Shenzhen showed that the average monthly income for self-employed journalists was 6,834 yuan, less than half of the local average wage. These individuals, who are just barely making ends meet, are excluded from the subsidy program, making it seem like a “pie that’s within sight but out of reach.”
5. A Way Out: Can Social Security Be More Accessible?
Criticizing experts is useless; solving the problems is what matters. The article proposes four solutions:
1. Lower the Minimum Contribution Base: Make it more affordable for low-income individuals.
2. Reduce the Proportion Allocated to the Pooled Fund: Increase the amount going into individual accounts to make people feel like they are saving for themselves.
3. Eliminate Industry Restrictions on Subsidies: Anyone with low income and employment difficulties, whether they are street vendors or writers, should be eligible for the subsidy.
4. Flexible Contribution Mechanisms: Allow higher contributions for higher incomes and lower or suspended contributions for lower incomes, with the option to resume contributions when finances improve.
These are not technical challenges; they reflect a matter of willingness to address the issues. What 320 million flexible workers want is a social security system that they can afford, provides tangible benefits, and is truly accessible. After all, benefits that are out of reach are just empty promises.
If this criticism can reach the decision-makers and make them understand that people below the average are already struggling to make ends meet, then it will not have been in vain. It is hoped that Professor Zhang will bring these real issues to the discussion tables, ensuring that policies truly benefit the 320 million flexible workers.