I think a logically convincing narrative can be constructed that focuses on the sheer size of the country. Large population allows the govt to place a low premium on individual lives. The need to maintain central control over such a large country creates a bias in favor of infrastructure investment that keeps fiscal investment under central control when encouraging economic development. Repetition over time becomes ingrained within culture and society.

First problem with this interpretation is that its elite centric framework minimizes the influence of the masses, a hard sell in a country with a history of bottom-up elite substitution(revolutions). Second problem is that it incites moralist whinging, as anon @751 kindly demonstrated.

I’ve been there quite a few times and lived with some really welcoming, warm families who complained about the same thing. I love the country and its people, but call it like I see it.

Academic studies also have been done on the subject.

They’ll be OK for a few years, but beyond that time frame , continuing economic weakness will create extreme political volatility.

But honestly, another worldwide depression is going to destabilize every country.

Nice ignorant stereotype. So, how long have you lived in or studied China?

And that’s the paradox…it is important b/c they save 25% of their paychecks to maintain health and happiness.

mindnumbing.

I’m wondering if there is some sort of cultural or other reason why china refuses to address socialized healthcare (or any form of healthcare) with the same magnitude as it does with transportation?

IMO, they have a ton of people, not many jobs, and a collective mentality. The individual, their health, and their happiness just didn’t seem all that important.

Issue is that RE construction itself has been a massive drive of growth, not wealth effect as a driver of consumption, which has happened in advanced economies.