Can rural migrant workers who have moved to the city still go back to the countryside?

Today I will talk about a very cutting-edge issue: whether rural migrant workers who have moved to the city today can still go back to the countryside. Whether rural migrant workers can go back to the countryside must be discussed on two levels. The first level is whether rural migrant workers can settle down in the city. This issue is very important, that is, whether our industrialization development today can allow rural migrant workers who have moved to the city to settle down with dignity. The second level is, if rural migrant workers cannot settle down in the city, whether they can still survive if they go back to the countryside. This issue is also very important. Is the question of whether they can come back subjective or objective? Both need to be discussed carefully and seriously.

I think on this question, comrades at the grassroots level have more say than comrades at higher levels. When I exchange views with scholars, almost all of them say that generally, as long as rural migrant workers have gone to school and do not know how to farm, they will not come back. I estimate that such rural labor is generally not over 40 years old, but people in their 50s who are eliminated by the city, who have all farmed, and who have feelings for the countryside, will return to the countryside. Suppose the thoughts of rural migrant workers still working in the city at 50 are completely different from those of young people in the countryside. When we conduct surveys and ask rural migrant workers whether they are willing to go back, the answers are all “unwilling.” Of course, city life is youthful and romantic, and no one is willing to go back. The problem is that the reference for city life is the life of the middle class in TV dramas, a dignified and respectable life. What if there is no such life? Then let us discuss this. First I will talk about a very interesting example:

⟦NL> A grassroots comrade in Xiaogan City wrote a report to the province based on research. The report contained confusion and lessons. The title of the report was "Why the Improvement of Agricultural Facilities Causes Land Circulation to Regress." In a village in Xiaogan, three village cadres, through many years of effort, had circulated and operated more than 800 mu of land in the village, forming scale operation. (I believe rural areas across the country all hope that land will be circulated to large operators for planting. Relying on the elderly to farm and feed China is too unreliable. This is not my view; everyone thinks so.) General Secretary Xi once asked, "Who will farm China's land?" China still has more than 200 million farming households, with only ten mu of land per household on average. Who will farm the land? Under today's agronomic and agricultural technology levels, under today's agricultural production technology conditions, a 60-year-old couple farming 40 mu of land and a 50-year-old couple farming 50 mu of land is no problem. How could there be no one farming in the countryside? It is just that some people want to farm but have no land. There is also land that used to grow 3 seasons or 2 seasons, and now only grows 1 season or 2 seasons. Because grain does not make money, farmers cannot even recover the cost, and the more they plant, the more they lose. The reason no one farms now is that under the market economy, farming does not make money, and no one is willing to farm. Under policy promotion, this village in Xiaogan formed 800 mu of scale land. The turning point was that in recent years, urban-rural work teams entered the village and helped the village strive for national project funds. Mainly more than 4 million yuan in land consolidation funds, and then large-scale rural infrastructure construction and water conservancy construction. Once conditions improved, many elderly people took their fields back. In the past 2 years, more than 200 households took back more than 500 mu. The reasons the elderly wanted the fields back mainly had three points: first, farming conditions improved, and unlike before, it was no longer heavy physical labor, so older people could farm too. Second, farming gives a sense of achievement. Third, it can exercise the body. So although the contract had not expired, the three village cadres could do nothing and had to submit to the interests of the masses. After the farmers took back the land, large numbers of agricultural machines were left idle, and it became one household after another again, so they felt very confused.

But is this story only about helplessness? Once conditions improved, the elderly were still willing to farm. The key is whether there are basic conditions. So many people only see the difficulties in promoting agricultural production, but do not see that the elderly have a lot of enthusiasm, motivation, and ability for farming. As long as the basic conditions for agricultural production are solved, they are the main force in China's grain production. What I am talking about here is grain. Standardized grain basically does not have the problem of connecting with the market. This story reflects one problem: small farmers need to obtain income, work, and the meaning and value of life from farming. When a person goes to the city and cannot find work, or even if he finds work, feels very frustrated, whether there is land to farm in the countryside is very important. Village production and village governance are both based on agricultural production. Farming households that are too small face difficulties in connecting with the large market, especially difficulties in connecting with large-scale production. Our productive forces have developed, so whether the remaining people can farm well requires some thought. In this Xiaogan example, they used a bit of thought, utilized outside resources, and solved this problem. The farmers' enthusiasm for production was released. The elderly treating farming as exercise is remarkable. When one-household farmers cannot farm, if the government intervenes to help, farmers are willing to farm and can farm well, and when heavy physical labor is replaced by modernization and mechanization, the role of the elderly in field management is very obvious. The elderly's ability in field management and agricultural management far exceeds that of scale operation. The vast majority of land cultivated by the vast majority of farming households is used for growing grain. More than 70% of our farmers and land are used for growing grain. Growing grain does not have the problem of connecting with the market, because it is a standardized product and is sold everywhere. Grain produced is purchased at the protective price. Farmers who want to make money need to connect with the market. This includes small traders and vendors; opening a processing factory is also for making money. But today's elderly agriculture and smallholder agriculture are very different from the agriculture with which we want to make money. For the vast majority of farmers, engaging in agriculture cannot possibly be about making money, but it can protect the bottom line, and the bottom line is more important.

Our rural basic management system is good, but some of our policy orientations have problems. For example, some of our agricultural policy orientations always want farmers to become rich. How can one become rich through agriculture? If this household becomes rich, can that household become rich? We often look at problems from the perspective of market developers. Some media always encourage farmers to grow certain things to become rich. Raising fish and raising soft-shelled turtles in Hanshou County can make people rich, but if the whole country raises soft-shelled turtles, to whom will they be sold? There are only so many agricultural bases, and they still have to provide employment and income for so many people. It is impossible to become rich through agriculture. When we support some people in obtaining more agricultural returns, we cause more people to obtain fewer agricultural returns. Some people say that the combination of government and capital has defeated small farmers. Why should the government support capital in defeating small farmers? If capital has ability, let it swim in the market. If it drowns, that is its own business. Why should we think of ways to save it? What is further discussed is that land consolidation, socialized services, state investment in rural areas, and village community organizations are all very important to small farmers, because these are all means to solve the difficulties small farmers face in connecting with large-scale production. How to connect with the smallholder mode of production under the environment of large-scale production. These are some of my thoughts from talking about this example. They are also a foundation for the theme I want to discuss: whether farmers can come back.

Everyone thinks that rural migrant workers who have moved to the city cannot go back, especially young rural migrant workers who have gone to school and do not know how to farm, who are even less likely to go back. So I will discuss this issue. People who do not want to go back gamble on tomorrow with their youth. As individuals, everyone has a chance. This is also related to luck, and no one can say for sure. But for a country like China, at such a stage of development, going to the city when young is no problem, and one can support oneself. But after you go to the city, can your income support your parents and children, and can you complete family and labor-power reproduction with dignity in the city? Those with good luck find good work and stable income, accumulate continuously, and can not only afford housing but also live well. But under the situation that China has already seen a turning point in manufacturing, what is the final result? It is that most people cannot. If income is unstable, even if parents and family all move to the city, life will still be very uncomfortable. If income falls short of expenditure every year, family relations become very tense. When parents lose the ability to work and cannot return to the countryside, the family will have problems. Under the current turning point, when 100 yuan of GDP yields only 30 yuan of per capita income (and this includes taxes), the social security the state can provide is limited. The majority providing social security for a small minority, no country has such capacity. China has money, but the premise is that many people have no security. When everyone has security, can we still be richer than Europe and America? Even developed countries like Europe and America do not have money. Many places in China now need money. Infrastructure, industrial upgrading, and the development of high and new technology all need money. Because China is still a developing country, farmers should go to the city, but whether he can afford to buy housing for his parents in the city is not important at all. In the end, whether he can live with dignity in the city is what is important.