Recently, the Chinese Communist authorities announced a 2% overall increase in retirement pensions for 2025, marking the lowest increase in years. The news sparked criticism and complaints on online platforms. Many people believe that a mere 2% increase is only enough for rural elderly to “buy a few more eggs.” Deeper analysis points directly to the core issue: it is not just about numbers but reflects the systemic injustice, intergenerational anxiety, and the unauthorized diversion of pension funds, exposing deeper social contradictions.
According to the notice issued by the Chinese Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Ministry of Finance regarding the adjustment of basic retirement pensions for 2025, pensions will see an overall 2% increase. This policy, which affects the quality of life of a large number of retirees, has garnered widespread attention and discussion.
Upon the introduction of this policy, it has sparked broad attention and discussions. Many discussions online have focused on the 2% adjustment, with many noting that it is much lower compared to previous years. Many netizens expressed discontent, saying that the slight increase in pension is not sufficient to cover medical expenses.
A Weibo user named “Cai Yuyu” stated that the reason for the pension adjustment for retirees is due to the increasing cost of goods, such as groceries and healthcare. Without an increase in pensions, elderly people cannot afford necessities, leading to a decrease in their quality of life.
It is noteworthy that since 2005, China’s pension has achieved a “21-year consecutive increase.” However, the rate of increase has shown a sharp decline, which highly correlates with the slowdown in GDP and wage growth.
The percentage increases in previous years were as follows:
2016: 6.5% increase
2017: 5.5% increase
2018: 5% increase
2019: 5% increase
2020: 5% increase
2021: 4.5% increase
2022: 4% increase
2023: 3.8% increase
2024: 3% increase
2025: 2% increase
The question arises, where does the money come from? Blogger “Fengliu Zatan” mentioned that pension funds come from the “pooled fund.” Currently facing the reality where more people are accessing pension funds due to longer lifespans, while the younger generation is decreasing, leading to challenges in the social support ratio.
With a 2% increase in pensions, it means that more funds are being withdrawn. The only solution is to increase contributions from the younger generation, by raising the contribution base and percentage. This adds pressure on young people already burdened with mortgages, raising children, and work stress. They question, “I am paying today to support the current elderly, but who will support me when I am old? Will there be enough in this fund?” This kind of lamentation reflects deep concerns about uncertainties in the future and the pressure they face currently.
Oddly enough, many young working individuals’ monthly income shows an “upside-down” phenomenon compared to their elderly relatives’ retirement pensions, especially in major cities, where young people earn less than their retired family members. The younger generation feels distressed as their income is lower than their parents.
Moreover, the situation of the “small-town intellectuals” (referring to young people who originate from small towns or rural areas, study hard to enter prestigious universities, and eventually find jobs in large cities) is even more distressing.
While striving in big cities, although paying significant amounts for pensions, they feel disconnected from their parents receiving low pensions back home, unable to assist them.
A Weibo user named “I should be gentler than anyone” bluntly stated: “How dare my parents pressure me to get married? They are worried that I won’t support them in the future, and with 100 yuan in pension, what can I do? In such a dire situation, concerns about passing on the family line and saving face are trivial.” This statement illustrates the significant worries young people have about future pension pressure, surpassing traditional family concepts.
The focus of public dispute also lies in the way the proportional increase widens the gap in pension between different groups. For instance, the basic pension for farmers ranges from 100 to 300 yuan per month, with the increase resulting in a meager 2 to 6 yuan, leading to online ridicule of “receiving three eggs.” In contrast, urban retirees, especially those with higher base salaries like institutional workers (e.g., a 91-year-old teacher in Shanghai receiving 9,000 yuan per month), see a substantial increase of over a hundred yuan, enough to “buy an extra chicken” or “add a chicken leg.” Recently, the topic of “some retirees can buy an extra chicken per month, some can add a chicken leg, but more low-income elderly in urban and rural areas are happy to get three eggs” trended online.
Blogger “Fengliu Zatan” analyzed that this unfair distribution stems from two aspects:
1. Regional operational space: The vague definition in official documents about “quota adjustments, linked adjustments, and appropriate tilting” provides local governments with room to “fiddle” in specific implementations. He likened this to a situation where the central government invites everyone to dinner, and when it reaches the local level, those with the long spoons take the best cuts, leaving the rest with just a splash of soup. This flexible and potentially opaque distribution method easily triggers suspicions of fairness among the public.
2. Deep-rooted “dual-track” system: The huge disparity in pensions caused by China’s long-standing pension “dual-track” system (between institution-affiliated personnel and employees outside the system) is the fundamental reason for the public’s psychological imbalance. Uncle Zhang, who retired from an institution, receives an increase of 200 yuan on his 10,000 yuan monthly pension, while Master Li, a retiree from a factory, sees an increase of 60 yuan on his 3,000 yuan pension. The original 7,000 yuan gap has widened to 7,100 yuan after the “across-the-board” increase, leaving those outside the system feeling disheartened.
This institutional injustice profoundly affects society’s value orientation, leading to a prevalence of the desire for civil service jobs as young people shift towards seeking stability in the civil service rather than struggling in the uncertain market economy.
Furthermore, in some regions with deteriorating financial conditions, cases of unauthorized use of pension funds have emerged. The recent annual audit report released by the Chinese National Audit Office revealed:
– Last year, 13 provinces diverted 40.626 billion yuan of rural and urban resident pension insurance funds and related livelihood funds to the “protection of basic livelihood, wage guarantees, and ongoing operations” (“three guarantees”) expenditures or repaying government debt.
– In 25 provinces, 28,300 people fraudulently obtained 519 million yuan in pension funds through means like falsifying medical records or tampering with documents. One absurd case from Puxian County in Shanxi involved a staff member from the county disease control center who retired at one year of work and accumulated 690,000 yuan in pension payments through irregularities while also working in a new position and receiving salary.
These alarming cases of embezzlement and fraud exacerbate young people’s concerns about whether the pension fund will be “depleted” in the future (predicted to be depleted by 2035). Weibo user “Don’t eat chili or dip sauce” expressed a common sentiment: “Seeing hundreds of billions being embezzled from the pension fund, I am genuinely worried about the pension I contribute…”. This logical paradox—contributing a substantial amount monthly to support others’ parents with social security while one’s own parents may only receive meager pensions—is leading to an increase in young people discontinuing social security payments, intensifying distrust in the system.
In summary, blogger “Fengliu Zatan” highlights that the 2% increase in retirement pensions exposes concerns about fairness, survival pressure, generational conflicts, and social divisions. It acts like a three-sided mirror, reflecting the various peculiarities of society in transition: for retirees, it is about “securing their livelihood,” for the young, it is about “overdrafting the future,” for those within the system, it is “a touch of luxury,” and for company employees and farmers, it is “a drop in the sea.”
He emphasizes that exclusively focusing on percentage increase is only a temporary fix. The key lies in merging the pension “dual-track” system into one track, ensuring the pension fund can sustainably accumulate. Only by achieving a system where contributions build late-life security in a relatively fair system regardless of status, can people’s minds flow smoothly, and society achieve genuine tranquility.