作者：刘畅
刚到美国时，不少新移民找不到工作，要么在民宿躺着，隔三差五去食物银行（Food Bank）领救济食品过日子。更有甚者，住进帐篷，天天领免费盒饭，最著名的就是那个丁胖子金牌讲师。他们并不觉得这是耻辱，美其名叫“躺平”，一躺就是一年多。在美国这种人权国家尚且有条件可以躺平，在中国怎么办？
在中国，这个现象并不是近期才有的，而是近二十年一直存在的。
看看著名的深圳“三和大神”和多年前出现的词儿“屌丝”，都是这个社会在不同时期奋斗不得、消极生活的群体。他们为什么奋斗不得呢？人生找不到方向、找不到可行性路径，反复尝试都以失败告终，反复失败则失去了信心，看到别人不成功自己也歇菜，或者债台高筑失去了奋斗的激情，也有个别人看轻物质故意选择消极的舒适圈，也有不少是，好的生意、好的工作被关系户把持住，上升路径狭窄，不愿做牛做马，干脆摆烂。
在刘经理看来，大多数情况是一个社会结构性经济危机，特定群体，工作不好找，工资达不到预期，投入产出不成比例，与其内卷，不如逃离，能勉强生存即可。三十六计，走为上计，躺平其实是一种经济危机下的生存主动选择。
看看传统的大经济危机，社会大生产几乎全部停滞，整个社会穷得只剩下人了，怎么办？1929年美国大萧条，罗斯福的挖坑理论，组织公共建设，发工资，重振消费力，才勉强熬过去，那段时期最著名的公共设施就是胡佛水坝。新中国成立后，一穷二白只剩下穷人的劳力可以剥削，也勉强靠大生产重振了经济，当然也饿死、累死了不少人，伟大领袖挥挥手，把功劳全占，谁会在乎“路有冻死骨”呢？
所以，目前的躺平现象交给了这个社会一个重要命题，如何解决这些过剩的劳动力高不成低不就的结构性失业现象？怎么让这部分躺平的人重新找到生活的信心、怎么重新劳动起来，怎么劳动得有尊严？
笔者的观点：
（1）“表面功夫”措施：
公共投入必须启动，削减那些重复开发、浪费的基础建设，用于劳动者福利。搞一个“国家劳动力再生产项目”～有期限的回炉孵化，比如一年、两年的学期，注重以下三点：
1）注重他们的技能再培训、身心康复和社会关怀，注重他们的兴趣、信心和成就感的孵化，引导他们树立高尚的就业观和信仰；
2）引导开发针对该培训、政策性的内需生产项目，让他们利用这段时期内积累生产经验和相对稳定的物质基础，为后面全面进入社会做准备；
3）持续为他们提供后续的就业咨询，也为录用他们的企业提供税收优惠或者其他政策优惠。
有很多人说：这不是做梦吗？国家哪舍得给劳动者这些呢？我说：他给不给，我们决定不了；但到底应不应该给，是人间正义、公平说了算，他不给就是违背了基本的人道主义。
（2）核心措施：
严惩贪官污吏，杜绝走后门，把上升路径归还给人民，把机会选择权交给老百姓，只要公平公正，哪有不奋斗的人呢？2010年代，马云的成功，不是激励了很多有志之士，不管学历高低，无论高矮胖瘦，纷纷涌入互联网业吗？因为那时的机会相对公平。
有很多人说：我可不想当马云，他吭哧吭哧地搞个阿里巴巴，背后实际控制人还不是那帮人吗？当个老板还不如当个村官，私底下存款估计过亿了。
好了，又回到8964的问题了，公平公平，光是市场经济公平，政治体制不公平，还是没有真正的公平，人人都想当官不劳而获，谁愿意去创业呢？不创业，哪有投资者愿意冒风险呢？即便有投资，有多少不是转移到海外了呢？转移到海外，长久投资又有多少呢？没有稳定的投资，哪有好工作可干呢？没有好工作，谁愿意去工作呢？
所以前段时间，国内的人大肆宣扬“躺平”是境外势力所为～今天我谈这个话题确实是在“境外”～但你能单单归咎于他人的挑唆和煽风点火吗？俗话说，苍蝇不叮无缝的蛋，自己把自己搞臭了，就把原因推给别人，这是那个组织惯用的手法，无耻至极。但愿那个组织能为了人民的福祉，为了民族的未来，能“牺牲”小我，还政于大我，给予人民公平、公正的工作机会，给予人民“有志者事竟成”的奋斗环境，“躺平”不需要他们来呵斥，人民自会监督、谴责与修正。
编辑：Gloria Wang 校对：孔祥庆 翻译：戈冰
Is “Lying Flat” Merely a Moral Issue?
By Liu Chang
Abstract: Starting from the phenomenon of “lying flat” among new immigrants in the United States, this article expands to discuss issues long faced by Chinese youth, such as structural unemployment, blocked social mobility, and lack of fair opportunities. It proposes vocational training, public investment, and institutional fairness as reform directions to rebuild confidence in labor.
When first arriving in the United States, many new immigrants cannot find work; they either lie around in short-term rentals, going to food banks every few days to get relief food to get by. What is more, some move into tents and receive free boxed meals every day—the most famous among them being “Ding Pangzi Gold Medal Lecturer.” They do not view this as a disgrace, euphemistically calling it “lying flat” (tang ping), staying flat for more than a year at a time. If even a human rights country like the United States has the conditions to allow lying flat, what can be done in China?
In China, this phenomenon is not something that emerged only recently, but has existed continuously over the past two decades.
Look at Shenzhen’s famous “Sanhe Gods” and the term “diaosi” (loser) that emerged years ago; both represent groups in this society across different periods who could not succeed despite striving and consequently lived passively. Why couldn’t they succeed through striving? They could not find direction in life or a viable path forward; repeated attempts ended in failure, and repeated failures stripped them of confidence. Seeing others fail, they threw in the towel as well; or, burdened by mountain-high debts, they lost their passion to strive. A few individuals belittled material possessions and deliberately chose a passive comfort zone, while many others found that good businesses and good jobs were monopolized by connected insiders, leaving upward mobility channels extremely narrow; unwilling to be worked like beasts of burden, they simply chose to “let it rot” (bai lan).
In Manager Liu’s view, most cases reflect a societal structural economic crisis: for specific groups, jobs are hard to find, wages fail to meet expectations, and input and output are completely out of proportion. Rather than engaging in hyper-competitive “involution” (neijuan), it is better to escape, as long as one can barely survive. As the saying goes, among the thirty-six stratagems, running away is the best; lying flat is actually an active choice for survival under an economic crisis.
Look at traditional major economic crises: large-scale social production came to an almost complete standstill, and the entire society was so poor that nothing remained except people. What was to be done? During the Great Depression in the United States in 1929, Roosevelt’s “digging holes” theory—organizing public construction, paying wages, and revitalizing consumer power—barely got society through; the most famous public infrastructure project from that era was the Hoover Dam. After the founding of New China, being “impoverished and blank,” with nothing left to exploit but the labor of poor people, the economy was also barely revitalized through massive collective production. Of course, many starved to death or died of exhaustion. The Great Leader waved his hand and claimed all the credit—for who would care about “frozen bodies along the roadside”?
Therefore, the current phenomenon of lying flat poses a critical proposition to this society: How to resolve the structural unemployment where this surplus labor force is neither qualified for high-end jobs nor willing to accept low-end ones? How to allow those who are lying flat to regain their confidence in life, return to work, and labor with dignity?
The Author’s Perspective:
(1) “Surface-Level” Measures:
Public investment must be initiated, cutting back on redundant and wasteful infrastructure development to redirect funds toward laborers’ welfare. Establish a “National Labor Force Reproduction Project”—a time-limited period for retraining and incubation, such as a one-year or two-year term, focusing on the following three points:
Focus on their skill retraining, physical and mental recovery, and social care, while nurturing their interests, confidence, and sense of achievement, guiding them to establish noble views on employment and faith;
Guide the development of policy-driven domestic demand production projects targeted at this training, allowing them to utilize this period to accumulate production experience and establish a relatively stable material foundation in preparation for fully entering society later on;
Continuously provide them with follow-up employment counseling, while offering tax incentives or other policy concessions to the enterprises that hire them.
Many people say: Isn’t this just dreaming? How could the state ever bring itself to give all this to the laborers? I say: Whether it gives it or not is beyond our control to decide; but whether it should give it or not is determined by human justice and fairness. If it refuses to give it, it is violating basic humanitarianism.
(2) Core Measures:
Severely punish corrupt officials, put an end to backdoor dealings, return the paths of upward mobility to the people, and hand the power of choice over opportunities back to the common people. As long as there is fairness and justice, who wouldn’t strive? In the 2010s, didn’t Jack Ma’s success inspire countless ambitious individuals—regardless of educational background, height, or weight—to flood into the internet industry? Because opportunities back then were relatively fair.
Many people say: I don’t want to be Jack Ma. He worked himself to the bone creating Alibaba, but weren’t the actual controllers behind the scenes still that very group of people? Being a business owner is worse than being a village official—under the table, their savings probably exceed a hundred million.
Well then, this brings us right back to the issue of June 4th (8964). Fairness, fairness—if there is only market economy fairness, but the political system remains unfair, there is still no genuine fairness. When everyone wants to become an official and gain without labor, who would be willing to start a business? Without entrepreneurship, which investor would be willing to take risks? Even if there is investment, how much of it hasn’t been transferred overseas? And among what is transferred overseas, how much is long-term investment? Without stable investment, how can there be good jobs? And without good jobs, who would be willing to work?
Therefore, a while ago, people in mainland China clamored that “lying flat” was the work of foreign forces—today, in discussing this topic, I am indeed “abroad”—but can you blame it solely on others’ instigation and fanning the flames? As the saying goes, flies do not sting seamless eggs; when you have made yourself stench-ridden, you push the blame onto others—this is the customary tactic of that organization, utterly shameless. May that organization, for the well-being of the people and the future of the nation, “sacrifice” its small self, return power to the public, grant the people fair and just job opportunities, and provide an environment for striving where “where there is a will, there is a way.” “Lying flat” does not require their scolding; the people themselves will supervise, condemn, and correct it.
Editor: Gloria Wang Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing
