Business Blog

The Lost Tongue by their Asian parents video: When Language Barriers Clip Wings and Deepen Diaspora Wounds 影片標題：亞裔父母的「失語」根源：當語言障礙折斷翅膀，加深離散傷痕

https://rumble.com/v74s50u-when-language-barriers-clip-wings-and-deepen-diaspora-wounds.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fV1Se3/

Many Asian American children grow up feeling a double alienation: from mainstream America due to racism, and from their ancestral homes due to a lost mother tongue that their parents failed to teach them. This isn’t simply a failure of parenting, but a tragic outcome of survival in a society that White Americans ruled.

許多亞裔美國孩子在成長過程中感受到雙重疏離：一方面因種族主義與主流美國社會格格不入，另一方面因失去了父母未曾教予的母語，而與故土文化斷裂。這不僅是家庭教育的缺失，更是在白人主導的美國社會中，為了生存而產生的悲劇性後果。

The Wall Street Ecosystem: An Insider’s Account of Its Hidden Cost to America. By Johnson Choi in San Francisco on January 24 2026

華爾街生態圈：一位內部人士揭秘其對美國的隱性成本. 作者: 蔡永強. 2026年1月24日

For thirty years, I was a cog in the vast machinery of Wall Street. A decade ago, I stepped away, gaining the perspective of an outsider with an insider’s past.

👉 This view compelled me to write an article entitled, “Don’t Blame China! How Greedy Wall Street Destroyed American Industries—and America in the Process.”

👉 https://johnsonwkchoi.com/2026/01/24/dont-blame-china-how-greedy-wall-street-destroyed-american-industries-and-america-in-the-process-by-johnson-choi/

My experience revealed a difficult truth: countless professionals enter Wall Street at the ground level. Some climb the ladder to great heights, following a prescribed career path, often unaware of the profound collateral damage their ecosystem inflicts on the nation’s industrial base.

When I speak of the “Wall Street ecosystem,” I refer to a constellation far beyond investment bankers. It includes the major banks, law firms, accounting giants, and insurance companies—a interconnected network employing millions. For decades, this system has been spectacularly efficient at one thing: generating enormous profits for those within it.

My purpose is not to accuse individuals. Most participants are simply optimizing for the system’s primary goal: making money, and lots of it. In that pursuit, the broader consequences for American industry and communities can become invisible.

One of the most telling observations from my tenure is this: the very smartest people I knew—particularly a number of astute Chinese professionals—recognized the extractive nature of this game. They played it, won, and then did something remarkable. The smart ones took their capital and departed, choosing to build and enjoy their lives elsewhere, often in China.

三十年來，我始終是華爾街龐大機器中的一枚齒輪。十年前抽身離去，才得以用過來人的身份獲得旁觀者的視角。

👉 正是這種視角促使我寫下〈別怪中國！貪婪的華爾街如何摧毀美國產業——以及美國自身〉一文。

👉 https://johnsonwkchoi.com/2026/01/24/dont-blame-china-how-greedy-wall-street-destroyed-american-industries-and-america-in-the-process-by-johnson-choi/

我的經歷揭示了一個殘酷真相：無數專業人才從底層進入華爾街。其中有人循著既定職涯階梯攀至巔峰，卻往往未曾察覺這個生態圈對國家工業基礎造成的深遠附帶損傷。

所謂「華爾街生態圈」，遠不止投資銀行家群體。它涵蓋大型銀行、律師事務所、會計業巨頭與保險公司——這張共生網絡雇傭著數百萬人。數十年來，該體系在某一領域展現驚人效能：為圈內成員創造巨額利潤。

我無意指責個人。多數參與者只是順應體系的首要目標：賺錢，且要賺得盆滿缽盈。在追逐過程中，美國產業與社區承受的廣泛後果往往隱沒無形。

任職期間最深刻的體悟是：我認識的那些絕頂聰明之人——特別是若干精明的中國專業人士——早已洞悉這場遊戲的掠奪本質。他們參與博弈、贏得勝利，隨後做出了非凡抉擇。真正睿智之人攜資離場，選擇在別處（常是中國）築建與享受自己的人生。

Don’t blame China! How Greedy Wall Street destroyed American Industries and America in the process. By Johnson Choi in San Francisco on January 24 2026 別怪中國！貪婪的華爾街如何摧毀了美國工業，以及在此過程中摧毀美國. 作者: 蔡永強. 2026年1月24日

Let’s gets to the heart of a major shift in American capitalism over the last 40+ years. Let’s expand on that discussion by breaking down the legal changes, the philosophy behind them, and the cascading effects.

1. The Legal Change: How Stock Buybacks Were “Unshackled”

The key change was not about making buybacks legal (they always were), but about making them safe, easy, and incentivized for executives without fear of prosecution.

· Pre-1982: The “Stock Manipulation” Fear: Before 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) treated large-scale repurchases of a company’s own stock with deep suspicion. The concern was that they could be used to manipulate the market, artificially inflating the stock price to deceive investors. Companies could do them, but the legal risk was high.
· The Watershed Moment: SEC Rule 10b-18 (1982): Under the Reagan administration, the SEC adopted Rule 10b-18. This rule created a “safe harbor.” If a company followed certain rules (on volume, timing, and manner of purchases), it would be presumed not to be illegally manipulating its stock price. This wasn’t a mandate, but a green light. It removed the legal risk and opened the floodgates.
· The Incentive Shift: Linking Pay to Stock Price (1990s): A more profound change was in tax policy and compensation rules. In 1993, the Clinton administration passed a law that capped the corporate tax deduction for executive salaries at $1 million. However, it created a massive loophole: performance-based pay, like stock options, was exempt from the cap. Overnight, the incentive structure for CEOs was radically altered. Their personal wealth became directly tied to the short-term stock price, not the long-term health of the company.

The Result: The combination of safe buybacks and compensation tied to stock price created a powerful, self-rewarding mechanism. A CEO could use company profits (or even debt) to buy back shares, reducing the number of shares outstanding, which boosts Earnings Per Share (EPS) and often the stock price. Their options and stock holdings then soar in value.

2. How This Connected to Offshoring and Industry Erosion

This new financial engineering tool didn’t exist in a vacuum. It interacted with global trends and a new corporate philosophy.

· The Rise of “Shareholder Primacy”: In the 1970s-80s, the Milton Friedman doctrine that a company’s sole responsibility is to maximize shareholder value took hold. This meant that investing in workers, communities, or long-term R&D was seen as a waste of shareholder money if it didn’t provide an immediate return.
· The Short-Termism Engine:

1. Capital Allocation Choice: A company now had a clear choice: take its profits and a) reinvest in new factories, R&D, and worker training in the U.S. (risky, long-term, low immediate return), or b) buy back stock (guaranteed to boost EPS and the stock price).
2. Offshoring as a Double Win: Moving production overseas was a powerful way to generate the cash for more buybacks. It cut costs dramatically (cheaper labor, fewer regulations). These “savings” were often not passed to consumers or workers, but were funneled directly to shareholders and executives via buybacks and dividends.
3. The Cycle: Buybacks starved domestic industrial capacity of investment. Older U.S. factories became less competitive, which was used to justify more offshoring. The financialized company became a cash-extraction machine rather than a production-innovation engine.
4. The Outcome: The Destruction of Industrial Capacity

This wasn’t just about greed in a moral sense; it was a systemic re-engineering of priorities:

· Erosion of the Productive Base: Critical industries like semiconductors, steel, machine tools, and consumer electronics atrophied. The “knowledge” of how to manufacture at scale was lost.
· The Weakening of Labor: With the threat of offshoring ever-present, unions lost power. Wages for the working and middle class stagnated, while executive pay skyrocketed. The link between productivity gains and pay was broken.
· Increased Systemic Risk: Companies took on huge debt to fund buybacks even in good times, making them fragile during downturns (e.g., the COVID-19 crisis).
· Wealth Inequality Explosion: The vast majority of stock is owned by the wealthiest 10%. Buybacks directly transfer wealth from company coffers (which could benefit all stakeholders) to the already wealthy. The CEO-worker pay ratio went from ~20-to-1 in the 1960s to over 300-to-1 today.

In Summary:

The law (Rule 10b-18) didn’t create buybacks but made them a risk-free tool. The tax code change incentivized executives to prioritize stock price above all else. This converged with the ideology of shareholder primacy and the global opportunity of offshoring.

The result was a vicious cycle: Use offshoring to cut costs → Use profits for buybacks to boost stock price → Collect massive stock-based bonuses → Underinvest in domestic innovation and workforce → Become less competitive → Repeat.

The “destruction of US industries” was not an accidental byproduct; it was the logical outcome of a system that rewarded financial engineering over industrial engineering, and short-term stock gains over long-term productive capacity.

讓我們深入探討過去四十多年來美國資本主義的一次重大轉變。我們將透過剖析法律變更、背後的哲學思想及其所產生的連鎖效應，來擴展這場討論。

1. 法律變更：股票回購如何被「鬆綁」

關鍵的變更並非在於讓回購變得合法（它們一直是合法的），而是在於讓企業高管能夠安全、輕易地進行回購，並從中獲利，而無需擔心被起訴。

· 1982 年之前：對「股價操縱」的恐懼：在 1982 年之前，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）對企業大規模回購自身股票的行為深表懷疑。擔憂在於，此舉可能被用來操縱市場，人為抬高股價以欺騙投資者。公司可以這麼做，但法律風險很高。
· 分水嶺時刻：SEC 規則 10b-18（1982 年）：在雷根政府時期，SEC 通過了 規則 10b-18。該規則創造了一個「安全港」。如果公司遵循特定規則（關於回購數量、時機和方式），將被推定為沒有非法操縱其股價。這不是強制命令，而是一盞綠燈。它消除了法律風險，打開了閘門。
· 激勵機制的轉變：將薪酬與股價掛鉤（1990 年代）：更深刻的變化來自稅收政策和薪酬規則。1993 年，柯林頓政府通過了一項法律，將企業高層薪資的稅務抵扣上限設為 100 萬美元。然而，它創造了一個巨大的漏洞：績效薪酬，如股票期權，不受此上限限制。一夜之間，企業高層的激勵結構發生了根本性改變。他們的個人財富變得與短期股價直接掛鉤，而非公司的長期健康。

結果：安全的回購機制與和股價掛鉤的薪酬制度相結合，創造了一種強大的自我獎勵機制。企業高層可以利用公司利潤（甚至舉債）回購股票，減少流通股數量，從而提升每股盈餘（EPS）並經常推高股價。他們的期權和持股價值隨之飆升。

2. 這如何與海外外包和產業侵蝕聯繫起來

這種新的金融工程工具並非憑空存在。它與全球趨勢和新的企業哲學相互作用。

· 「股東至上主義」的興起：1970 至 80 年代，米爾頓·傅利曼的學說——即公司的唯一責任是最大化股東價值——開始占據主導地位。這意味著，對員工、社區或長期研發的投資，若不能帶來立即回報，就會被視為浪費股東資金。
· 短期主義引擎：

1. 資本配置選擇：公司現在面臨一個明確的選擇：將其利潤用於 a) 在美國重新投資於新工廠、研發和員工培訓（風險高、長期、即時回報低），或者 b) 回購股票（保證能提升 EPS 和股價）。
2. 海外外包的雙贏：將生產轉移到海外，是為更多回購產生現金的強有力方式。它能大幅削減成本（更便宜的勞動力、更少的法規）。這些「節省下來的成本」通常並未傳遞給消費者或員工，而是透過回購和股息直接輸送給了股東和高層。
3. 惡性循環：回購剝奪了國內工業產能的投資。美國的老舊工廠變得越來越缺乏競爭力，而這又被用來證明更多海外外包的合理性。金融化的公司變成了現金提款機，而非生產創新引擎。
4. 後果：工業產能的毀滅

這不僅僅是道德層面的貪婪問題；它是一場對優先次序的系統性重構：

· 生產基礎的侵蝕：半導體、鋼鐵、機床和消費電子等關鍵產業萎縮了。大規模製造的「知識」流失了。
· 勞工力量的削弱：隨著海外外包的威脅始終存在，工會失去了權力。工人和中產階級的薪資停滯不前，而高管薪酬卻飆升。生產力增長與薪酬之間的連結被切斷了。
· 系統性風險增加：公司即使在景氣時期也背負巨額債務來進行回購，使它們在經濟下行時期變得脆弱（例如 COVID-19 危機）。
· 財富不平等爆炸性增長：絕大多數股票由最富有的 10% 的人持有。回購直接將財富從公司金庫（本可使所有利益相關者受益）轉移給已經富裕的人。企業高層與普通員工的薪酬比率從 1960 年代的約 20:1 上升到今天的超過 300:1。

總結：

法律（規則 10b-18）並未創造回購，但使其成為一種無風險的工具。稅法的變更激勵企業高層將股價置於一切之上。這與股東至上的意識形態以及海外外包的全球機會匯聚在一起。

結果形成了一個惡性循環：利用海外外包削減成本 → 利用利潤進行回購以推高股價 → 獲取巨額股票獎勵 → 對國內創新和勞動力投資不足 → 競爭力下降 → 重複循環。

「美國工業的毀滅」並非意外的副產品；它是一個獎勵金融工程勝過工業工程、獎勵短期股票收益勝過長期生產能力的系統，所必然產生的邏輯結果。

Video: Make China Great Again: The Biggest Promoter of China’s National Fortunes, Codename—Chuan Jianguo [U.S. National Fortunes Trilogy: Final Chapter] 讓中國再次偉大：中國國運的最大推手，代號——川建國【美國國運三部曲：終章】 本集是《美國國運三部曲》最終章

🇨🇳 https://youtu.be/4uIoApigQEk?si=_rtuznljrIGfXXQI 🇺🇸

我們要複盤川普這位最具爭議的美國總統，如何憑藉一己之力，把中國從全球化的「舒適圈」生生逼進了自主創新的「快車道」。從貿易戰的傷敵八百自損一千，到「退群」外交將亞太主導權拱手讓人，川普看似瘋狂的操作，背後卻是商人邏輯對上大國戰略的崩盤…

This installment is the final chapter of the U.S. National Fortunes Trilogy. We will review how Donald Trump, the most controversial U.S. president, single-handedly pushed China from the “comfort zone” of globalization into the “fast lane” of independent innovation. From the trade war, which inflicted 800 losses on the enemy at the cost of 1,000 to oneself, to the diplomatic strategy of “withdrawing from international groups” that handed over dominance in the Asia-Pacific region to others, Trump’s seemingly insane actions were, in essence, a clash between business logic and the strategic calculations of a great power, leading to a breakdown…

Canadian Prime Minister Carney: The Rules-Based International Order Has Completely Ended…加拿大總理卡尼：基於規則的國際秩序已徹底終結…

On January 20, Canadian Prime Minister Carney’s speech at the Davos Forum in Switzerland could be described as earth-shattering, and might even be seen as a manifesto declaring the complete end of the “rules-based international order.”

It is clear that his remarks in Beijing were not made on a whim but were based on a long-standing assessment of the international landscape. So, what noteworthy soundbites did Carney deliver in this speech?

Carney set a pessimistic tone from the very beginning. He told the elites at Davos that his talk would be about “the fracture of the world order, the end of a beautiful story, and the beginning of a harsh reality.” These words were like a bucket of cold water poured over those who still cling to illusions of the past.

He pointed out bluntly that the so-called “rules-based international order” has largely been a façade. The most powerful nations have always been able to exempt themselves from obligations when necessary, and the application of international law has often followed a double standard depending on the target. This statement tore away the fig leaf that had long covered these realities.

Carney took aim at “major powers” for “weaponizing” economic integration. Tariffs have become leverage, financial infrastructure a tool of coercion, and supply chains exploitable vulnerabilities. Although he did not name the United States, everyone present knew exactly who he was referring to.

Faced with this situation, Carney issued a series of warnings. He said, “Nostalgia is not a strategy,” emphasizing that past assumptions of comfort no longer hold. He cautioned, “If we are not at the table, we will be on the menu.” This phrase quickly went viral, capturing the survival anxiety of middle powers.

His conclusion was that the long-standing U.S.-led international order has come to an end. A hegemonic power cannot indefinitely profit from leveraging its relationships. Canada must be “principled and pragmatic,” refocus on domestic development, and diversify its trade relationships.

Carney called on middle powers like Canada to unite. He argued that they must collectively carve out an influential “third way,” establishing a new order that incorporates their own values. This is seen as a collective response to the coercion of superpowers.

Ironically, just hours before Carney’s speech, U.S. President Trump posted an image on social media showing Canada, Greenland, and other areas covered by the American flag. This served as the most vivid footnote to Carney’s warnings, making his speech sound less like a prediction and more like a timely indictment.

The speech resonated within Canada. Some commentators noted that Carney essentially declared that the American Empire is over, and “we’re done acting as a vassal state.” Such blunt expression would have been unimaginable in the past.

1月20日，加拿大總理卡尼在瑞士達沃斯論壇上的演講，可謂是振聾發聵，甚至可以說是一篇宣告「基於規則的國際秩序」徹底終結的檄文。

可以看出他在北京說的那些話，並不是一時興起，而是長期以來對於國際格局的判斷。那麼卡尼在這場演講中，又有哪些值得關注的金句呢？

卡尼的開場白定下了悲觀的調性。他告訴達沃斯的精英們，今天要談的是「世界秩序的斷裂、美好故事的終結，以及殘酷現實的開端」。這句話像一盆冷水，澆在了那些還對舊日時光抱持幻想的人頭上。

他毫不客氣地指出，那個所謂「基於規則的國際秩序」在很大程度上是虛假的。最強大的國家總能在需要時豁免自己的義務，國際法的應用也因對像不同而有雙重標準。這句話撕下了長久以來的遮羞布。

卡尼將矛頭指向「大國」將經濟整合「武器化」的行為。關稅成了槓桿，金融基礎建設成了脅迫工具，供應鏈成了可利用的弱點。他雖未點名美國，但所指何人，在場者都心知肚明。

面對這種局面，卡尼拋出了一串警句。他說「懷舊不是一種戰略」，過去的安逸想法已不再成立。他警告：「如果我們不在談判桌上，就會出現在菜單上。 」這句話迅速流傳，道盡了中等國家的生存焦慮

他的結論是，長期由美國主導的國際秩序已經終結。霸權國家不可能永遠靠變現關係獲利。加拿大必須“有原則且務實”，轉向國內建設，並使貿易關係多元化。

卡尼呼籲像加拿大這樣的中等強國團結起來。 他認為大家必須聯合開闢一條有影響力的“第三條道路”，建立融入自身價值觀的新秩序。這被視為對超級大國脅迫的集體回應。

諷刺的是，就在卡尼演講前數小時，美國總統川普在社群媒體上發布了一張圖片，其中加拿大、格陵蘭等地被美國國旗覆蓋。這恰好為卡尼的警告提供了最生動的註腳，讓他的演講聽起來不像預測，更像及時的控訴。

演講在加拿大國內引發了共鳴。有評論稱，Carney essentially declared that the American Empire is over, and weʻre done acting as a vassal state (基本上宣告了美利堅帝國的終結，我們不再扮演附庸國的角色)。這種直白的表達，在過去是不可想像的。

Taiwan CTi News with English subtitles: Israel Bloodshed Escalates! Civilians “Brutally Killed with Heads Blown Apart”! Guo Zhengliang Exposes “U.S.-Israel Tragic Situation” as the “Beautiful Sightline” Grows More Bloody! 台灣中天新聞有英文字幕: 以色列血狂噴! 民眾遭”爆頭慘死”! 郭正亮揭”美以慘況”最美風景線越燒越血腥! 川普是最會吹牛的美國總統，他今天的我打倒昨天的我！怪不得的的川建國的能力讓中國再次徫大，真的是名不虛傳! 14億中國人多謝你!
https://rumble.com/v74r0b2-israel-bloodshed-escalates.html

Video: Some of my smart clients convert their US$ based assets to gold and RMB and retire in China! BRICS new digital currency is called “UNIT” 40% by solid gold, 60% by RMB etc, NO US$ 影片有中文字幕: 我有些精明客戶都將他們以美元計價的資產兌換成黃金和人民幣，然後在中國退休. 金磚國家的新數位貨幣名為“UNIT”，其中40%為純黃金，60%為人民幣等，不含美元!
https://rumble.com/v74qnwk-convert-your-us-based-assets-to-gold-and-rmb-and-retire-in-china.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fXDkPG/

Recently, the so-called “tipping point” has been a hot topic of discussion in the United States. The near-inhuman living conditions of the American underclass have been thoroughly exposed, simultaneously shattering the long-crafted perfect Hollywood illusion of America. For many Chinese who were once misled and set foot on American soil with high hopes, the nightmare often begins from the very first day of arrival. By Johnson Choi in San Francisco on January 23 2026

最近美國熱議所謂的「斬殺線」，美國底層近乎非人的生活狀態被徹底揭開，也一併戳破了美國長期塑造的完美好萊塢幻象。對不少曾被誤導、滿懷期待踏上美國土地的中國人而言，惡夢往往從抵達的第一天就已經開始. 作者: 蔡永強，2026年1月23日

The concept of the “tipping point” circulating recently on the American internet describes a societal survival dilemma—where an individual or family’s financial situation deteriorates sharply due to a single unexpected blow (such as a serious illness or job loss), rapidly falling from a decent standard of living to the bottom, with little hope of recovery. Its popularity indeed reflects long-standing and worsening systemic issues in American society.

Below is a comparison between the context of the “tipping point” trend and some of America’s social problems:

Social Context of the “Tipping Point” Concept:

· Core Characteristic: A sharp deterioration in financial situation due to a single unexpected blow (serious illness, job loss), with difficulty in recovering.
· Core Cause: The combined effect of high living costs and a fragile social safety net (especially in healthcare).

Reflected Realities and Problems:

· Extremely High Medical Financial Risk
· Typical Manifestation: Medical expenses are a leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.
· Specific Data/Situation: Approximately 20 million adults carry medical debt, and prices for the same service vary drastically between institutions. The experiences of international students also reflect issues with the complex, inefficient, and opaque billing of the U.S. healthcare system.
· Rising Poverty Rate
· Typical Manifestation: The poverty rate has seen a historic rebound.
· Specific Data/Situation: In 2022, the overall U.S. poverty rate increased from 7.8% to 12.4%, with about 41.2 million people living in poverty. The child poverty rate more than doubled, jumping from 5.2% to 12.4%.
· Vast and Entrenched Wealth Inequality
· Typical Manifestation: Wealth inequality has reached a decades-high level.
· Specific Data/Situation: In 2021, the top 1% of households held a record 32.3% of total wealth, while the bottom 50% of households held only 2.6%. Issues of income inequality and class stratification are equally severe.
· Housing and Homelessness Crisis
· Typical Manifestation: Soaring rents and the spread of tent encampments on streets.
· Specific Data/Situation: Rents in major cities like Los Angeles are exorbitantly high, and an inability to pay rent is a primary driver of homelessness. In 2020, there were over 580,000 homeless people nationwide.

Please note: Some extreme and sensational descriptions related to the “tipping point” found online, such as “extracting drugs from cremains” or “sewer slime,” lack reliable evidence and resemble urban legends or exaggerated narratives. It is advisable to approach such content with caution.

🔍 Key Perspectives for Understanding These Issues

To understand these social contradictions, the following theoretical perspectives might be helpful:

· The “Society of the Spectacle” Theory: Philosopher Guy Debord proposed that in modern consumer society, real, autonomous social life has been replaced by its representation (media images, commodity spectacles). People passively live in a state of separation dominated by the spectacle. This can partly explain why severe social problems coexist with glossy media images.
· Redefining Poverty: Some researchers point out that poverty in the United States has long been underestimated. Poverty is not just homelessness; it also includes a large population of the “working poor”—those who are employed but cannot make ends meet. They live perpetually on the brink of financial collapse due to the high costs of healthcare, housing, education, and other essentials. This is precisely the vast potential population referred to by the “tipping point” concept.

In summary, the “tipping point” is a vivid internet meme. Behind it lie systemic issues in American society, such as a weak social safety net, severe wealth disparity, and the high cost of basic living. Extreme anecdotal claims require careful scrutiny, but the systemic risks faced by ordinary middle-class and low-income families are very real.

近期美国网络上流传的“斩杀线”一说，描述的是一种社会生存困境——个人或家庭因一次意外打击（如大病、裁员）而财务状况急剧恶化，从体面生活快速坠入底层，失去翻身希望。它流行的背后，确实反映了美国社会长期存在且日益加剧的系统性问题。

下面是“斩杀线”流行背景和美国部分社会问题的对照：

“斩杀线”被提出的社会背景：

· 核心特征：因一次意外打击（大病、裁员）导致财务状况急剧恶化，且难以翻身。
· 核心原因：高昂的生活成本与脆弱的社会保障（尤其是医疗）共同作用。

反映的部分现实问题：

· 医疗财务风险极高
· 典型体现：医疗是美国个人破产的主因之一。
· 具体数据/情况：约2000万成年人背负医疗债务，同一服务在不同机构价格差异巨大。留学生的经历也反映了美国医疗流程复杂、效率低、账单高昂且不透明等问题。
· 贫困率攀升
· 典型体现：贫困率出现历史性反弹。
· 具体数据/情况：2022年美国总体贫困率从7.8%升至12.4%，约4120万人生活在贫困中，儿童贫困率更是从5.2%跃升至12.4%。
· 贫富差距巨大且固化
· 典型体现：贫富差距达数十年来的高点。
· 具体数据/情况：前1%家庭拥有的财富比例在2021年达到创纪录的32.3%，而后50%的家庭仅拥有总财富的2.6%。收入不平等、阶层固化问题同样严重。
· 住房与无家可归危机
· 典型体现：租金飙升与街头帐篷营地蔓延。
· 具体数据/情况：洛杉矶等大城市租金高昂，无力支付房租是导致无家可归的主要原因之一。2020年全美有超过58万人无家可归。

请注意：网络上一些与“斩杀线”相关的极端猎奇描述，例如“骨灰提炼毒品”、“下水道史莱姆”等，缺乏可靠证据支持，更像是都市传说或夸张叙事，建议你谨慎对待。

🔍 理解这些问题的关键视角

要理解这些社会矛盾，一些理论视角可能会对你有帮助：

· “景观社会”理论：哲学家德波提出，在现代消费社会，真实的、自主的社会生活已被其表象（媒体图像、商品景观）所取代，人们被动地生活在一种由景观支配的分离状态中。这可以部分解释为何严重的社会问题与光鲜的媒体形象长期并存。
· 贫困的重新定义：有研究者指出，美国的贫困问题长期被低估。贫困不只是无家可归，也包括大量“有工作但入不敷出”的群体，他们因医疗、住房、教育等基本成本高涨而时刻处于财务崩溃边缘。这也正是“斩杀线”概念所指的庞大潜在人群。

总的来说，“斩杀线”是一个生动的网络梗，其背后是美国社会安全网薄弱、贫富分化、基本生活成本高昂等系统性问题。极端个案传闻需仔细辨别，但普通中产与底层家庭面临的系统性风险是真实存在的。

How to find out where to retire? My grandfather and father were right when they said: better to walk ten thousand miles than to read ten thousand books. 如何找到適合退休的地方？我祖父和父親說得對：「行萬里路，勝讀萬卷書。」

I’ve just returned from my office in Honolulu to my second home in San Francisco.

In Honolulu, at least 60% of the downtown shops are closed—a scene strikingly similar to parts of downtown San Francisco.

While in Honolulu, I had dinner with friends in Chinatown that cost US$70 per person. A comparable meal in China’s Greater Bay Area would run about RMB 100 (roughly US$14)—making Honolulu five times more expensive.

During another gathering in Honolulu, few close friends and I discussed retiring safely in the China Greater Bay Area. Most preferred Shenzhen or Zhuhai, while a few considered Zhongshan. Since many were planning with a budget, I asked how much they had set aside for a condominium.

What became clear was a mismatch between budgets and expectations.

Comparing similar properties across the three cities: Shenzhen averages around RMB 6 million (US$860,000), Zhuhai about RMB 2 million (US$290,000), and Zhongshan roughly RMB 1 million (US$145,000). Most condos can be financed with a 15% down payment, with the balance covered by a 15–20 year mortgage, financing end date is age 75.

One couple at the meeting is currently on U.S. government welfare and food stamps. They aren’t poor—they had transferred their real estate and cash to their three children years ago to qualify for free government assistance. Now their children, concerned about their parents’ safety in the U.S., suggested using some of that money to buy a condo in China. I reminded the couple that doing so would risk losing their benefits, and advised them to ensure their children—who received over US$5 million from them a decade ago—set aside sufficient funds in the parents’ name.

Another couple has almost no savings and still rents for US$2,000 a month in Honolulu. However, they have combined pensions, Social Security, 401(k), and IRA income totaling US$5,000 monthly.

For them, I suggested renting rather than buying. At age 73 and in good health, they could move to Zhongshan and rent a brand-new, fully furnished apartment for around US$400 a month. That would leave them with US$4,600 each month to live on—enough to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle, including hiring a full-time maid. They no longer have to live in US fearing for their lives everyday.

All of this reminds me: if you don’t travel and see for yourself, you might never discover what’s truly possible out there.

I’m planning a trip to Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area in May. You’re most welcome to join me—I’d enjoy showing you around and discussing the impressive developments in the China Greater Bay Area region.

我剛從檀香山的辦公室回到第二故鄉舊金山。在檀香山市中心，至少有六成商店關門歇業——這景象與舊金山部分城區驚人地相似。

在檀香山時，我與朋友在唐人街共進晚餐，人均消費70美元。而在中國大灣區，同等餐食僅需100元人民幣（約14美元）——檀香山的物價足足高出五倍。

另一次檀香山聚會中，幾位密友與我討論在中國大灣區安穩退休的可能性。多數人傾向深圳或珠海，少數考慮中山。由於大家都有預算規劃，我便詢問他們為購置公寓預備了多少資金。

顯而易見的是，眾人的預算與期望存在明顯落差。

比較三城相似物業：深圳均價約600萬元人民幣（86萬美元），珠海約200萬元（29萬美元），中山則在100萬元左右（14.5萬美元）。多數公寓可透過15%首付購置，餘款以15至20年按揭支付，還款年限可延至75歲止。

席間有一對夫婦目前正領取美國政府福利與食物券。他們並非真貧——多年前早已將房產與現金轉至三名子女名下以符合免費補助資格。如今子女擔憂父母在美安全，建議動用部分資金在中國購房。我提醒這對夫婦，此舉可能導致他們失去福利，並建議他們應確保十年前獲贈超過500萬美元的子女，能以父母名義預留充足資金。

另一對夫婦幾乎毫無積蓄，至今仍在檀香山以每月2000美元租房。但他們合計享有養老金、社會保障金、401(k)與IRA退休帳戶，月入共5000美元。

我建議他們考慮租房而非購房。73歲的他們身體硬朗，若移居中山西租嶄新全裝修公寓，月租僅約400美元。這樣每月仍可餘留4600美元生活費，足以享受含全職幫傭的優渥生活，從此不必每日在美國擔驚受怕地度日。

這一切讓我深切體會：若不曾親身行走世界，你永遠無法發現遠方究竟存在怎樣的可能性。

我正計劃五月到訪香港及大灣區。誠摯邀請您同行——我將樂於帶您實地探訪，共同探討中國大灣區令人矚目的發展進程。

Living in China! 央企建築商developer 肇慶華僑城天鵝堡RMB$280,000 (US$40,000)萬一房 one bedroom ｜RMB$310,000 (US$43,000) 萬兩房 2 bedrooms｜RMB$430,000 (US$61,500) 萬三房 3 bedrooms, 1100sf 5分鐘到高鐵站

https://youtu.be/Tl_tYer0uDs?si=WqY6dInNakG9Xmy0

You can even mortgage 你還可以借錢買房子, for example 例如 3 房. Mortgage the 1100sf RMB$430,000 單位 15% 首期 down payment RMB$64,000 (US$9,215) 每月祇需付 monthly payment RMB$1400 (US$200)

$200 is lunch money for 4 in San Francisco, instead you can own a 3 bedrooms 2 bath 1,100sf apartments for life. In China there is no property tax. $200美元在舊金山只夠四個人吃一餐午飯，而在中國，你可以用這筆錢買一套三房兩衛公寓，終身居住。中國沒有房產稅.

This kind of price can’t go wrong! Why lives in US to face Asian Hates, Gun Violence, Homelessness, drugs and drugs addicts, lock yourself inside the house for safety after dark!? And everything is 4-7x more expensive than China! 這個價格絕對划算！為什麼要在美國生活，面對仇亞裔情緒、槍枝暴力、無家可歸、毒品和吸毒者，晚上還要把自己關在家裡才能保證安全？！而且在美國所有東西的價格都比中國貴4到7倍.