Is Flexible Employment a Form of Welfare? Peking University Professor's Comments Ignite Online Backlash

Graduation often leads to unemployment, and the number of young people struggling to find jobs is on the rise, alongside an increasing number of delivery riders in the market. (Video Screenshot)

[People News] A statement claiming that "flexible employment itself is a form of welfare" has thrown Peking University National Development Research Institute professor Zhang Dandan into a storm of public controversy.

In August 2026, during a financial interview program titled "Chat a Wave," Zhang Dandan, who is also the vice president of the National Development Research Institute at Peking University and a Changjiang Scholar, made the remark that quickly sparked a wave of criticism online. Countless netizens and media outlets harshly condemned her statement as a modern equivalent of the phrase "Why not eat meat porridge?"

In the program, Professor Zhang asserted: "From a labor economics perspective, flexibility itself is a form of welfare." She argued that while formal employment provides good social security benefits, it requires adherence to a nine-to-five schedule, which comes at the cost of personal freedom. In contrast, flexible workers, such as delivery drivers and ride-hailing operators, seek autonomy over their time and strive for maximum self-management. Therefore, the relatively weak social security protections they receive are a reasonable outcome of this trade-off.

Academic Theories Overlook the Survival Struggles of Ordinary People

The vast majority of Chinese netizens reacted to Zhang Dandan's comments with disbelief, questioning how a rider without a stable employer and lacking traditional social security benefits could be described as having welfare. "Politely termed flexible employment, but in reality, it’s just unemployed individuals taking on odd jobs."

For many low-income workers and netizens, Professor Zhang Dandan's theory of welfare is particularly jarring because it completely disregards the survival challenges faced by the vast majority in real life.

A Beijing netizen, 'Youyou Luming', responded: 'It is widely recognized that ride-hailing drivers, couriers, and food delivery workers who earn points on various platforms are among the least free groups in today's job market. Their every action is monitored and controlled by the algorithms of these platforms. Each day, they find themselves racing against these algorithms without any respite. These three occupations are referred to as the 'trio of middle-aged unemployment' precisely because they represent the most reluctant choices.' 'Their so-called flexibility is entirely passive; they have no other options.' 

Many netizens have pointed out that, aside from a small number of high-earning internet influencers or independent consultants, the vast majority of those delivering food, driving for Didi, or working on a daily settlement basis are not sacrificing social security in pursuit of 'freedom.' Instead, they are making a desperate choice due to barriers in the job market and the inability to find secure full-time employment, driven by survival pressures. Zhang Dandan's framing of 'helpless adaptation' as 'the welfare of active choice' reflects a disregard for the realities faced by workers. 

For most individuals opting for gig work, the so-called 'flexibility' does not represent a freedom of choice but rather a reluctant compromise born from survival pressures. In this context, 'flexibility' is no longer an advantage; it has become synonymous with income instability and job insecurity. This is the underlying reason for the public's heightened sensitivity and instinctive resistance to the idea that 'flexibility is welfare.' 

The crisis of 'naked operation' without social security 

According to data from the 2026 Two Sessions, less than one-third of the over 300 million flexible workers across the country participate in employee pension and medical insurance.

Netizens responded: "Coming and going in the wind and rain, without a labor contract, without the 'five insurances and one fund', and having to bear work-related injuries alone—this is called welfare? Would the professor be willing to give up their lifetime position within the system to experience this so-called 'welfare' by delivering takeout for a year?

In China, temporary workers, gig workers, and those in flexible employment without the 'five insurances and one fund' (particularly medical and pension insurance) face significant and harsh survival pressures in their daily lives and workplaces. These include the fear of falling into poverty due to medical risks, the crisis of having no support in old age, the extreme fragility of their economic income and poor risk resilience, the barriers to accessing social welfare and public services, and the psychological feelings of marginalization and long-term anxiety.

Yet, Zhang Dandan blatantly disregards these realities, hastily attempting to beautify the situation for the Chinese Communist authorities with absurd logic, portraying temporary workers as enjoying 'freedom welfare'. This approach even prompted criticism from the well-known 'Plate Holding Hero' Hu Xijin, who stated that Professor Zhang's comments were a 'short-circuited brain' and that she should clarify or apologize to the public.

Why do scholars fall into the trap of 'contextual misalignment'?

Surprisingly, Zhang Dandan is not an 'ivory tower scholar' who is oblivious to the underlying truths. Her academic credentials and experience show that she has long been concerned with migrant workers, low-income groups, and the impact of artificial intelligence on employment, and she has even published articles advocating for the improvement of social security for gig workers.

A netizen highlighted, "She is the vice president of the National Development Research Institute at Peking University, a full professor, and a doctoral supervisor. Her salary and benefits rank among the best in our country's academic institutions. Her annual income should start at 1.5 million RMB, which is just the guaranteed base salary. Beyond that, she enjoys high-standard social insurance and housing funds, medical coverage for faculty and staff, educational support for her children, and annual academic exchange funds... This is a coveted position that ordinary people can hardly aspire to, so how did it turn into a loss of freedom for her?" 

Many netizens also sharply criticized Zhang Dandan, suggesting, "If it’s so tough, why not quit and become a delivery person?" 

Some netizens remarked that Zhang Dandan's comments are "incredibly cruel. Would Professor Zhang even want such benefits for herself?" and "If academia is truly this harsh and disregards the survival struggles of the general public, then such academia is not worth having." 

This led many to question why Zhang Dandan, as a professional scholar, would make statements that starkly contrast with the public's sentiments. 

A netizen pointed out that this reflects a lack of empathy among those in high positions: intellectuals within a high welfare and security system often take their own protections for granted, thereby underestimating the vulnerabilities and pressures faced by lower-tier groups when dealing with illness, unemployment, and ageing. 

Many also connected the seemingly endless stream of shocking and absurd statements to the underlying issue of the entire social system and public opinion environment being "politically task-oriented." 

This is exemplified by the high-pressure directive to "promote the optimistic narrative of China's economy."

In the context of the official directive to 'promote optimistic narratives' and the prohibition against 'disparaging the economy', officials, scholars, and state media are all subjected to intense political scrutiny.

Faced with the grim realities of soaring unemployment, young people being compelled to take on gig jobs, and strained social security funds, they are neither willing nor able to acknowledge the flaws in the system and policies. Instead, they resort to 'celebrating the funeral', once again manipulating the idea that 'even in death, one can find happiness', forcibly reframing the hardships of the populace as 'policy benefits' or 'personal choices'.

For these senior intellectuals or officials at the top of the system, they are acutely aware of the suffering endured by ordinary citizens. However, they also understand another critical truth—under the authoritarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party, speaking the truth carries political risks and potential censorship, while telling lies with a clear conscience and providing a 'fig leaf' for the authorities can ensure their safety and even lead to project funding and political capital.

Recently, several experts and scholars in China who have insisted on speaking the truth have faced comprehensive bans and censorship on social media, including Gao Shanwen (Chief Economist of Anxin Securities), Guan Qingyou (President of the Ruisi Financial Research Institute), and Liu Jipeng (former President of the Capital Finance Research Institute at China University of Political Science and Law).

This chilling effect has compelled many scholars to yield to reality, opting for 'refined self-interest' while neglecting their scholarly conscience and empathy for the underprivileged.

Under high-pressure surveillance, 'public wisdom has awakened'.

Despite the authorities' efforts to create an illusion of 'peace and prosperity' through stringent public opinion monitoring, account bans, and algorithmic filtering, the academic jargon may deceive the AI editors overseeing online discourse, but it cannot fool the grumbling stomachs of the common people or their fear when they clutch their empty wallets. The 300 million 'flexible workers' brave the elements, racing to deliver goods on time, and the financial strain they experience after paying their monthly rent is a reality that no amount of 'optimism' can hide.

The public's perception is keen, which is why Zhang Dandan's comments have ignited a wave of criticism online. The comprehensive and forceful 'cover-up' implemented by the authorities will ultimately become a source of ridicule that accelerates the erosion of official credibility.

How can we ensure that 'social security follows the individual'?

While this controversy is rife with tension, it has also exposed an unavoidable shift in the current era: in the digital economy, the traditional 'five insurances and one fund' system, which relies on a model of 'fixed enterprises - fixed employees,' is becoming obsolete.

For instance, leading platforms like Meituan have recently begun piloting 'rider pension insurance subsidies' in certain cities (such as Quanzhou in Fujian and Nantong in Jiangsu), where the platform covers about 50% of the costs and allows riders to choose their own insurance locations. This initiative seeks to address a fundamental question: can social security be designed to follow workers rather than being exclusively tied to traditional employment units?

'Flexibility' should not be misrepresented as 'welfare.'

The "Zhang Dandan controversy" has raised a significant warning for both public policy and the academic community. The tendency to romanticize the suffering of the lower classes as a form of freedom—this attitude of condescendingly critiquing the masses from the ivory tower of academia is alarmingly reminiscent of Jin Huidi's infamous remark, "Why not eat meat porridge?"

A mature and empathetic society should not disguise the "lack of protection" resulting from inadequate institutional support as the "freedom benefits" that workers supposedly enjoy, merely to appease those in power.

As we shift from the notion that "being a ghost is also happiness" to the idea that "flexible employment is a benefit," the more those in positions of authority rush to use absurd logic to glamorize these hardships, the more they expose the façade of authority surrounding rights and academia to the public.

(Originally published by People News)
△