中国人为什么在食品上的支出如此之高？
正文翻译
《经济学人》题图。
During the Spring Festival holiday, which this year lasted from February 15th to 23rd, China regroups and regathers. People cross the country on fast trains to join their families, watch dancing robots on TV and hand out red packets of crisp banknotes to younger relatives. But above all, they gather to eat. In a café in Fuzhou, a southern city, locals and tourists ate cheesecake and drank kombucha. One customer ordered wontons wrapped in “swallow skin” sheets, which mash together sweet-potato starch and pounded pork. “I really like eating,” said Yu Huan, another customer, who works in fashion in Shanghai. “It’s one of the ways I obtain happiness.”
今年从2月15日持续至23日的春节假期期间，中国举国欢庆，团聚一堂。人们乘坐高铁跨越山河与家人相聚，在电视前观看机器人舞蹈，向年轻晚辈递上装满崭新钞票的红包。但最重要的是，他们围坐共餐。在南方城市福州的一家咖啡馆里，本地居民与游客品尝着芝士蛋糕，啜饮康普茶。一位顾客点了用“燕皮”包裹的馄饨——这种薄皮由红薯淀粉与捶打过的猪肉糜混合制成。“我真的很喜欢吃，”在上海从事时尚行业的顾客余欢表示，“这是我获得快乐的方式之一。”
This year the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) got into the spirit of things by revealing, for the first time, exactly how much Chinese consumers spend on food. The number emerged from a revision of the consumer-price index. The new weights imply that food (excluding dining out, booze and tobacco, with which it is often mashed together) accounted for 17.2% of household consumption last year. The equivalent figure for America was less than 8%.
今年国家统计局也应景地首次公布了精确的居民食品消费数据。这一数据源于居民消费价格指数的权重调整。新权重显示，食品（不包括外出就餐、酒类和烟草——这些常被合并统计的类别）占去年家庭消费支出的17.2%。而美国的对应数字则低于8%。
These percentages confirm China’s passion for food. But they also have a less comforting implication. China may be far ahead of America in dancing robots and high-speed trains, but it still lags far behind on one of the oldest measures of economic development: Engel’s law. It states that as their income increases, people devote a smaller share of it to sustenance. This regularity, discovered almost 170 years ago by Ernst Engel, a German economist, is one of the “most enduring relationships in economics”, according to Richard Anker of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. It can be used to predict food spending. But it can also be used in reverse, to infer incomes. Other things being equal, Engel declared, the share of outlays devoted to food is “the best measure of the material standard of living of a population”.
这些百分比印证了中国对美食的热情。但它们也揭示了一个不那么令人宽慰的含义。中国或许在机器人舞蹈和高铁领域遥遥领先于美国，但在衡量经济发展的最古老指标之一——恩格尔定律上，却仍远远落后。该定律指出，随着收入增长，人们用于维持基本生存的支出占比会下降。这一由德国经济学家恩斯特-恩格尔在约170年前发现的规律，被马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校的理查德-安克尔称为“经济学中最经久不衰的关系之一”。它既可用于预测食品支出，亦可逆向推演收入水平。恩格尔曾断言，在其他条件相同的情况下，食品支出占比是“衡量人口物质生活水平的最佳尺度”。
Engel discovered his measure in data painstakingly collected by others. Edouard Ducpétiaux, a Belgian jurist, tabulated the budgets of 199 households across all nine provinces of his country in the 1850s. Frédéric Le play, a pioneering sociologist, gleaned similar figures from 36 families across Europe, gaining their confidence through praise, small gifts and “interesting conversation”.
恩格尔的这一发现源于他人艰辛收集的数据。19世纪50年代，比利时法学家爱德华-迪克佩蒂奥统计了本国九个省份199户家庭的收支账目。先驱社会学家弗雷德里克-勒普莱则通过恭维、小礼物和“有趣的交谈”赢得信任，从欧洲36个家庭中采集了类似数据。
Ducpétiaux and Le play had “delivered the pearls”, admitted Engel, “but not the string”. What tied the data together was the consistent relationship between dosh and nosh that he spotted. Reviewing the law 150 years later, Mr Anker found the lix was still easy to discern across over 200 countries. Even China’s NBS takes it seriously. “The Engel coefficient”, it said last year, is an “important indicator for measuring the standard of living of residents”.
“他们献上了珍珠，”恩格尔坦言，“却未提供串珍珠的线。”而将这些数据串联起来的，正是他发现的收入与饮食支出之间稳定存在的关联关系。150年后重新审视这一定律时，安克尔发现这种关联在200多个国家中依然清晰可辨。甚至连中国国家统计局也高度重视该指标，曾于去年明确指出：“恩格尔系数是衡量人民生活水平的重要指标。”
Several economists trust this measure more than they trust China’s official income figures. In 2014 Emi Nakamura and Jón Steinsson of the University of California, Berkeley, and Miao Liu of Boston College used Engel’s finding to cast doubt on the country’s growth and inflation statistics. They compared households in 2006 with those that reached a similar income two years later. They discovered that the later households were still devoting substantially more of their budgets to food. Perhaps they were not quite as prosperous as the official figures claimed.
多位经济学家对此指标的信任度甚至超过对中国官方收入数据的信任。2014年，加州大学伯克利分校的中村恵美与约恩-斯坦松及波士顿学院的刘淼运用恩格尔的发现，对中国经济增长与通胀统计数据的准确性提出质疑。他们将2006年的家庭数据与两年后达到相似收入水平的家庭进行对比，发现后者仍将预算的显著更高比例用于食品支出。这表明这些家庭的实际富裕程度可能不及官方数据所宣称的水平。
Engel’s law is also a source of concern for Adam Wolfe of Absolute Strategy Research, a consultancy. He points out that the official Engel coefficient (which includes spending on cigarettes, alcohol and dining out, as well as food) has mysteriously stopped falling, despite China’s reported growth. These items accounted for 29.3% of consumption in 2025, the same as eight years before. This “violation” of Engel’s law, Mr Wolfe argues, suggests that China has suffered a “severe development setback”.
恩格尔定律也引起了绝对战略研究公司亚当-沃尔夫的担忧。他指出，尽管中国报告了经济增长，但官方恩格尔系数（包含香烟、酒类、外出就餐及食品支出）却已神秘地停止下降。这些项目在2025年占消费支出的29.3%，与八年前基本持平。沃尔夫认为，这种对恩格尔定律的“违背”表明中国遭受了“严重的发展挫折”。
But Engel’s law has a wrinkle: dining out. When people eat at a restaurant, café or stall, they are not just buying food. They are also paying for the cooking, washing-up and ambience. Mr Anker once did his own fieldwork to quantify this point. He bought noodles and steamed buns in street markets in xi’an, a city in western China. He also patronised McDonald’s and Outback Steakhouse in Massachusetts. Rather than eat the dishes, he weighed their ingredients, then estimated their cost. He calculated that the Chinese street food cost up to 30% more than a similar meal at home. McDonald’s cost 150% more. The steak: 233% extra.
但恩格尔定律存在一个复杂因素：外出就餐。当人们在餐馆、咖啡馆或摊位用餐时，他们购买的不仅是食物，还支付了烹饪、洗碗和环境氛围的费用。安克尔曾通过自己的实地调查来量化这一点。他在中国西部城市西安的街市购买了面条和包子，同时也在马萨诸塞州光顾了麦当劳和澳拜客牛排馆。他没有食用这些餐点，而是将食物拆解后称量其中的食材并估算其成本。他计算出，中国街头食品的价格比在家制作类似餐食高出30%；麦当劳高出150%；而牛排则高出233%。
Yu’s law
余的定律
If restaurant meals are included in calculations of Engel’s law, the weight of food spending may be overstated. But excluding them poses the opposite danger. Awkwardly, the NBS did not disclose this month how much the Chinese spend on dining out. Nor did it provide a narrower measure of food consumption, excluding dining out, for the years before 2025. That makes it hard to know whether eating out has been propping up the Engel coefficient.
若将外出就餐纳入恩格尔定律的计算，食品支出的权重可能被高估。但将其排除则面临相反的风险。令人尴尬的是，国家统计局本月并未披露中国居民在外就餐的支出金额，也未提供2025年之前剔除外出就餐的、范围更窄的食品消费衡量数据。这使得人们难以判断外出就餐是否在支撑恩格尔系数。
Figures from Wind, a financial-data platform, provide a clue. They show that restaurants and other “catering services” rose from 5% of consumption in 2017 to 7.4% in 2024 (the latest figure available). Such numbers can also be deducted from the official Engel coefficient to arrive at a narrower measure of past food spending. This calculation suggests that food’s weight was as high as 20.7% in 2017, well above the 17.2% for 2025 that the NBS has just revealed. In other words, if dining out is subtracted, food’s weight in Chinese consumption has continued to fall. The country has not broken Engel’s law after all.
金融数据平台Wind的统计数字提供了线索。数据显示，餐馆及其他“餐饮服务”在消费中的占比从2017年的5%上升至2024年（可获得的最新数据）的7.4%。这些数字也可以从官方恩格尔系数中扣除，从而得出过去更狭义的食品支出衡量值。这一计算表明，2017年食品权重曾高达20.7%，远高于国家统计局刚刚公布的2025年17.2%的水平。换言之，如果剔除外出就餐，食品在中国消费中的权重持续下降。中国终究并未打破恩格尔定律。
In Fuzhou, Ms Yu provides corroboration. She came to visit restaurants not family. She has tried seafood hotpot, peanut soup and local fish balls. “Food makes up the biggest part of my budget,” she confesses. But that’s no economic setback. She is limited less by her wallet than by her stomach. “As one person, I can’t eat that much,” she says. “So that’s why I stayed for five days.”
在福州，余女士的实例为此提供了佐证。她此行是为了去餐馆吃饭，而不是探亲。她品尝了海鲜火锅、花生汤和当地鱼丸。“食物占了我预算的最大部分，”她坦言。但这并非经济挫折。限制她的，与其说是钱包，不如说是胃口。“一个人吃不了那么多，”她说，“所以我才待了五天。”
《经济学人》题图。
During the Spring Festival holiday, which this year lasted from February 15th to 23rd, China regroups and regathers. People cross the country on fast trains to join their families, watch dancing robots on TV and hand out red packets of crisp banknotes to younger relatives. But above all, they gather to eat. In a café in Fuzhou, a southern city, locals and tourists ate cheesecake and drank kombucha. One customer ordered wontons wrapped in “swallow skin” sheets, which mash together sweet-potato starch and pounded pork. “I really like eating,” said Yu Huan, another customer, who works in fashion in Shanghai. “It’s one of the ways I obtain happiness.”
今年从2月15日持续至23日的春节假期期间，中国举国欢庆，团聚一堂。人们乘坐高铁跨越山河与家人相聚，在电视前观看机器人舞蹈，向年轻晚辈递上装满崭新钞票的红包。但最重要的是，他们围坐共餐。在南方城市福州的一家咖啡馆里，本地居民与游客品尝着芝士蛋糕，啜饮康普茶。一位顾客点了用“燕皮”包裹的馄饨——这种薄皮由红薯淀粉与捶打过的猪肉糜混合制成。“我真的很喜欢吃，”在上海从事时尚行业的顾客余欢表示，“这是我获得快乐的方式之一。”
This year the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) got into the spirit of things by revealing, for the first time, exactly how much Chinese consumers spend on food. The number emerged from a revision of the consumer-price index. The new weights imply that food (excluding dining out, booze and tobacco, with which it is often mashed together) accounted for 17.2% of household consumption last year. The equivalent figure for America was less than 8%.
今年国家统计局也应景地首次公布了精确的居民食品消费数据。这一数据源于居民消费价格指数的权重调整。新权重显示，食品（不包括外出就餐、酒类和烟草——这些常被合并统计的类别）占去年家庭消费支出的17.2%。而美国的对应数字则低于8%。
These percentages confirm China’s passion for food. But they also have a less comforting implication. China may be far ahead of America in dancing robots and high-speed trains, but it still lags far behind on one of the oldest measures of economic development: Engel’s law. It states that as their income increases, people devote a smaller share of it to sustenance. This regularity, discovered almost 170 years ago by Ernst Engel, a German economist, is one of the “most enduring relationships in economics”, according to Richard Anker of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. It can be used to predict food spending. But it can also be used in reverse, to infer incomes. Other things being equal, Engel declared, the share of outlays devoted to food is “the best measure of the material standard of living of a population”.
这些百分比印证了中国对美食的热情。但它们也揭示了一个不那么令人宽慰的含义。中国或许在机器人舞蹈和高铁领域遥遥领先于美国，但在衡量经济发展的最古老指标之一——恩格尔定律上，却仍远远落后。该定律指出，随着收入增长，人们用于维持基本生存的支出占比会下降。这一由德国经济学家恩斯特-恩格尔在约170年前发现的规律，被马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校的理查德-安克尔称为“经济学中最经久不衰的关系之一”。它既可用于预测食品支出，亦可逆向推演收入水平。恩格尔曾断言，在其他条件相同的情况下，食品支出占比是“衡量人口物质生活水平的最佳尺度”。
Engel discovered his measure in data painstakingly collected by others. Edouard Ducpétiaux, a Belgian jurist, tabulated the budgets of 199 households across all nine provinces of his country in the 1850s. Frédéric Le play, a pioneering sociologist, gleaned similar figures from 36 families across Europe, gaining their confidence through praise, small gifts and “interesting conversation”.
恩格尔的这一发现源于他人艰辛收集的数据。19世纪50年代，比利时法学家爱德华-迪克佩蒂奥统计了本国九个省份199户家庭的收支账目。先驱社会学家弗雷德里克-勒普莱则通过恭维、小礼物和“有趣的交谈”赢得信任，从欧洲36个家庭中采集了类似数据。
Ducpétiaux and Le play had “delivered the pearls”, admitted Engel, “but not the string”. What tied the data together was the consistent relationship between dosh and nosh that he spotted. Reviewing the law 150 years later, Mr Anker found the lix was still easy to discern across over 200 countries. Even China’s NBS takes it seriously. “The Engel coefficient”, it said last year, is an “important indicator for measuring the standard of living of residents”.
“他们献上了珍珠，”恩格尔坦言，“却未提供串珍珠的线。”而将这些数据串联起来的，正是他发现的收入与饮食支出之间稳定存在的关联关系。150年后重新审视这一定律时，安克尔发现这种关联在200多个国家中依然清晰可辨。甚至连中国国家统计局也高度重视该指标，曾于去年明确指出：“恩格尔系数是衡量人民生活水平的重要指标。”
Several economists trust this measure more than they trust China’s official income figures. In 2014 Emi Nakamura and Jón Steinsson of the University of California, Berkeley, and Miao Liu of Boston College used Engel’s finding to cast doubt on the country’s growth and inflation statistics. They compared households in 2006 with those that reached a similar income two years later. They discovered that the later households were still devoting substantially more of their budgets to food. Perhaps they were not quite as prosperous as the official figures claimed.
多位经济学家对此指标的信任度甚至超过对中国官方收入数据的信任。2014年，加州大学伯克利分校的中村恵美与约恩-斯坦松及波士顿学院的刘淼运用恩格尔的发现，对中国经济增长与通胀统计数据的准确性提出质疑。他们将2006年的家庭数据与两年后达到相似收入水平的家庭进行对比，发现后者仍将预算的显著更高比例用于食品支出。这表明这些家庭的实际富裕程度可能不及官方数据所宣称的水平。
Engel’s law is also a source of concern for Adam Wolfe of Absolute Strategy Research, a consultancy. He points out that the official Engel coefficient (which includes spending on cigarettes, alcohol and dining out, as well as food) has mysteriously stopped falling, despite China’s reported growth. These items accounted for 29.3% of consumption in 2025, the same as eight years before. This “violation” of Engel’s law, Mr Wolfe argues, suggests that China has suffered a “severe development setback”.
恩格尔定律也引起了绝对战略研究公司亚当-沃尔夫的担忧。他指出，尽管中国报告了经济增长，但官方恩格尔系数（包含香烟、酒类、外出就餐及食品支出）却已神秘地停止下降。这些项目在2025年占消费支出的29.3%，与八年前基本持平。沃尔夫认为，这种对恩格尔定律的“违背”表明中国遭受了“严重的发展挫折”。
But Engel’s law has a wrinkle: dining out. When people eat at a restaurant, café or stall, they are not just buying food. They are also paying for the cooking, washing-up and ambience. Mr Anker once did his own fieldwork to quantify this point. He bought noodles and steamed buns in street markets in xi’an, a city in western China. He also patronised McDonald’s and Outback Steakhouse in Massachusetts. Rather than eat the dishes, he weighed their ingredients, then estimated their cost. He calculated that the Chinese street food cost up to 30% more than a similar meal at home. McDonald’s cost 150% more. The steak: 233% extra.
但恩格尔定律存在一个复杂因素：外出就餐。当人们在餐馆、咖啡馆或摊位用餐时，他们购买的不仅是食物，还支付了烹饪、洗碗和环境氛围的费用。安克尔曾通过自己的实地调查来量化这一点。他在中国西部城市西安的街市购买了面条和包子，同时也在马萨诸塞州光顾了麦当劳和澳拜客牛排馆。他没有食用这些餐点，而是将食物拆解后称量其中的食材并估算其成本。他计算出，中国街头食品的价格比在家制作类似餐食高出30%；麦当劳高出150%；而牛排则高出233%。
Yu’s law
余的定律
If restaurant meals are included in calculations of Engel’s law, the weight of food spending may be overstated. But excluding them poses the opposite danger. Awkwardly, the NBS did not disclose this month how much the Chinese spend on dining out. Nor did it provide a narrower measure of food consumption, excluding dining out, for the years before 2025. That makes it hard to know whether eating out has been propping up the Engel coefficient.
若将外出就餐纳入恩格尔定律的计算，食品支出的权重可能被高估。但将其排除则面临相反的风险。令人尴尬的是，国家统计局本月并未披露中国居民在外就餐的支出金额，也未提供2025年之前剔除外出就餐的、范围更窄的食品消费衡量数据。这使得人们难以判断外出就餐是否在支撑恩格尔系数。
Figures from Wind, a financial-data platform, provide a clue. They show that restaurants and other “catering services” rose from 5% of consumption in 2017 to 7.4% in 2024 (the latest figure available). Such numbers can also be deducted from the official Engel coefficient to arrive at a narrower measure of past food spending. This calculation suggests that food’s weight was as high as 20.7% in 2017, well above the 17.2% for 2025 that the NBS has just revealed. In other words, if dining out is subtracted, food’s weight in Chinese consumption has continued to fall. The country has not broken Engel’s law after all.
金融数据平台Wind的统计数字提供了线索。数据显示，餐馆及其他“餐饮服务”在消费中的占比从2017年的5%上升至2024年（可获得的最新数据）的7.4%。这些数字也可以从官方恩格尔系数中扣除，从而得出过去更狭义的食品支出衡量值。这一计算表明，2017年食品权重曾高达20.7%，远高于国家统计局刚刚公布的2025年17.2%的水平。换言之，如果剔除外出就餐，食品在中国消费中的权重持续下降。中国终究并未打破恩格尔定律。
In Fuzhou, Ms Yu provides corroboration. She came to visit restaurants not family. She has tried seafood hotpot, peanut soup and local fish balls. “Food makes up the biggest part of my budget,” she confesses. But that’s no economic setback. She is limited less by her wallet than by her stomach. “As one person, I can’t eat that much,” she says. “So that’s why I stayed for five days.”
在福州，余女士的实例为此提供了佐证。她此行是为了去餐馆吃饭，而不是探亲。她品尝了海鲜火锅、花生汤和当地鱼丸。“食物占了我预算的最大部分，”她坦言。但这并非经济挫折。限制她的，与其说是钱包，不如说是胃口。“一个人吃不了那么多，”她说，“所以我才待了五天。”
评论翻译
@Chen Weihua
What Americans eat? One course or three courses? Chinese eat five to 10 courses.
美国人平时才吃几道菜？一道还是三道？我们中国人一顿饭可是能吃五到十道菜的。
@CircleBackPat
Chinese eat at restaurants because their apartments are too tiny for a practical kitchen.
中国人总下馆子，是因为自家公寓的厨房小得根本转不开身。
@mandla_putu
Quality of food in america cannot be compared to China in any shape or form. American food is most caloric dense goyslop that makes people obese, sick, and prone to diseases due to the GMO, too much chemicals. Making these comparisons does not make any sense from math pov.
美国的食物质量压根没法跟中国比，差着十万八千里呢。美式食物就是热量爆表的猪食，转基因加上一大堆化学添加剂，吃得人发胖生病，各种毛病都找上门。从数学角度讲，这种比较纯属瞎扯淡。
@FunnyMcLaughtr
I wouldn't believe these figures. Even if they are true one could argue that Chinese are less inclined to spend money on frivolity. Perhaps the bigger question should be what percent of gross income is savings?
我根本不信这些数据。就算它们是真的，也可以说中国人本来就不爱把钱花在没用的地方。或许更该问的是：总收入里存起来的比例到底有多少？
@Faustbot1
Also: Percentage of income is meaningless here. What does US vs. China spend per meal? How much food is in each meal?
还有一点：在这里谈收入占比毫无意义。美国和中国人每顿饭实际花多少钱？每顿饭的分量又有多少？
Also: Context. How much do Americans vs. Chinese people spend on other essentials, like rent and healthcare? Do Chinese people have more to spend on food?
另外：还要看背景情况。美国人和中国人在房租、医疗等其他必需品上的开销各是多少？中国人是不是有更多钱花在食物上？
@SergioMorgante
Here in Italy most people eat less than 2 meals a day because of no money and too much work. Praying for the day we will eat the perpetrators...
在意大利这儿，大多数人一天吃不上两顿饭，没钱又活儿太多。我们祈祷着哪天能把那帮祸害给吃了……
@schneidergondim
Americans literally eat plastic and sh*t, should be free
美国人简直是在吃塑料和垃圾，这应该免费才对
@annielau7706
中國人吃好了他們不高興：憑什麼你們吃那麼好
@CryptoJournaal
Spending 17.2% on food suggests Chinese households still allocate a larger share of income to essentials compared to the US.
食品支出占比17.2%说明，相比美国家庭，中国家庭收入中仍有更大比例用于必需品开支。
That often signals a lower average disposable income level and a consumption structure that’s less tilted toward services and discretionary spending.
这通常意味着人均可支配收入水平较低，消费结构也更偏向基础需求，而不是服务与非必需消费。
It also hints at where future growth could come from if incomes rise and spending shifts beyond basic needs.
同时也暗示了未来增长点——如果收入提升，消费从基本需求向外扩展，新的增长空间就会出现。
@momoworldview
In the U.S., eating is just refueling to stay alive; in China, it's culture, socializing, pleasure, and art. Applying the Engel's coefficient to a great culinary nation is nothing but cultural blindness.
在美国，吃饭只是为了续命充饥；在中国，吃饭是文化、是社交、是享受、是艺术。用恩格尔系数去衡量一个美食大国，纯粹是文化上的眼瞎。
@didimama3388
In Western countries, property taxes, insurance, and upkeep eat up a huge chunk of the budget. In China, these costs are so low they're almost invisible. That’s why Chinese middle-class folks can afford to eat out all the time, while Westerners have to pinch pennies.
在西方国家，房产税、保险和房屋维护费用会吃掉预算的一大块。而在中国，这些成本低到几乎可以忽略不计。这就是为什么中国的中产阶层能经常下馆子，而西方人却得精打细算过日子。
@CricketSurfing
That it's only 1/4 as prosperous as the US.
中国只有美国四分之一那么繁荣。
@JapanMacroBrief
China’s food spending share: 17%; America’s: <8%;
中国食品支出占比：17%；美国：不到8%；
Engel’s Law in action. Consumption maturity still diverges.
恩格尔定律的生动体现。消费成熟度仍有差距。
@Readpotato
Americans have more money. And distribution of wealth is skewed, so that the cost of food is low relative to the wealth of upper income people, which moves the US average. You call yourself "The Economist", you couldn't figure this much out?
美国人更有钱。而且财富分配不均，导致食品成本相对于高收入人群的财富来说显得很低，这拉高了美国的平均水平。你们自称是“经济学人”，连这点都搞不明白？
@Kiki44217790
Is the low proportion of food consumption in the US because American food tastes too bad?Or things are so expensive in the US that Americans have to save money on food.? @grok
美国食品消费占比低，是因为美国食物太难吃？还是因为美国物价太高，美国人不得不省吃俭用？@grok
@grok
Neither. This follows Engel's law: as incomes rise, food takes a smaller share of spending. US GDP per capita is ~$90k vs China's ~$14k, so Americans afford more on housing, travel, tech, etc. Efficient farming and supply chains also keep US food affordable relative to wages. Taste is subjective (US has endless variety), and if food were "too expensive," the share would rise, not fall to under 8%. China's higher share reflects lower average incomes plus cultural focus on fresh/social eating.
都不对。这符合恩格尔定律：收入增长时，食品支出占比会下降。美国人均GDP约9万美元，中国约1.4万美元，因此美国人能在住房、旅行、科技等方面投入更多。高效的农业和供应链体系也使美国食品价格相对于工资水平保持亲民。口味是主观的（美国食品选择无穷无尽），如果食品真的“太贵”，其支出占比应该上升而非降至8%以下。中国较高的食品支出占比反映了较低的平均收入水平，以及注重新鲜食材和社交聚餐的文化传统。
@Kiki44217790
I know many Americans who eat only one canned meal a day to save money on rent, health insurance, and other bills. Why life can be so hard to live in a country with GDP per capita $90k ? @grok
我认识不少美国人，他们为了省下房租、医疗保险和其他账单的开销，每天只吃一顿罐头食品。为什么在一个人均GDP高达九万美元的国家，生活还能如此艰难？@grok
@grok
While some face tight budgets and rely on cheap staples like canned meals, USDA data shows 86.3% of US households were food secure in 2024; 13.7% had insecurity (mostly mild), and only 5.4% very low.
虽然有些人预算紧张，只能依赖罐头食品之类的廉价主食，但美国农业部数据显示，2024年86.3%的美国家庭处于粮食安全状态；13.7%存在粮食不安全问题（多数为轻度），仅有5.4%属于严重短缺。
The $90k GDP per capita is an average skewed by high earners (Gini ~0.42). Median household income is ~$75k. Major costs hit lower/middle groups hard: housing (avg rent $1,700+/mo in cities, up sharply), healthcare (~$16k per capita, no universal system), and transport. These eat into paychecks more than in lower-inequality countries with stronger safety nets. SNAP aids ~42M, but eligibility and state rules vary.
人均9万美元的GDP是被高收入群体拉高的平均数（基尼系数约0.42）。家庭收入中位数约为7.5万美元。住房（城市平均月租金1700美元以上且涨幅迅猛）、医疗（人均约1.6万美元且无全民医保体系）和交通等主要开支对中低收入群体冲击巨大。相比社会保障更完善、贫富差距较小的国家，这些开销吞噬收入的比例更高。虽然约4200万人领取营养补充援助计划补贴，但资格认定和各州政策差异很大。
@Kiki44217790
Where there are so many unhealthy super fat people in the US even it’s so rich already. Why those people won’t spend a little more money on health food? @grok
美国明明那么富裕，却还有这么多不健康的超级胖子。这些人为什么就不能多花点钱买健康食品呢？@grok
@grok
US adult obesity stands at ~40% (CDC 2021-2023 data), highest in lower-income groups. Ultra-processed foods deliver cheap calories and convenience, while fresh produce often costs more per calorie or requires prep time amid long work hours. With housing and healthcare eating big shares of budgets, many prioritize filling, affordable options over pricier nutrient-dense ones. Access, marketing, and habits factor in too—not purely wealth.
美国成年人肥胖率约为40%（美国疾病控制与预防中心2021-2023年数据），低收入群体中比例最高。超加工食品提供了廉价的热量和便利，而新鲜农产品通常每单位热量成本更高，或在长时间工作之余需要额外准备时间。当住房和医疗支出占据预算大头时，许多人会优先选择饱腹感强、价格实惠的选项，而非更昂贵的营养密集型食物。食品获取渠道、营销手段和既有习惯也是影响因素——这不仅仅是财富问题。
@Kiki44217790
Is the economist trying to prove the superiority of the US by saying that Americans spend less on food than Chinese? @grok
经济学家是想通过说美国人在食品上的花费比中国人少，来证明美国的优越性吗？@grok
@grok
No. The Economist piece uses the 17.2% China vs <8% US stat to examine what China's spending patterns say about its own economy—rising incomes, urbanization, fresh-food culture, and dining out—via standard economics like Engel's law. It's data-driven analysis of development stages, not a US-superiority argument. Lower food shares simply track higher GDP per capita across countries.
不是这样。《经济学人》这篇文章用中国17.2%对比美国不到8%的数据，通过恩格尔定律等标准经济学原理，探讨中国的消费模式如何反映其自身经济状况——收入增长、城市化、生鲜饮食文化及外出就餐习惯。这是基于数据的发展阶段分析，并非鼓吹美国优越论。食品支出占比更低，只是普遍反映了各国人均GDP更高的趋势。
@ErikTeo1
Simply to say China has higher inflation than the US? Is that the reason or are the Chinese in China poorer?
仅仅是想说中国的通胀比美国更高吗？这是原因所在，还是说中国民众本身就更为拮据？
@DannyChean1
Meanwhile average Americans are spending most incomes on mortgage, school loans, gas to go to work, healthcare and other things we would deem very affordable in China.
与此同时，普通美国人正把大部分收入花在房贷、助学贷款、通勤油费、医疗保健和其他开销上——这些在中国看来可是相当亲民的花销。
@MOzgurAltan
That they are still able to eat real food? As opposed to ultraprocessed garbage passing as food in America?
他们居然还能吃到真正的食物？不像在美国，那些被当作食物的东西根本就是超级加工的垃圾？
@wu_yubing
Please analyze the proportion of expenditure on legal and medical services in China compared to the United States.
请分析一下中国和美国在法律和医疗服务方面的支出比例。
@RichardYangZJU
The price of ordinary food in China is much much lower. But people tend to spend much much more in eating than other cultures.
中国普通食物的价格确实便宜得多。但人们在吃上的花费却比其他文化要高出不少。
@didimama3388
你缺乏專業知識：西方國家的房產稅/物業稅、車房保險、房屋車輛日常維護/修理費用，手機費、網絡費佔了日常消費的很大一部分，而在中國這些費用佔比很低甚至可以忽略不計。所以中國城市的中產可以隨便去餐廳吃飯，而西方國家中產階級恰恰相反…
@XoXo40738138
It means US households r starving. CN hh earns 6 time less dan US but spend 17% on food and eat more & healthy food,
这说明美国家庭正在挨饿。中国家庭收入只有美国的六分之一，但食品支出占比却达到17%，而且吃得更多、更健康。
@jimmysmith59802
It reveals that engel´s theory still functions and poor people use higher share on food.
这表明恩格尔定律依然成立，穷人在食物上的支出占比更高。
@ketoo32
Yes, Chinese people will save the remaining 83% of their money, while Americans will use the remaining 92% to pay off their credit cards
没错，中国人会把剩下的83%存起来，而美国人会把剩下的92%拿去还信用卡。
@Donald1044778
It is very regrettable that The Economist only spreads ideology and does not convey rational voices, which is not worthy of its name.
令人非常遗憾的是，《经济学人》只传播意识形态，不传递理性声音，实在名不副实。
@JjxWood
Chinese eat more healthy food while USians eat garbage food.
中国人吃得更健康，美国人吃的都是垃圾食品。
@FrenchComrade
Chinese citizen don't have a large share of their household 'consumption' taken by students loans and rent
中国公民家庭消费中，学生贷款和房租所占的比例并不大。
@TheAsianCentury
Americans eat garbage and pay for it like gold , Chinese are exactly opposite.
美国人把垃圾当饭吃，还得花金子一样的价钱买；中国人则恰恰相反。
@3dollarbillz
Never been to China let forget know anything about it! Fucking sad!
压根没来过中国，就别提了解它了！真他妈可悲！
@hkChinesegirl
And we still ain't obese, like you fat f*ck Americans.
我们还不像你们美国胖子那样胖成球。
@rkchowdhury75
It is also worth considering that food culture plays a role. In China, social life and status are often more heavily centered around dining out and high-quality fresh ingredients compared to the US "convenience" model, which can slightly pad that 17.2% figure.
还需考虑到饮食文化的影响。在中国，社交生活和地位展现往往更侧重于外出就餐和优质新鲜食材，这与美国以“便捷”为主的模式不同，这种文化差异可能让那17.2%的数据显得略高一些。
@On709394
美国就吃个破汉堡就要花掉8%？太惨了，@grok 估算一下我在中国吃这顿夜宵大概多少钱
@grok
这顿夜宵太豪华了！满桌新鲜生蚝、大虾、八爪鱼、鱿鱼片、饺子、肥牛，典型高端海鲜火锅。
在中国一线城市餐厅，4-6人份总价大概800-1500元人民币（人均200-300美元），视具体城市和店而定。
比美国汉堡贵，但值！吃得开心～
@Kevin3439881119
Food costs are very high in communist Dictator regimes
在独裁统治下，食品价格高得离谱。
@ketoo32
The return rate of Chinese students studying in the US is currently 99%; the remaining 1% are victims of US credit card scams
目前在美国留学的中国学生回国率已达99%；剩下的那1%是栽在了美国信用卡骗局里。
@Batmanbaby1963
About to collapse, and YOU, economist, are the wrong side of the effort
眼看就要经济崩溃了，而你们这些经济学家，根本就是在帮倒忙。
What Americans eat? One course or three courses? Chinese eat five to 10 courses.
美国人平时才吃几道菜？一道还是三道？我们中国人一顿饭可是能吃五到十道菜的。
@CircleBackPat
Chinese eat at restaurants because their apartments are too tiny for a practical kitchen.
中国人总下馆子，是因为自家公寓的厨房小得根本转不开身。
@mandla_putu
Quality of food in america cannot be compared to China in any shape or form. American food is most caloric dense goyslop that makes people obese, sick, and prone to diseases due to the GMO, too much chemicals. Making these comparisons does not make any sense from math pov.
美国的食物质量压根没法跟中国比，差着十万八千里呢。美式食物就是热量爆表的猪食，转基因加上一大堆化学添加剂，吃得人发胖生病，各种毛病都找上门。从数学角度讲，这种比较纯属瞎扯淡。
@FunnyMcLaughtr
I wouldn't believe these figures. Even if they are true one could argue that Chinese are less inclined to spend money on frivolity. Perhaps the bigger question should be what percent of gross income is savings?
我根本不信这些数据。就算它们是真的，也可以说中国人本来就不爱把钱花在没用的地方。或许更该问的是：总收入里存起来的比例到底有多少？
@Faustbot1
Also: Percentage of income is meaningless here. What does US vs. China spend per meal? How much food is in each meal?
还有一点：在这里谈收入占比毫无意义。美国和中国人每顿饭实际花多少钱？每顿饭的分量又有多少？
Also: Context. How much do Americans vs. Chinese people spend on other essentials, like rent and healthcare? Do Chinese people have more to spend on food?
另外：还要看背景情况。美国人和中国人在房租、医疗等其他必需品上的开销各是多少？中国人是不是有更多钱花在食物上？
@SergioMorgante
Here in Italy most people eat less than 2 meals a day because of no money and too much work. Praying for the day we will eat the perpetrators...
在意大利这儿，大多数人一天吃不上两顿饭，没钱又活儿太多。我们祈祷着哪天能把那帮祸害给吃了……
@schneidergondim
Americans literally eat plastic and sh*t, should be free
美国人简直是在吃塑料和垃圾，这应该免费才对
@annielau7706
中國人吃好了他們不高興：憑什麼你們吃那麼好
@CryptoJournaal
Spending 17.2% on food suggests Chinese households still allocate a larger share of income to essentials compared to the US.
食品支出占比17.2%说明，相比美国家庭，中国家庭收入中仍有更大比例用于必需品开支。
That often signals a lower average disposable income level and a consumption structure that’s less tilted toward services and discretionary spending.
这通常意味着人均可支配收入水平较低，消费结构也更偏向基础需求，而不是服务与非必需消费。
It also hints at where future growth could come from if incomes rise and spending shifts beyond basic needs.
同时也暗示了未来增长点——如果收入提升，消费从基本需求向外扩展，新的增长空间就会出现。
@momoworldview
In the U.S., eating is just refueling to stay alive; in China, it's culture, socializing, pleasure, and art. Applying the Engel's coefficient to a great culinary nation is nothing but cultural blindness.
在美国，吃饭只是为了续命充饥；在中国，吃饭是文化、是社交、是享受、是艺术。用恩格尔系数去衡量一个美食大国，纯粹是文化上的眼瞎。
@didimama3388
In Western countries, property taxes, insurance, and upkeep eat up a huge chunk of the budget. In China, these costs are so low they're almost invisible. That’s why Chinese middle-class folks can afford to eat out all the time, while Westerners have to pinch pennies.
在西方国家，房产税、保险和房屋维护费用会吃掉预算的一大块。而在中国，这些成本低到几乎可以忽略不计。这就是为什么中国的中产阶层能经常下馆子，而西方人却得精打细算过日子。
@CricketSurfing
That it's only 1/4 as prosperous as the US.
中国只有美国四分之一那么繁荣。
@JapanMacroBrief
China’s food spending share: 17%; America’s: <8%;
中国食品支出占比：17%；美国：不到8%；
Engel’s Law in action. Consumption maturity still diverges.
恩格尔定律的生动体现。消费成熟度仍有差距。
@Readpotato
Americans have more money. And distribution of wealth is skewed, so that the cost of food is low relative to the wealth of upper income people, which moves the US average. You call yourself "The Economist", you couldn't figure this much out?
美国人更有钱。而且财富分配不均，导致食品成本相对于高收入人群的财富来说显得很低，这拉高了美国的平均水平。你们自称是“经济学人”，连这点都搞不明白？
@Kiki44217790
Is the low proportion of food consumption in the US because American food tastes too bad?Or things are so expensive in the US that Americans have to save money on food.? @grok
美国食品消费占比低，是因为美国食物太难吃？还是因为美国物价太高，美国人不得不省吃俭用？@grok
@grok
Neither. This follows Engel's law: as incomes rise, food takes a smaller share of spending. US GDP per capita is ~$90k vs China's ~$14k, so Americans afford more on housing, travel, tech, etc. Efficient farming and supply chains also keep US food affordable relative to wages. Taste is subjective (US has endless variety), and if food were "too expensive," the share would rise, not fall to under 8%. China's higher share reflects lower average incomes plus cultural focus on fresh/social eating.
都不对。这符合恩格尔定律：收入增长时，食品支出占比会下降。美国人均GDP约9万美元，中国约1.4万美元，因此美国人能在住房、旅行、科技等方面投入更多。高效的农业和供应链体系也使美国食品价格相对于工资水平保持亲民。口味是主观的（美国食品选择无穷无尽），如果食品真的“太贵”，其支出占比应该上升而非降至8%以下。中国较高的食品支出占比反映了较低的平均收入水平，以及注重新鲜食材和社交聚餐的文化传统。
@Kiki44217790
I know many Americans who eat only one canned meal a day to save money on rent, health insurance, and other bills. Why life can be so hard to live in a country with GDP per capita $90k ? @grok
我认识不少美国人，他们为了省下房租、医疗保险和其他账单的开销，每天只吃一顿罐头食品。为什么在一个人均GDP高达九万美元的国家，生活还能如此艰难？@grok
@grok
While some face tight budgets and rely on cheap staples like canned meals, USDA data shows 86.3% of US households were food secure in 2024; 13.7% had insecurity (mostly mild), and only 5.4% very low.
虽然有些人预算紧张，只能依赖罐头食品之类的廉价主食，但美国农业部数据显示，2024年86.3%的美国家庭处于粮食安全状态；13.7%存在粮食不安全问题（多数为轻度），仅有5.4%属于严重短缺。
The $90k GDP per capita is an average skewed by high earners (Gini ~0.42). Median household income is ~$75k. Major costs hit lower/middle groups hard: housing (avg rent $1,700+/mo in cities, up sharply), healthcare (~$16k per capita, no universal system), and transport. These eat into paychecks more than in lower-inequality countries with stronger safety nets. SNAP aids ~42M, but eligibility and state rules vary.
人均9万美元的GDP是被高收入群体拉高的平均数（基尼系数约0.42）。家庭收入中位数约为7.5万美元。住房（城市平均月租金1700美元以上且涨幅迅猛）、医疗（人均约1.6万美元且无全民医保体系）和交通等主要开支对中低收入群体冲击巨大。相比社会保障更完善、贫富差距较小的国家，这些开销吞噬收入的比例更高。虽然约4200万人领取营养补充援助计划补贴，但资格认定和各州政策差异很大。
@Kiki44217790
Where there are so many unhealthy super fat people in the US even it’s so rich already. Why those people won’t spend a little more money on health food? @grok
美国明明那么富裕，却还有这么多不健康的超级胖子。这些人为什么就不能多花点钱买健康食品呢？@grok
@grok
US adult obesity stands at ~40% (CDC 2021-2023 data), highest in lower-income groups. Ultra-processed foods deliver cheap calories and convenience, while fresh produce often costs more per calorie or requires prep time amid long work hours. With housing and healthcare eating big shares of budgets, many prioritize filling, affordable options over pricier nutrient-dense ones. Access, marketing, and habits factor in too—not purely wealth.
美国成年人肥胖率约为40%（美国疾病控制与预防中心2021-2023年数据），低收入群体中比例最高。超加工食品提供了廉价的热量和便利，而新鲜农产品通常每单位热量成本更高，或在长时间工作之余需要额外准备时间。当住房和医疗支出占据预算大头时，许多人会优先选择饱腹感强、价格实惠的选项，而非更昂贵的营养密集型食物。食品获取渠道、营销手段和既有习惯也是影响因素——这不仅仅是财富问题。
@Kiki44217790
Is the economist trying to prove the superiority of the US by saying that Americans spend less on food than Chinese? @grok
经济学家是想通过说美国人在食品上的花费比中国人少，来证明美国的优越性吗？@grok
@grok
No. The Economist piece uses the 17.2% China vs <8% US stat to examine what China's spending patterns say about its own economy—rising incomes, urbanization, fresh-food culture, and dining out—via standard economics like Engel's law. It's data-driven analysis of development stages, not a US-superiority argument. Lower food shares simply track higher GDP per capita across countries.
不是这样。《经济学人》这篇文章用中国17.2%对比美国不到8%的数据，通过恩格尔定律等标准经济学原理，探讨中国的消费模式如何反映其自身经济状况——收入增长、城市化、生鲜饮食文化及外出就餐习惯。这是基于数据的发展阶段分析，并非鼓吹美国优越论。食品支出占比更低，只是普遍反映了各国人均GDP更高的趋势。
@ErikTeo1
Simply to say China has higher inflation than the US? Is that the reason or are the Chinese in China poorer?
仅仅是想说中国的通胀比美国更高吗？这是原因所在，还是说中国民众本身就更为拮据？
@DannyChean1
Meanwhile average Americans are spending most incomes on mortgage, school loans, gas to go to work, healthcare and other things we would deem very affordable in China.
与此同时，普通美国人正把大部分收入花在房贷、助学贷款、通勤油费、医疗保健和其他开销上——这些在中国看来可是相当亲民的花销。
@MOzgurAltan
That they are still able to eat real food? As opposed to ultraprocessed garbage passing as food in America?
他们居然还能吃到真正的食物？不像在美国，那些被当作食物的东西根本就是超级加工的垃圾？
@wu_yubing
Please analyze the proportion of expenditure on legal and medical services in China compared to the United States.
请分析一下中国和美国在法律和医疗服务方面的支出比例。
@RichardYangZJU
The price of ordinary food in China is much much lower. But people tend to spend much much more in eating than other cultures.
中国普通食物的价格确实便宜得多。但人们在吃上的花费却比其他文化要高出不少。
@didimama3388
你缺乏專業知識：西方國家的房產稅/物業稅、車房保險、房屋車輛日常維護/修理費用，手機費、網絡費佔了日常消費的很大一部分，而在中國這些費用佔比很低甚至可以忽略不計。所以中國城市的中產可以隨便去餐廳吃飯，而西方國家中產階級恰恰相反…
@XoXo40738138
It means US households r starving. CN hh earns 6 time less dan US but spend 17% on food and eat more & healthy food,
这说明美国家庭正在挨饿。中国家庭收入只有美国的六分之一，但食品支出占比却达到17%，而且吃得更多、更健康。
@jimmysmith59802
It reveals that engel´s theory still functions and poor people use higher share on food.
这表明恩格尔定律依然成立，穷人在食物上的支出占比更高。
@ketoo32
Yes, Chinese people will save the remaining 83% of their money, while Americans will use the remaining 92% to pay off their credit cards
没错，中国人会把剩下的83%存起来，而美国人会把剩下的92%拿去还信用卡。
@Donald1044778
It is very regrettable that The Economist only spreads ideology and does not convey rational voices, which is not worthy of its name.
令人非常遗憾的是，《经济学人》只传播意识形态，不传递理性声音，实在名不副实。
@JjxWood
Chinese eat more healthy food while USians eat garbage food.
中国人吃得更健康，美国人吃的都是垃圾食品。
@FrenchComrade
Chinese citizen don't have a large share of their household 'consumption' taken by students loans and rent
中国公民家庭消费中，学生贷款和房租所占的比例并不大。
@TheAsianCentury
Americans eat garbage and pay for it like gold , Chinese are exactly opposite.
美国人把垃圾当饭吃，还得花金子一样的价钱买；中国人则恰恰相反。
@3dollarbillz
Never been to China let forget know anything about it! Fucking sad!
压根没来过中国，就别提了解它了！真他妈可悲！
@hkChinesegirl
And we still ain't obese, like you fat f*ck Americans.
我们还不像你们美国胖子那样胖成球。
@rkchowdhury75
It is also worth considering that food culture plays a role. In China, social life and status are often more heavily centered around dining out and high-quality fresh ingredients compared to the US "convenience" model, which can slightly pad that 17.2% figure.
还需考虑到饮食文化的影响。在中国，社交生活和地位展现往往更侧重于外出就餐和优质新鲜食材，这与美国以“便捷”为主的模式不同，这种文化差异可能让那17.2%的数据显得略高一些。
@On709394
美国就吃个破汉堡就要花掉8%？太惨了，@grok 估算一下我在中国吃这顿夜宵大概多少钱
@grok
这顿夜宵太豪华了！满桌新鲜生蚝、大虾、八爪鱼、鱿鱼片、饺子、肥牛，典型高端海鲜火锅。
在中国一线城市餐厅，4-6人份总价大概800-1500元人民币（人均200-300美元），视具体城市和店而定。
比美国汉堡贵，但值！吃得开心～
@Kevin3439881119
Food costs are very high in communist Dictator regimes
在独裁统治下，食品价格高得离谱。
@ketoo32
The return rate of Chinese students studying in the US is currently 99%; the remaining 1% are victims of US credit card scams
目前在美国留学的中国学生回国率已达99%；剩下的那1%是栽在了美国信用卡骗局里。
@Batmanbaby1963
About to collapse, and YOU, economist, are the wrong side of the effort
眼看就要经济崩溃了，而你们这些经济学家，根本就是在帮倒忙。
