【正文】 中包含了三行和韓國(guó)有關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)。住房和食物成本構(gòu)成了預(yù)算的一半。在所有這些非糧食項(xiàng)目中，“其他”消費(fèi)類(lèi)別，包括家具、電子設(shè)備，以及酬酢開(kāi)支，最大限度地增加了的開(kāi)支的相對(duì)水平。 表 1 表示的是調(diào)整了報(bào)告中政府低估了的住房費(fèi)用的工人家庭消費(fèi)結(jié)構(gòu)。就像他們?cè)?40 年前做的那樣。然而，在 2020 年，他們?nèi)匀粸榱讼嗤哪康模ㄖ甘称废M(fèi)）花掉不少于三分之一的總費(fèi)用。 表 1：不同工種的人的消費(fèi)水平 表 1 比較三個(gè)工作類(lèi)：藍(lán)領(lǐng)、 白領(lǐng)和勞動(dòng)者與非勞動(dòng)者的消費(fèi)水平。但是，基尼系數(shù)實(shí)際估計(jì)為 ，考慮到其中所產(chǎn)生的土地是在 1980 年代后期的資本收益 (Lee (1991))。這是為什么我們?cè)谡{(diào)查改善收入分配，結(jié)果卻懷疑。 然而，基于這些調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)的基尼系數(shù)在最近受到質(zhì)疑 (安 (1995 )、李和黃（ 1998))。農(nóng)村家庭經(jīng)濟(jì)調(diào)查顯示 （以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng) FHES） ，這是農(nóng)業(yè)部門(mén)和漁業(yè)部門(mén)每年組織的，基尼系數(shù)估計(jì)為 1967 的 和 1988 年的 。這種快速的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)只在幾個(gè)東亞國(guó)家像香港，新加坡和臺(tái)灣能夠找到。 第一個(gè)是羅爾斯特征“極大極小的原則 ” ，即，在一個(gè)給定的社會(huì)中，當(dāng)一些公民處在悲慘的生活狀態(tài)中時(shí)，這個(gè)社會(huì)的生活質(zhì)量認(rèn)定為不能令人滿(mǎn)意。改革后已經(jīng)成功減少在同一期間的收入分配不平等。 lowermiddleine countries。 Lee and Whang, 1998). These surveys were not capable of properly incorporating the unearned ines stemming from the soaring prices of land, houses, and stocks. The windfall gains from those sources occur only once or twice in life, so that people tend to regard them as “abnormal” ine, that should not be counted as ine in the social surveys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that occasional ine surveys could capture the vast amount of unearned ine, which explored in the late 1980s. This is one reason why there is a lingering doubt about the findings of improving ine distribution, even though existing. For 1988 alone, for example, the realized capital gains from land were around 20 percent of the Gross National Product (here in after the GNP), and those from the stock market added another 5 percent. The Gini coefficient of 1988, reported by the NSO, was given as . However, the Gini coefficient is actually estimated to , one the capital gains arising from land in the late 1980sare taken into account (Lee, 1991). The gains from the booming stock market in the late 1980s further raised the coefficient to , a figure that is significantly higher than what the NSO originally estimated the coefficient to be. In reality, therefore, it is highly probable that ine inequality in Korea is much higher than what is known from the governmental household surveys, and it has been worsening during the past decade. CONSUMPTION PATTERN How does the working class pare with the nonworking class in terms of what they consume on a daily basis? The present study addressed this question with the Urban Household Ine and Expenditure Surveys (hereinafter the UHIES) conducted by the NSO for the period of 1963–2020. Table IV pares the relative levels of consumption of three working classes – blue collar, white collar, and laborers – with that of nonlaborers. In addition, the table provides the Engel coefficient, ., the ratio of food consumption as a part of total consumption, for these four classes. There is no strict criterion, but often an Engel coefficient over 70 percent means “extremely poor,” and over 50 percent “poor.” According to the Engel coefficients reported in Table IV, both the working and nonworking classes were poor during the 1960s. They had to spend more than half of their living expenses on food items. In 2020, however, they were spending less than onethird of those expenses for the same purpose. Their Engel coefficients have declined to the high 20s, by as much as 50 percent over the past four decades. This indicates a remarkable improvement in the standard of livin