There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.
And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.
Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.
Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they’re doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).
If someone has a source or refutation, I’ll click and read, but until then I’ll run with what I find.
They should clarify for themselves I guess, but by my reading they were commenting on the general topic of “unemployment metrics” rather than the specific situation in the article. If that’s the case it’d be a different discussion entirely.
I’d hope that people understand that the PRC doesn’t have a robust social safety net as it stands currently.
Did you read the article before posting?
There are descriptions of embittered and/or depressed youth. They are not describing young people so well cared for (by the state) that they are opting out.
And older family will eventually perish or cease to have the means. Something must take the place to ensure production at certain levels.
Also: fewer hours per job, with an unchanging workload would lead to more jobs. Not fewer. Unless automation, computing or improved engineering lower the overall effort.
Edit to add one more point: China is Capitalist. The land use thing is communist, but fundamentally they went capitalist decades ago. The notion that they’re doling out buckets of money to people mystifies me (building unnecessary infrastructure is a job).
If someone has a source or refutation, I’ll click and read, but until then I’ll run with what I find.
They should clarify for themselves I guess, but by my reading they were commenting on the general topic of “unemployment metrics” rather than the specific situation in the article. If that’s the case it’d be a different discussion entirely.
I’d hope that people understand that the PRC doesn’t have a robust social safety net as it stands currently.