Recently, China's National Bureau of Statistics announced it would suspend the release of youth unemployment data. Currently, China's youth unemployment rate remains high, consistently breaking records. A substantial number of young people find themselves “unemployed upon graduation.” (Video Screenshot)
[People News Report]Recently, Professor Liang from Fudan University in Shanghai publicly suggested that after graduation, Chinese college students would need to “live off their parents for at least three years.” He explained that “living off parents” doesn’t mean simply relying on them for food and housing or becoming “full-time children.” Instead, he recommended that they, like students in Western countries, go on an extended trip between graduation and work, a concept referred to in English as a “gap year.” In his view, rather than saving millions to buy their child a house, Chinese parents should support their children in “seeking a creative life abroad,” doing “different things worldwide to discover what they like and what suits them.”
This idea seems unlikely. First, Chinese students cannot be compared to students in Western countries. Western parents receive monthly government child-raising subsidies from birth to adulthood, some of which they may save for their child’s future gap year. Even if not, adult children can work part-time and save money to travel. With welfare covering health, pensions, and unemployment, the public has fewer worries. Moreover, Western youth are known for their independence, with minimal reliance on “living off parents.” In contrast, young people in free, democratic countries tend to rely more on themselves or seek government support than on their parents.
Secondly, Professor Liang's surprising comments target Chinese college graduates urgently seeking employment. But in reality, graduates’ difficulties in finding jobs aren’t necessarily due to a lack of direction in life; it’s simply because there are few job opportunities. To put it bluntly, the economy is struggling, and jobs are scarce. Many office buildings are empty, and even essential retail sectors like restaurants and supermarkets are closing in large numbers. With business owners disappearing, where can graduates find employment?
In fact, even before the pandemic, the employment rate of Chinese college graduates was steadily declining. At that time, many overseas returnees, despite their “gold-plated” diplomas, gradually became “sea-waiters,” returning home only to remain unemployed. Now, with foreign capital withdrawing en masse and import/export business suffering, it’s hard even for Ph.D. graduates to find ideal jobs domestically unless they have close relatives in government or state-owned enterprises. Under these circumstances, can ordinary families really afford to send their children off for three years of gap travel and expect them to come back to employment?
Moreover, gap years are expensive and not just a small sum. Professor Liang mentioned “millions”—that is, the amount that enables university students to “live off parents.” But how many families in China can afford to let their children “live off parents” so freely for three years? Data on “Chinese household asset distribution” shows that only about 2.11 million households in mainland China have assets of 10 million yuan, with most located in three major first-tier cities: Guangdong (307,000 households), Beijing (306,000 households), and Shanghai (271,000 households). An additional 5.18 million households have assets reaching 6 million, but this includes “assets” such as real estate. If the property was purchased with a mortgage, the family still has debts to repay, so where would they find spare money to fund a gap year?
As for households or individuals with assets of 100 million, 2 billion, or even 10 billion yuan, their numbers total just over 140,000. In mainland China, they occupy the pinnacle of wealth and status. For these people, it’s no problem for their children to take gap years or even to emigrate, turning the whole family into members of a developed country. In the U.S., research has shown that 74.5% of children of senior Chinese officials (ministerial level and above, including retirees) hold U.S. green cards or citizenship, and among their grandchildren, over 91% are U.S. citizens.
Once overseas, especially in developed Western countries, the actions of Chinese elites and middle classes reveal a clear trend of “departing for good.” For them, Professor Liang’s advice for a gap year is also irrelevant.
China has long struggled with severe wealth inequality—essentially, there are scythes and then there’s the crop. Data has shown that although the CCP has been raising pensions annually for retirees since 2005, the average pension is still below 3,000 yuan. Those receiving 5,000 yuan or more are rare, less than 10% of recipients. Meanwhile, the 2024 Rural Pension Price Table reveals that 84% of rural pensions are below 200 yuan.
“Difficult retirement” has always been one of the mountains on Chinese people’s shoulders. For hundreds of millions of elderly, just sustaining themselves is hard, let alone supporting an unemployed young adult. Providing them with basic food and shelter is already challenging, yet Professor Liang suggests sending them abroad for a three-year gap! This statement is reminiscent of the saying, “Why don’t they eat meat porridge?” exposing the CCP’s ignorance and malice.
Historically, Emperor Hui of Jin was ignorant because he didn’t understand the people’s hardships. But today, the CCP, aware that the public is left to scrape by on practically nothing, still ignores reality and talks flippantly about people having money for homes and travel. This is sheer cruelty and evil.
The CCP is fully aware of the difficulties facing Chinese youth, including college graduates, who may or may not be able to “live off parents” and secure a livelihood. First, the government’s decision to stop publishing youth unemployment data speaks volumes. Fearing the release of these figures, the CCP implicitly acknowledges the unemployment crisis, revealing an indifference to suffering—no policies exist to provide tangible financial assistance to those in need.
Secondly, with more young people turning to murder or suicide due to joblessness or hunger, the CCP’s response has been crude and callous. In essence, it’s just bullying—using every means possible to cover up the truth, censor news, and eliminate those who uncover problems.
In truth, if the CCP were genuinely interested in improving young people’s living conditions, it wouldn’t have deployed a heavy police and military presence to maintain stability on Halloween. The CCP monitors public opinion online easily; if it hadn’t sensed growing resentment among young people, it wouldn’t have felt the need to bare its teeth, causing a stir internationally by cracking down on a holiday.
Resorting to violence invites widespread condemnation, and the CCP knows this well. It hastily seeks scapegoats to shift blame. Thus, officials or government-aligned experts making shocking or bizarre statements have become the CCP’s go-to strategy for distracting public attention.
In fact, stability measures targeting “graduates who are unemployed upon graduation” reflect the reality of their grim employment prospects and lack of security under the CCP’s rule. Professor Liang’s casual mention of “three years” suggests that these young people, already struggling to survive, would be forced to go hungry for three more years. The problem is, going hungry for even one day is unbearable—how could they endure it for three years? With the people starving, can the CCP stay in power for three more years?
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!