232

Youth unemployment in China jumps to 17.1% in July (www.voanews.com)

submitted 2 months ago by MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Youth unemployment in China ticked up to 17.1% in July, official figures showed, the highest level this year as the world's second-largest economy faces mounting headwinds.

China is battling soaring joblessness among young people, a heavily indebted property sector and intensifying trade issues with the West.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang, who is responsible for economic policy, called Friday for struggling companies to be "heard" and "their difficulties truly addressed," according to the state news agency Xinhua.

The unemployment rate among 16- to 24-year-olds released Friday by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) was up markedly from June's 13.2%.

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago

The Chinese economy has been astonishingly successful. What has it been? 4 decades of constant growth?
I must admit I was beginning to think China had found some magical golden model, and their economy had become unstoppable.
I wonder if the way they calculate unemployment rate is comparable to most western countries? If so 17.1% is surprisingly high IMO.

The closely watched metric peaked at 21.3% in June of 2023, before authorities suspended publication of the figures and later changed their methodology to exclude students.

I think most countries do this, as a students main job is considered to be studying.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

They've got from poor into a middle-economy country, trapped just like the rest of us Brazil, Argentina, Russia, India and etc by the lack of a real Democracy that will let people invest on themselves.

[-] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Argentina had a real democracy for a while. The economic problems of Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina have largely been because of foreign power involvement in both industry and politics. Both of those countries were controlled by the US during Operation Condor iirc, but that doesn't even begin to take into account the way that these countries were kept from industrialization by the high demand for ore, rubber, and food created by US and European industrialization. Brazil was considered an integral ally during WW2 by both Germany and later the US. It's not quite so simple as: democracy good... The US overthrew several democratically elected leaders including one in Argentina who was actually trying to reform workers rights and industrialize the country. Actually, that's what most of the coups America started in Latin America were started over.

Argentina itself is in a uniquely bad position. They have almost all of the population and wealth focused in Buenos Aires, but even then, the wealth disparity is massive between classes. What Argentina could really use is a leveling of the play field and ways to support the education and upbringing of its poorest citizens especially. Besides that, it's main exports are agricultural and mining products, but many resources go unexploited. It has failed to industrialize not because people can't invest in themselves but because the government has failed to invest in the people.

What did the US government do that spurred huge amounts of growth? The New Deal and the GI bill, along with the expansion of the interstate system. Investing in the people, many of them poor, just back from the war, and with little to no skill. By uplifting its worse off citizens, the country was able to secure massive economic growth.

Anyway sorry for the rant. I hope it isn't too jumbled. I just care about this.

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Sigh.

Brazil is held back because they have a tiny majority of super-rich landholders who control the political landscape, not the US.

There's a name for them, they prefer Brazil does worse if it means they get more control.

Until their political power (they control most states outside the urbanized ones) is neutralized, Brazil is doomed.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

As the GP points, it's not so simple. The landholders are not the super-rich, the super-rich are all politicians, without exception. The next tier of Brazilian riches are industrialists, and nearly all of those got everything they have by exploiting political connections.

And guess what, the successful politicians of today are all people that developed their political career during the last dictatorship or close allies of them. And if you look at party financing, media allocation, and how the electoral courts behave, the reason becomes obvious quite quickly.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 21 points 2 months ago

Too many people. Not enough jobs. Too many people not able to retire.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Lol, imagine not being a boomer and thinking you get to retire

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 18 points 2 months ago

Yeah… my retirement plans are a bullet once I get too old to pay for rent.

[+] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de -23 points 2 months ago

Wait until you're 25. Go to college for free and get a degree in something STEM. Get a career. Work your way up to a six figure salary. Contribute heavily to retirement. Retire once you get however much is enough.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 18 points 2 months ago

25 was long ago.

[+] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de -12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Well hey good news, college is still free as long as you're poor and at least 25 years old. That's how you get a federal PEL grant to break even on college. Your state probably has grants to literally pay you to go to school on top of the PEL grant since you're poor. That's how I did it.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 11 points 2 months ago

I have an education.

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

But do you have an in-demand skill?

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago

Yes

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Then why aren’t you saving for retirement?

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago

Who said I’m not? But either way, it won’t be enough by then

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

I thought that was your implication above about a bullet to the head being your retirement

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago

… right? that’s the plan since I doubt there will be resources available.

None of those retirement planner websites calculate for inflation and other things like the effects of climate change on the economy, etc.

[+] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de -9 points 2 months ago

Never too late to go back and get another degree. I'm pretty sure the federal PEL grant will pay for 2 bachelor degrees so you aren't disqualified for having already gone to school.

In other news, I don't know why there are so many haters downvoting me.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They aren’t haters. They’re down voting the boot strap boomer. I don’t need Another degree. I need companies to pay salaries that reflect inflation. I need my government to have Social Security reflect inflation. I need my government to prevent corporations and “ Investors” From purchasing all the single-family homes, driving the price up to a level where what used to be a starter home is now $500,000. And I need little shits like you to wake the fuck up. That’s why they’re down voting you.

[-] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

First of all, I'm a millennial lol.

Second of all, you're preaching to the choir, and I agree on all points. I was simply trying to give some helpful advice in the form of a way to play the game that is becoming successful in America right now as I was literally just describing how I did things because it worked for me, and it's worked for others as well.

I was poor for many years as an adult. I went to college, and I got into computer science. After 5 years in my career, I just (barely) got to a 6 figure salary at my last review. I've been putting as much as possible into retirement and living very modestly because I know there likely won't be any social security for me so I took matters into my own hands.

Oh and for the record, my company doesn't match inflation, and I'm still a renter and will probably never be able to afford a home.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 2 months ago

You’re never going to be able to retire. By the time your are ready, inflation and other nonsense will have made your money worth a fraction of its value. Even if you invest, they are not going to pay out enough to keep the value the same. Sure, you may retire at 70 with a million dollars, but that would be like having 200k now, which doesn’t allow for retirement care. And that’s assuming social security is even around.

You keep on with those hopes and dreams. It’s better to be blissfully ignorant and find out later than know the entire time you’re hosed and there’s nothing you can do about it, because the system doesn’t want you.

[-] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm aiming for $1,000,000 by 50 to retire actually. I've got no clue if I'll pull it off, but this site seems to think so: https://networthify.com/calculator/earlyretirement

I'll honestly probably be dead by 70 anyways due to health reasons so even if I don't hit that goal, I'm probably just going to retire anyways and yolo it

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago

This is a very optimistic outlook! Enjoy it while it lasts.

[-] claudiop@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Did you even consider that your formula doesn't even work for 90% of people? 6 figure salaries are a US thing, everywhere else you get taxes to pay for irrelevant shit like health. Part of those taxes are for retirement. Those are not optional and scale with the salary from like 10% if you're poor to like 70% if you're rich.

At whatever age retirement is, you get a payout that's (not linearly) proportional to how much you paid in taxes. That's the whole of Europe. Probably more complicated or anarchic elsewhere.

Even with a top 5% salary, you're not going to pile up all that much.

The problem is not this scheme. Is that there are not enough young people to support the elderly.

Also a curiosity about Portugal: A lot of people are starting to lie about not having a degree when they do so that they can get shit jobs more easily. Too many degrees around. (Most people go to college, even if they fail)

[-] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 months ago

I guess I just assumed OP was in America since their retirement plan is a bullet to the head, which is a distinctly American joke since most other countries don't seem to make retirement such an impossibility.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago

Imagine a world where the people rose up against all governments at once.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 2 months ago

Stop, you’re getting me excited.

[-] Magister@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

And also no women for a lot of young men. Only way is to put all those young unemployed men in the army, and start a war somewhere, Taiwan first. Unfortunate...

[-] TwinTusks@bitforged.space 7 points 2 months ago

Women is a touchy topic, it is well understand that there's surplus of women in urban cities while there's a shortage in rural areas.

[-] mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Yep! There's a surplus of educated women, who are too educated / accomplished in their careers to want to marry uneducated rural men. And many of them also deferred marriage for their education and career and thus became a bit too old to bear children. All of this just exacerbates the male to female ratio problem in China, which is also a huge problem for China's demographics.

China is going to shrink in population, Japan, Korea, Taiwan also have these problems.

[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Almost all non-african countries are projected to shrink or plateau in population by 2100, according to UN estimates. (These estimates cannot account for the unexpected, obviously.)

Image shamelessly stole from: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1evz9a7/oc_un_prediction_for_most_populous_countries_eu/

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 0 points 2 months ago

They’ll probably force women to marry at some point.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

When I read the headline, I thought they meant actual youth. Like 7 year olds. Not 20 year olds...

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I did, too. I thought this metric was a good thing. Like, "oh good, China is addressing their child labor problem."

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz -2 points 2 months ago

Let it rot

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024

232 points (96.8% liked)

World News

38936 readers

2090 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.