[1_800_UNICORN]

Very interesting article, but I was disappointed that the article stated that the millenial only-children of China are "outspoken", "pampered", or "self-centered".

I don't believe that any of those terms apply to people who are fighting against working 72 hours per week for low pay. This is a case of basic human rights. The words that come to mind to describe the folks who are fighting this fight are "proud", "resilient", and "hard-working".

[Sangermaine]

It's nice to see that however much America and China might be at odds, they can apparently agree on attacking their young people as lazy and entitled.

[aurailious]

"Millennials are now killing the Chinese manufacturing industry!"

[onlywei]

The word "millenials" as a classification is not used in China. Everyone gets classified instead as 80后，90后，00后， etc. (meaning born after 1980, born after 1990, born after 2000, etc.). Because of China's rapid economic growth, the difference in attitudes for someone born in the 80s versus someone born in the 90s is actually very pronounced.

[freehunter]

I know nothing about China or how pronounced these differences are, but you see the same thing even in the "Millennial" generation everyone loves to talk about here in the US. You'll find a drastic difference between younger Millennials and older Millennials, to the point where Buzzfeed is writing articles comparing the two. No matter how much people want to pretend that "Millennial" is actually a real thing, it's not. It's entirely made up and the sub-generations inside of the category share very different cultural values and life experiences.

It's hard to argue that someone born in 1982 shares much (if anything) in common with someone born in 1998.

[jeffreyrogers]

I think social scientists are now making a distinction between people who grew up with smartphone and without them. There are apparently quite large differences in behaviors and attitudes between these two groups of young people.

[NeoBasilisk]

Compared to someone born in 1950 or 2020, you have a whole lot in common.

[freehunter]

Compared to someone born in 1810, someone born in 2020 and 1950 have a lot in common. Compared to someone born in 1215, someone born in 2020 and 1810 have a lot in common. It still doesn't make much sense to lump them together and generalize their behaviors.

[woolvalley]

It's like metric vs imperial measurements for generations.

[RandomTisk]

Care to elaborate? Does one look down on the other?

[tribune]

A human universal!

http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html

[njarboe]

What is universal, evidently, is confirmation bias. From the linked page, "the quotation is spurious."

I clicked on the link expecting the Socrates quote and was not disappointed. But, if you read the page through to the end, it seems that this quote was made up in by William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson and published in "Personality and Adjustment, p. 277" in 1953. It was popularized in the 1960's to trivialize complaints by the older generation against the hippies. I have believed for a long time that this was a true quote from ancient Greece and it has shaped my world view. I have used this quote in many conversations and I still am hoping the quote is authentically from ancient Greece. I'll have to poke around the internet some to convince myself one way or another.

[campground]

There were a number of similar quotes in a recent review of Bruce Cannon Gibney’s book on Boomers:

‘And way, way before that, a letter published in a 1771 issue of Town and Country manages to sound laughably familiar, in sentiment at least: “Whither are the manly vigour and athletic appearance of our forefathers flown? Can these be their legitimate heirs? Surely, no; a race of effeminate, self-admiring, emaciated fribbles can never have descended in a direct line from the heroes of Potiers and Agincourt.”’

[jessaustin]

Eh, whenever they have to rewind 400 years, it's a reach. It's actually fairly likely that "heroes" from battles so long ago have no living issue.

[tribune]

...oh. Forgive me for not reading my own link too thoroughly. Maybe it's not so universal then!

[pizza]

Though that quote in particular is attributable to Kenneth John Freeman's 1907 dissertation at Cambridge University, rather than Socrates (as it is often attributed).

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-childre...

[cwbrandsma]

it is a right of passage for each generation. In your 20s you are called lazy and entitled, then in your 40s-60s you say the same to people in their 20s.

[ben509]

Not quite, we didn't have social media when I was growing up, so we got it from lazy, smug magazine articles. Now you have memes that are equally unfair, but with highly evolved hilarity. And, of course, I'm just on the edge of Gen X while my brother is a millennial, so fairness be damned, you're all whiny hipster SJWs snacking on Tide pods.

[mywittyname]

China and the USA share a many values. I think in many ways, China in the USA are more closely aligned vis-a-vis values than the USA and Western Europe are.

[stcredzero]

As standards of living and society itself improves, dire necessity decreases, and the proportion of the population motivated by necessity decreases. As general wealth increases, the more the general populace feels entitled.

Right now, you may well feel more or less entitled to a flush toilet and the ability to access all of the world's information in your pocket. In years past, these things were luxuries. Most of you reading this: Almost everything in your sight was once a luxury.

So here's the thing: You are lazy and entitled. That is both a good and bad thing. It's good, because it shows we have made progress. It's good, because you now have the time and resources to do something positive. Where it's bad, is that you also have the choice to do something positive with those time and resources, or not. Where it's bad, is that you will have a harder time understanding the magnitude of the sacrifices that got us where we are.

Your choice. It's up to you now.

[internetman55]

Whether those things are true or not, I'm always wary when employers or managers or things from their perspective use words like "outspoken", "pampered", "self-centered". If you subject your other employees to ridiculous nonsense overtime, poor direction, and expect them to make up for it with extra unpaid hours and killing themselves but I think that I could easily get another job and have a huge nest egg because I live with my parents, I can refuse to "play ball". But I'm not really sure that's me being self-centered versus market forces acting normally. It reminds me of the "nice guy" phenomenon where stereotypically unkempt, rude, socially inept men berate women for not wanting to date them and then accuse them of being rude or stuck-up for not accepting their advances. It's not rude and I don't really view myself as self-centered, I just don't think that you're offering anything that I need from you, and it's really self-centered for you to expect me to randomly go against my own interests for your sake in a business setting.

[avcdsuia]

Collectivism is hard coded in Chinese public education, kids are encouraged to hard work and make dedications to their native land in schools. The gov make idols to worship like Jiao Yulu(焦裕禄) way before this working overtime issue (and Jiao died from overwork and liver disease) and making tv shows Touching China，a mandatory learning section for middle school students. With this premise it's not odd to me that criticizes are made.

[stcredzero]

Here's what my Chinese wife says about all that. People go to a monthly meeting. You hear a "sermon" and sing some patriotic songs. Then people go on with their lives. Not everyone who goes to church necessarily really believes. Not everyone necessarily believed even in the 1800s.

That said, the social/theocratic hegemony of western Christianity wasn't all good, but it also wasn't all bad. The same probably goes for the secular ideological "religion" you see in communist countries.

[supertiger]

I grew up in China. What 'monthly meeting' (where 'you hear a "sermon" and sing some patriotic songs') is your wife talking about? That sounds bizarre

[stcredzero]

She's from Fujian. It was some kind of communist party community meeting.

[seanmcdirmid]

Careful with generalizing. Southerners, and very especially Fujianese, are less patriotic than Chinese in other parts of China, especially the north.

[sho]

> Careful with generalizing

Well, indeed. In my experience it varies very widely and pretty much follows the pattern you see everywhere else - intelligent, curious people with good job options tend to be less concerned with patriotism; the less fortunate find solace in it.

The most loudly and irrationally patriotic chinese person I know is from guangzhou. Still wants to move away though of course, what's a little cognitive dissonance between friends?

[virtuabhi]

Careful with generalizing. Esp. with southerners in one bin, and northerners in the other bin.

[sho]

That sounds like a meeting for party members, often people (or the families of people) angling for local government jobs. Of course there'll be some True Believers but the subtext is it's basically a networking event.

So yes, definitely like Church ;)

[wollw]

I find something ironic about this, but of course it's unfortunately true. Until last year my "Church" experience was mostly on and off spending time at a Buddhist monastery which was more about taking part in an isolated community and retreating from the world. Wanting to find something similar I started going to the local Anglican Church and being the studious kind of person I am decided to read the Book of Common Prayer, which includes the Articles of Religion[1] and in particular Articles XIII and XIV: Of Works before Justification & Of Works of Supererogation respectively. My understanding of it is that doing more work than needed is basically a Sin. Funny that until the mid-1800s these Articles were required for University students in Britain (and before Sir Isaac Newton students were I believe required to Ordain into the Church before Graduation). Part of me wishes they would make a come back.

[1] http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

  XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.
  Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation,
  cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare,
  that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do,
  but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required:
  whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you,
  say, We are unprofitable servants.

[sho]

Oh it's definitely true. To the extent that I, an atheist with a long history of moving or being moved to random cities in which I know basically no-one, have seriously considered going to church there - just to get some social interaction and maybe even friends in a self-selecting group of vaguely judeo-christian tradition, active, gregarious people who might even be interested in bettering themselves, philosophy and making the world a better place. Damn, I'm talking myself into it again.

And that's an interesting quote. Perhaps that rule would be better reinstated.

[stcredzero]

My wife's dad is supposed to be quite patriotic. I think he's connected. (She's the youngest of 6 sisters. Note the policy implications.)

[josefresco]

The comment about how they are outspoken and pampered was a general statement about the generation, not a reaction to them wanting better working conditions/wages. The mention of "self-centered" was a direct quote.

I do agree however that the author should have been more careful with their choice of words.

[thisisit]

I think each generation thinks the next one is the worse. I just hope these guys are not treated unfairly at their workplace.

Couple of years ago, I had raised staying late in office as a big concern at my workplace. My manager told me a story about how his daughter will not eat certain food items. He said he would killed to have those food in his plate. But now, he has to strong arm his daughter into finishing her plate. Next thing I know I am rated as a under-performer because I don't "stretch" enough hours like rest of the team.

[stcredzero]

My manager told me a story about how his daughter will not eat certain food items. He said he would killed to have those food in his plate. But now, he has to strong arm his daughter into finishing her plate

My mother told me something similar about never having enough mung bean sprouts.

[googletazer]

I had the same type of imbecile as a manager. You are not alone Im afraid

[ekianjo]

> This is a case of basic human rights.

There's no such things as "human rights standards" for how much you should work per week. For most of human history people lived in abject misery and precariousness and in comparison 72 hours a week and most folks having all the comfort of modern city life is not as bad as it sounds like.

[harryh]

You're getting downvoted to hell, but FWIW I basically agree with you. This isn't really about rights but about economics. China used to be quite poor. So, on average, the Chinese people had to work pretty hard to raise their standard of living.

But as China has gotten richer it's only natural that Chinese citizens will want to convert some of their hard earned wealth into more leisure time instead of more physical goods so average hours worked per week will tend to decline.

The same sort of thing happened in America and elsewhere.

[pdimitar]

Call me stupid but I cannot see how you are agreeing with your parent comment. It basically states "don't complain and get back to work", and you basically said it's normal for people to want their hard work to pay off and are thus pushing back against insane working schedules.

I don't see the connection, help me here.

[harryh]

I was agreeing with this part:

"There's no such things as "human rights standards" for how much you should work per week."

A 40 hour work week isn't (in my view) a "human right" in the way that life, liberty and property are rights. It's an exchange of time/work for money. People can choose to work a lot or work a little depending on how they value their time vs their leisure.

[pdimitar]

I believe the assertion about basic human rights is rooted more in research about maximum "productive" hours a day/week. Scientists have proven that hunter-gatherer tribes work anywhere between 10 to 20h a week and are doing just fine.

The 40h a week is pretty artificial default that has been imposed on most of the people by business interests. That's how I view it historically at least.

So we might not agree on slippery terms like "basic human rights" but modern phenomena as burnout and work depression are pretty widespread already and can thus serve as an example as to how the current workload standards might be broken.

[icebraining]

As far as I know, the 40h/week was pushed by unions, not business interests (those wanted more).

[watwut]

Yeah, people in the past were tortured for being witches, therefore there are no human rights today and everyone should shut up about criminal reform. It is not that bad, since someone else had it worst, so stop talking and trying to change things.

Past excesses are how we got to current "human rights standards". Also, rationally, good feeling from being tough on those entitled lazies should not be reason to stop discussion about whether such schedule is reasonable.

[danharaj]

There were periods in medieval history when a typical peasant only worked ~150 days out of the year.

While you are right that life was difficult, your sense of the past is warped to the point of caricature.

[endtime]

I'm sure it's possible to work 150 days a year now if you are okay with that standard of living.

[tzahola]

True.

However, the rest of the time was spent with military duty (feudal levy), preparing/preserving food, collecting firewood, takig care of livestock and general homesteading like repairing your mudbrick house.

[ekianjo]

yeah and they had nothing to eat at all some years if the harvest was bad, and no medical care and most people died in their 30s. So, which scenario do you prefer?

[danharaj]

Ok, so now you're making an observation about medicine instead of hours of work. What exactly is your point here? Things are better now than they were in the past, so there's no reason why they should be better?

[ekianjo]

I mentioned harvests which have nothing to do with medicine. I know we don't suffer from famines nowadays but this was a real thing before.

[cdelsolar]

most people didn't die in their 30s, if you could make it through childhood you'd usually live to your 60s/70s.

[xvf22]

Care to provide a citation or clarify the period you're referring to?

[cdelsolar]

Citation: common knowledge of much higher infant mortality rates throughout history + the intricacies of the mathematical mean

[GW150914]

You’re not wrong, but for most of human history I could declare that you offended me and challenge you to fight to the death. “Most of human history” is a bad standard and is essentially hypocritical to raise selectively. People don’t compare their lives to those of ancient barbarians, they look around themselves today and they look to the future. Few people will be convinced by the argument that they have it better than a serf who died at 30, or s hunter-gatherer.

[stronglikedan]

> I could declare that you offended me and challenge you to fight to the death.

You still can, but not death in the sense of your target ceasing to breathe, rather the death of everything they've worked for in life being violently ripped out from under them, such as their careers, by the court of public opinion. Still sad when it happens though.

[ekianjo]

> “Most of human history” is a bad standard and is essentially hypocritical to raise selectively.

I made that point because someone referred to "human rights" when it comes to working hours. There is just no such thing and there has never been.

[watwut]

Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

[lovich]

There's no such thing as "human rights" in general by that standard. You can't point to a physical object or some quantum of energy and say, that's a human right that you can measure. Human rights are something we decide on as a society, and if society decides that there is a human right to a set amount of working hours, then it becomes a human right.

The argument that there never has been such a thing is basically arguing that we should stop all progress. That nothing that doesn't already exist should ever be created

[bjourne]

That's a myth. For most of human history, "working" 10-12 hours/week used to be the norm. There are still isolated tribes living as hunter gatherers and they are far from miserable!

[nerfhammer]

It's been pointed out that hunter gathers worked a lot less than modern humans do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

Only after developing agriculture do societies start having 12 hours a day of work

[mywittyname]

Not only that, but "work" was often fun back then. These people were basically doing for work what people today do for fun: hunting, crafting, cooking, exercising, etc.

[s73v3r_]

Yes it is. What good are all those comforts of modern city life if you never have time to enjoy them?

[emodendroket]

In ancient cultures it was considered normal to leave a baby to die if you didn't want to raise it. Should we bring that back too?

[AndrewUnmuted]

That’s a bit of a false equivalency, isn’t it?

Besides, modern times have allowed us to avoid raising children if we don’t want to. We just don’t have to wait until the baby is a fully formed human and born from its mother’s womb to make that decision. In practice it may feel better to do it that way, but the basic effects are the same.

[edflsafoiewq]

Abortion serves, in modern society, essentially the same function as abandonment.

[emodendroket]

Our law does not consider those things equivalent and I bet if you went around and asked many people would not consider that equivalent either.

[edflsafoiewq]

Naturally a society which practices abortion but not abandonment would think so. But in both cases the function is essentially to provide a mechanism for infanticide to a society in which infanticide is prohibited (or rather, abhorred). There is a rationalization (for us, that the fetus isn't a child; for them, that the child is not actually killed, its life being turned over to the gods or to fate) but the rationalization is secondary to the fact that the act leaves the parent within, or on the border of, the normal workings of society instead of outside them altogether.

[emodendroket]

I don't agree, but I think my argument would work equally well if we took the example of being born into slavery.

[freehunter]

Or adoption. Or I mean... it's not like people don't still abandon their babies if they really want to.

[philwelch]

You can even avoid legal consequences by abandoning them at a fire station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

[emodendroket]

Yes, but in the Roman world they left them at trash dumps and if they didn't simply die of exposure they were free for anyone to take as slaves. So I think we're still doing a bit better.

[emodendroket]

So... you're saying that society provides a more humane option so that we no longer leave children to die of exposure. Unlike in the past.

[taurath]

All those adjectives are always applied in relative terms, and aren’t any universal standard!

[mc32]

I think one has to contrast that with the historical conditions for workers (even in a socialist country) as well as the differences between sweatshop factories versus white collar workers. My take is while the sweatshop workers are the ones putting in extraordinary hours, it’s the white collar workers fighting against useless overtime pretend work in offices.