Slashdot Mirror


Young Chinese Are Sick of Working Long Hours (bbc.com)

Young professionals in China are pushing back against employers who expect them to work around the clock, saying no to the decades old "rule of 996" -- working from 9am to 9pm six days a week. From a report: At the forefront are millennials who are often better educated, more aware of their rights and more interested in finding something fulfilling than the previous generation. And as only children (China's one-child policy wasn't eased until 2015), they are also outspoken and pampered. "In my experience young people, especially the post-90s generation, are reluctant to work overtime -- they are more self-centered," says labour rights expert Li Jupeng, one of many who have observed some millennials challenging the 996 concept.

The relative affluence of their parents and grandparents is part of the reason. China's rapid economic transformation has given rise to a sizeable middle class, with almost 70% of the country's urban population making between $9,000 and $34,000 annually in 2012. In 2000, that figure was just 4%. As only children, millennials are receiving a lot of support from their families -- including a financial safety net should their careers not go as planned. Although their options for pushing back are limited, some are no longer willing to put in long hours for a meagre paycheck.

18 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Cue idiotic millenial jokes in 3,2,1... by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amazing how each generation thinks the one that follows it are a bunch of losers for wanting something different than what their parents want.

    Nobody likes being forced to work long hours. China's economy is getting to the point where a lot of Chinese finally have a choice in the matter. That's a good thing.

    1. Re:Cue idiotic millenial jokes in 3,2,1... by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. A company can't possibly expect to get maximum output out of their employees while working them to death, furthermore, in a civilized society an employee has every right to personal time and a life. In case you are being serious, all way that it's really funny how the explanation for high executive salaries is that they are taking all the risk and making all the important decisions, yet when the company fails it is the WORKER'S fault? Give me a fucking break.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: Cue idiotic millenial jokes in 3,2,1... by ranton · · Score: 3, Informative

      a new fangled 401ks that I realize I need a financial professional to help manage to get ROI

      As an FYI, just pick the lowest fee S&P tracking fund you can find. All paid advice just costs you money in fees and doesn't help. It is arguably a little better if you spread it among low fee high cap, mid cap, small cap, and international index funds (I currently have a 50%, 25%, 15%, 10% in one fund from each category).

      Also ignore the advice that you should have 100 minus age percent of your 401k in stocks (and the rest in bonds). That rule is becoming closer to 125 minus age today. For example the three largest target date funds (Fidelity, Vanguard, T Row Price) range between 75%-85% in stocks for 50 year old investors. I personally advocate 100% stock until at least 45 (I don't plan on going below 100% until age 50, unless we happen to be in a downturn then).

      You don't really need much more advice than this to do well with your 401k. Barring a major societal collapse that makes the Great Depression look like a bull market, you will make a great ROI just following index funds.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re: Cue idiotic millenial jokes in 3,2,1... by Bryansix · · Score: 2

      VTI has lower fees and diversifies better than the S&P.

  2. They need an union! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    They need an union!

    1. Re:They need an union! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      There was a time when even if everyone worked flat out 24/7 there still wouldn't be enough food and other basic necessities: lots of people were going to have to go hungry and many people were even going have to starve.

      But now we have enough farming and manufacturing technology that we can produce enough for everyone in the world to have enough basic necessities to live simply but comfortably. And that's just if the working age population is willing to do an honest 40 hour week - no need for overtime.

      So the fact that somewhere around 20,000 children a day die of poverty is about scarcity, per se, it's about distribution. And part of that distribution is geographical - getting food from where it's produced to where it's needed. But most of the distribution problem is between the ordinary people and the rulers. If most of the economy is producing frivolous luxury items for the rulers then there's not going to be enough basic necessities for everyone else.

      In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln talked about having a government of, by, and for the (ordinary) people. It's good for people to cooperate, to make collective decisions, and to have leaders. But the leaders (presidents, CEOs, middle managers, team leads, etc,) all need to be constrained to use their power for the benefit of the ordinary people rather than themselves. It's fundamental a problem of enforcing fiduciary responsibility - not using the power you've been granted for your own personal gain.

      Just the other day, there was the discussion around the confirmation of Gina Haspell for CIA director on whether it's OK for the US government to torture people in secret at the personal discretion of a few of its high level leaders. Well, the thing is, ordinary people need as much power as they can get to try to keep their leaders in line - using the power they've been granted for the benefit of the ordinary people. But if the leaders can just torture people in secret at will. Well, that really tips the balance of power far in favor of the leaders.

      As Deng Xiaoping noted, it doesn't matter whether the cat os black or white as long as it catches mice. It's not about communism or capitalism, per se. It's about whether the ordinary people have enough power to force their leaders to use the power they've been granted for the benefit of the ordinary people. Because, when that happens, you end up with a country like Denmark - where poverty is a solved problem and no one has to work overtime out of economic necessity and where it ranks right up at the top in terms of happiness of ordinary people.

      Good luck to the ordinary people of China! I hope they can find a way to keep the rich and powerful people in their country in line - providing a simple comfortable life for everyone without having to work overtime.

  3. Self-centered? by JD-1027 · · Score: 2

    "...young people, especially the post-90s generation, are reluctant to work overtime -- they are more self-centered," says labour rights expert Li Jupeng

    Not wanting to work overtime is considered self centered? China will thrive even more with young people that finally understand that life is much more than your job.

  4. Re: Definition of capitalism by Immerman · · Score: 2

    The rich don't risk starvation if a risk fails. In fact they can generally suffer several back-to-back failures and still afford that globe-trotting vacation they had been eyeing.

    Risk diversification is risk reduction - and only the rich can afford it.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  5. Doing what? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    Seriously - wtf is there to do for 12 hours per day 6 days a week? If they were digging in mines, ok, I could see that, though with the physical nature of it, they'd probably be better off getting more rest. Or is just fill-a-seat type "work"?

    1. Re:Doing what? by tigersha · · Score: 2

      You have a link to such a video? Would love to see it.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  6. Re:Oh quit complaining by Powys · · Score: 2

    There is no I in TEAM but there is an M and an E

  7. Re: Definition of capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The rich can *literally afford* to take risks because they're entirely *financial risks*, not risks that affect necessities like food, housing, medical care, etc. That argument is and always has been garbage. A certain portion of finances directly translate to necessities. Everything over that give you more advantage to take risks because you have more opportunities to fail and inevitably more opportunities to succeed.

    Once you have a certain amount of wealth tucked away to assure you'll eat and won't be miserable your entire life, the rest of your assets can become, essentially, monopoly money. You may win or may lose but you'll still have an enjoyable life. It could be a lot more enjoyable (yachts, supercars, etc.) or medicore (average luxury car, small boat, etc.).

    Your average person can't do that or they may not have a home, they or their kids may go hungry, they may forgo necessary medical care, etc. Risk aversion is not a valid argument unless the playing field starts the same way.

  8. Good luck to them by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    8 hours work, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest. My grandfather bled for this so Mr. Project Manager can go fuck himself for his overtime. May they have a better time than we did with our labor-owner relations. The pinkertons, the homestead strike, the Colorado Labor Wars, company script, blacklists, strikebreakers, infiltrators, massacre. Least we forget.

  9. Re:Entitled by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    The parents of "typical millennials" worked 40 hours a week.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  10. better educated, more aware of their rights by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, the "40 hour" week was formalized in the US by uneducated line workers many of whom could barely read. It doesn't take a half a life time of education debt to grasp the concept. These attitudes are emerging in China because the demand for workers is high enough that workers have leverage, not because they have degrees.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  11. Asses in seats doesn't equal work anyhow. by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I ran a development team, I soon learned you have to police people who develop the habit of spending long, non-productive hours at work. These people are not the high performers.

    I'm not talking about flow sessions where someone spends twelve or even eighteen hours without realizing the time is passing -- that exploits a natural behavior of brains when they're fully engaged. I'm talking about people frittering away hours dancing around work without doing it. Keeping your ass in the chair longer is a way for a lazy person to convince himself he's a hard worker.

    Nobody can give their best for seventy hours a week, week in and week out. It's a challenge getting peak effort out of people working forty hours a week. Routine long hours are often a sign of lack of management planning and vigilance.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Asses in seats doesn't equal work anyhow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. Long hours generally tend to work well for light/moderate physical labour or repetitive tasks. Essentially these are jobs where you can turn off your brain and let muscle memory take care of things. Time flies when you are not even there. When performing more cognitive tasks the number of hours you can work continuously goes down drastically with complexity. At the end of the day mental exhaustion sets in, you lose focus and make mistake after mistake.

      Based on hours worked you appear productive but in reality you are just wasting time.

  12. Re:Globally good news! by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't get to 99% if you ditch that stuff, though. And really, people not wanting to be subject to harsher treatment by the police due to the color of their skin doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.