• skip0110@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    17 hours ago

    …scrape by on minimal consumption. It’s a dark, sobering self-portrait of a generation…

    Consumption != Happiness

    The author channels a viewpoint of the government…if people can be happy and fulfilled without contributing to GDP, that’s “dark, sobering.” It’s bad news for government planning but not necessarily bad for the people.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      if people can be happy and fulfilled

      Except a lot of them aren’t happy and fulfilled, they’re opting out for the same reasons young people in the US are:

      they can’t afford homes, can’t find decent jobs, and don’t see a future worth bringing children into.

      That’s not “happy and fulfilled outside the rat race”, especially since they’re solution is closer to hikikomoris. They’re not out there building self-sufficient communes.

      • skip0110@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 hours ago

        If they need social systems to support them, I am all for that (its good regardless, and I’m not in China so I have very little voice for them/understanding of what is available)

        But the article just presents the authors editorialized view, which is from a government planning perspective, not from the perspective of what is good for these young people (or what they think would benefit them). So I take with a grain of salt the authors judgement of their choices, satisfaction, or opinion of what is “right” for them.