Category: curse

  • When China put an end to the grueling lockdowns, mass testing and compulsory quarantines of the zero-COVID era, most people were hoping life would get back to normal. 

    But a local government debt crisis, weak domestic demand and the collapse of property prices have left the economy in poor shape. At the same time, unemployment among young people has hit a five-year high. 

    According to official data released in April, 20.4% of job seekers between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed. 

    Added to all of that, there is the “Curse of 35.” 

    Recruitment ads these days often call for candidates under 35, and the age barrier has become yet another ceiling on the aspirations of people who only want the chance to make a living. 

    The current labor market also makes it much harder for people who want to settle down and start a family

    Uncompensated OT

    Age discrimination has been worsening in China for some time now, as companies seek younger employees willing to work large amounts of uncompensated overtime under the 996 system — working from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m., Monday to Saturday.

    Much of the demand for excessive overtime comes from the tech sector, according to a 39-year-old former Huawei employee who gave only the nickname Emma, for fear of reprisals.

    “The internet industry has developed rapidly in mainland China over the past 10 years,” she said. “It’s an industry that has heavy overtime requirements, so it often discriminates against older people.” 

    ENG_CHN_WorkplaceAgeism_07052023_02.jpg
    Job seekers at a job fair booth in Wuhan, Hubei province, Feb. 9, 2023. According to official data released in April, 20.4% of job seekers between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed in China. Credit: CNS Photo via Reuters

    That includes global tech giants like Huawei, where she used to work.

    “Shortly after I started working there, Huawei would regularly lay off older employees,” Emma said.

    But the “Curse of 35” only started to become widely noticeable in recent years, as economic growth has slowed, she said.

    “Age discrimination in the job market is now very severe, and there are also various kinds of invisible discrimination at work, such as assumptions about whether you plan to marry and have kids,” Emma said.

    This means that many young people are afraid to leave jobs once they have them, for fear of never finding another.

    Civil service exams

    A 34-year-old employee of a culture-related state-owned enterprise who gave only the surname Chen said he counts himself among their number.   

    “I’ve managed to hang onto this job for five years, and I haven’t once thought about jumping ship,” Chen said. “The labor market has gotten much tougher due to the pandemic, and I’m also nearly 35, nearly at that threshold, and I’ll be much less able to compete within it.” 

    “I’ve seen that a lot of companies basically want to hire young people, fresh graduates, or people with a few years’ experience,” he said. “A lot of my friends are in a similar situation.”

    Chen agrees that 35 has become something of a magic number in the labor market because it’s the upper age limit for candidates wanting to sit exams to enter the civil service, thereby gaining a foothold in “the system” of Communist Party officialdom, which offers healthcare, a pension and which can lead to wealth and power

    Anyone under that age still has this option open to them, so employees under the age of 35 can still view the civil service as a backup plan, in case they can’t stand their jobs any more. As soon as they hit 35, that option is no longer there, he said.

    Companies know this too, so the threshold affects what they are willing to pay younger employees. 

    “I have friends who have gone for interviews at this age, and their salaries have basically been cut in half,” Chen said.

    Chen, who describes his job as “labor-intensive,” is competing with people just out of college, who have far more strength and resilience than older employees can offer.   

    “Basically, all of the professional knowledge and management experience that someone of 35 has been able to accumulate isn’t valued at all,” he said.  “Younger people who are new to the labor market can put in more hours, so companies prefer to hire them.”

    Marriage and family?

    When work is that precarious, it’s hard to even think about starting a family, Chen said.   

    “Insecure work means an unstable income, and worse prospects for the future,” he said. “This means that marriage and children are off the agenda.” 

    ENG_CHN_WorkplaceAgeism_07052023_03.jpg
    A young woman is silhouetted near a ferry boat at a lake in Hangzhou in eastern China’s Zhejiang province, June 26, 2023. Credit: Ng Han Guan/AP

    The worries about ageism in the Chinese workplace are leading many young people to “run” to the United States in search of jobs.

    A 25-year-old Seattle-based student who gave only the surname Wang said she wants to stay in the United States after graduation because she fears being discriminated against in the Chinese job market. 

    “I heard a lot of stories about age discrimination [in China] after I graduated college, even though I was only 22 at the time,” Wang said. “For example, internet companies undergo optimization of the workforce, which means layoffs, once they reach 35.”   

    “Originally, I wanted to apply to the civil service or government agencies, but some positions state very clearly that there are upper age limits of 25 or 30 years old,” she said. “And as a woman, I felt the problem of age discrimination was even more acute.” 

    “I chose to study and work in the United States because I didn’t want to be discriminated against and I wanted a healthier work environment,” Wang said.

    Weak labor laws

    High unemployment and weak labor laws are also to blame for ageism, she said.

    “With such a large population, China has an oversupply of labor,” she said. “And demand for labor has fallen, particularly during the pandemic, when the economy slowed.” 

    “That has led to a basic lack of respect for workers, because there is a never-ending stream of younger people waiting to replace workers over 35,” she said. “[There is also] a lack of legal channels through which employees can defend their rights and interests,” 

    “When they are discriminated against, they often have to swallow their anger and put up with it,” Wang said.

    A 37-year-old job-seeker from the eastern city of Hangzhou who gave only the surname Ge, said he has been through this himself.  

    “I was unemployed for a time at the end of 2021, which was still during the zero-COVID policy,” he said. “The first issue I faced was my age.” 

    Ge said he was told point-blank by human resources departments that this was a factor working against his application.

    “They also weren’t shy about asking me about my financial situation, whether or not I had a mortgage, and whether or not having a family life was in the cards,” he said.

    Cheaper and easier

    But why do Chinese employers prefer fresh graduates over experienced employees? 

    Hua Haifeng, an investigator with the U.S.-based rights group China Labor Watch, said it’s because they are cheaper and easier to manage. 

    “They may not be able to pay [people over 35] what they need, and young people are more manageable because of their lack of experience,” Hua said. “Especially when it comes to regular jobs in industries like manufacturing — they are far more likely to hire younger people,” he said. 

    He said employers are able to pick and choose due to high unemployment rates and the economic downturn.  

    “Problems like this did occur before, but there were more jobs back then, and [ageist discrimination] has become far more obvious now,” Hua said. “There used to be far greater demand for labor, and companies couldn’t afford to be too picky, or to place too many limits on their workforce.” 

    Independent economist Qin Weiping said the structural changes are affecting people’s plans to marry and raise children, a key aim of the ruling Chinese Communist Party amid an aging and shrinking population. 

    “Young people under the age of 35 are easier to manage because they lack social experience and it’s easier for companies to force them to work overtime,” Qin said.

    Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Additional reporting by Sun Cheng, Wang Yun, and Kai Di. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Jenny Tang for RFA Mandarin.

  • Image of electric swirls.

    Image by Gertrūda Valasevičiūtė.

    Sometime back in 2008 I was having a conversation with an FBI agent. This is not something I would normally care to do, but in this case it was a family member—my half-brother, who is fourteen years older than me. We didn’t grow up together and have never particularly liked each other, and his wife and I share an intense mutual loathing, but at the time I was making an effort to be more present in the lives of their two young daughters, my nieces.

    We were sitting in the living room of their home in Simi Valley, where cops move so they don’t have to live in L.A. with real people. The tedious babble of a televised football game was droning in the background. Following a thread of conversation I’ve long since forgotten, we somehow got onto to the topic of theft and morality. My brother said to me—and this is an exact quote—Are you one of those people who thinks it’s wrong to steal from a mom & pop store, but it’s okay to steal from Wal-Mart because it’s a big corporation?

    Sensing my time to shine, I replied as follows: in order for me to believe that it would be “stealing” to take something from Wal-Mart without paying for it, I would first have to believe that Wal-Mart is capable of owning something. I don’t.

    He was immediately confused. I continued.

    In my view, you must have consciousness and will in order to own something. Wal-Mart has neither of those things; it is a construct. It may have stores and employees, managers and board members, but essentially it’s a legal fiction—a synthetic entity. Wal-Mart really only exists on paper, and it’s only because of consensus social agreement—and fear of law enforcement—that it can be said to have any claim at all to its warehouses of tacky furniture and sweatshop clothing.

    The “synthetic entity” part really got him; he froze like an old computer. I could almost hear the cogs of his mind grinding as he tried to process an idea that was completely alien to his worldview.

    Thanks to certain rulings of the good ol’ Supreme Court, these synthetic entities have all of the “rights” of individual citizens, yet none of the liabilities… like mortality. There is not a single human servitor of Wal-Mart who is not replaceable, from the CEO to the door greeters. Like all employees of giant corporations, they’re basically wetware, serving the needs of a more or less immortal construct.

    You may have figured out where I’m going with this: corporations are a form of artificial intelligence. I hate to be the one to break it to y’all, but our society was conquered by A.I. generations ago.

    I call them machine gods; “gods,” because they’re fundamentally disembodied—they are primarily conceptual, like, say, Hermes. “Machines,” because they don’t have any actual will or consciousness—what they have is programming; they take objects and convert them into money, which is essentially the same thing as saying they convert objects into power. The objects themselves are created by transforming the living—trees, livestock, landscapes, sweatshop workers—into the dead.

    A fun, old-fashioned occult word for such an entity is egregore.

    Taking things from a mom & pop store would directly harm the livelihood of actual human beings, who have will and consciousness. That is simply not the case with Wal-Mart, or Target, or Dollar General. These companies make billions of dollars in profit, most of which goes into the pockets of a handful of corporate executives who are already wealthy. If I could do so with impunity, I would take absolutely everything I ever wanted or needed from Wal-Mart—or any other chain store—without paying for any of it.

    You know, sort of like European invaders did to Turtle Island.

    That I refrain from shoplifting is not a moral stance at all, but a practical one based on fear of legal punishment. Also, my finances are solid enough that I don’t need to take stuff from the machine gods without paying; unlike many people in this country, I can afford the basics of life. There’s no good reason for me to risk a larceny case. But if my situation were to change, I certainly wouldn’t feel any pangs of fucking guilt for helping myself to the shit at Wal-Mart.

    And so, my brother’s attempt to trap me with his simplistic, pseudo-Christian moral conundrum failed utterly. After wearing out his cop-mind for a few minutes trying to find an angle from whence to undermine my argument, he finally landed on this: Well, where does the transition happen between a mom & pop store and Wal-Mart?

    He really thought he got me with that one, but it’s clearly absurd; once it’s possible to purchase shares of a company on the stock market, we’re pretty well into machine god territory. Although technically they are both corporations, a tremendous gulf separates my local corner store from Wal-Mart. It’s like comparing a marble to Jupiter.

    ***

    I would argue that the state, with its penchant not only for reproducing itself, but also for manufacturing humans who require a state, is also a form of artificial intelligence.

    ***

    Since the industrial revolution, or at least since the advent of advertising and P.R. firms, every time some fancy new technology comes around there are always True Believers—the people who can’t wait to tell you How Much Better Life Will Be Now. This fable is still popular after two centuries of revealing itself as a lie—the most significant accomplishments of most new technology are: killing more of the planet, impoverishing the working class, and consolidating wealth & control.

    If you were connected to the last smoldering remnants of the counterculture in the mid ‘90s, then you might remember how everyone was convinced that the internet was going to Liberate Democracy or whatever. Anyone who’d studied Marx for two seconds should have easily predicted that the ability to buy everything online was just going to put a lot of moms & pops out of business. But could they have predicted QAnon? Hmm…

    A few of the early dick-riders of cybertech, like Douglas Rushkoff, have repented of their foolish technophilia… now that it’s too late. Who knows what world we might now live in if liberals and leftists would have immediately recognized the internet as a force of evil? Actually, nevermind; they probably couldn’t have stopped it. By that point the beast was coming whether we wanted it or not.

    However, I do not believe that our techno-dystopia was historically inevitable.

    Back in May, author Thomas Knapp made a statement in a piece for Counterpunch that I feel is worth quoting at length before I carve it up with the Wu Tang sword:

    We’ve been hurtling toward the “singularity” for at least 3.3 million years, ever since one of our ancestor hominins (probably Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus) started using tools to make their work easier.

    Over those millions of years, we’ve continuously improved our tools … and our tools have continuously improved us. We’re not really the same animal we were before the automobile, let alone before the wheel. We can do things our grandparents, and those hominins, never dreamed of.

    Once we started developing tools that could crack nuts better than us, speak across greater distances than us, travel faster than us, etc., it was inevitable that we’d eventually develop tools which could think better than us.”

    With as much respect as is due to anyone who has just insulted their entire species, I have to say this is a gold-medal contender for the stupidest shit I’ve heard all year. I have an appreciation for healthy cynicism, but damn; this kind of Original Sin nonsense chafes my chonies.

    First of all, the industrial foundation that made computer tech possible is only a couple of centuries old; go ahead and take a second to boot up your calculator, then divide 200 by 3.3 million and see what kind of ratio you get. I’d hardly describe the speed of that species-journey as “hurtling.” It looks more to me like being healthy for a hundred years, then getting total-body cancer for a fraction of a second before dropping dead.

    Second, there was never anything “inevitable” about A.I., the internet, computers, industry, or even civilization. Civilization has only been around for about 5,000 years (divide that by 3.3 million; you’ll get a bigger number but not by much), and as James C. Scott examined in Against the Grain, the earliest hierarchical states were extremely fragile for any number of reasons. There was no guarantee that this way of organizing society would last as long as it has… and it probably won’t last much longer.

    The industrial revolution was not the inevitable result of humans being “tool users”—a lot of other species make and use tools—it was the specific product of a specific culture in a specific region under specific circumstances. If the cosmic criminal Christopher Columbus had met a righteous end by drowning at sea before reaching Turtle Island—or, as in the short story I’m currently writing, been murdered by a coalition of time-traveling queers—it’s likely that the industrial revolution would never have happened. That means no capitalism, no planet-devouring corporations, and no motherfucking A.I.

    Third, Knapp’s passage is really just a re-framing of the European “Enlightenment” myth of Progress™. The idea that factories and Skynet are part of the “natural evolution” of the human species is not only ridiculous, but it’s also a clandestine form of diet white supremacism—if the industrial revolution was a natural part of “our” evolution, and Europeans did it first, then clearly they must be more “advanced” than other people. Ergo, manifest some destiny, etc.

    To commit what’s actually an enormous fuck-up and then claim it’s “natural” to the species is a phenomenal level of hubris… hubris that is basic to the social construction of whiteness. I’ve endured this crypto-racist horseshit in some form or another for my entire life, and I’m tired of it. I feel the same way about the “progress” myth that I feel about the Bering Strait Theory and White Jesus—I keep hoping it’ll retire to Debunked Land, but it never does. Since we can’t get rid of it, my only option for spiritual well-being is to mercilessly clown it.

    These last few months, there have been a lot of people gnashing their teeth about the Dangers of A.I. Most of these folks have been enthusiastically feeding all of their personal data to tech companies for the last twenty years, and don’t see the relationship between the two things, but nevermind that.

    I don’t see that there is any new danger from A.I. that isn’t already inherent in our cybernetic dystopia. Banal and soulless popular culture? Already got that. People relying on computers to do their thinking for them? Been common for years. Machines taking people’s jobs, or murdering them? Check. Planetary extinction? Well on our way. The “singularity” is just a secular repackaging of Judgment Day. It’s all hype.

    That said, is resistance even possible?

    I believe resistance is always possible… but only if you understand the threat. Over the years I’ve studied many social movements, particularly the more radical ones—labor rights, religious rebellions, anarchist insurrections, Black Power, Indigenous sovereignty, etc. One of the things all these movements have in common is that they grew from a world in which there was still such a thing as communities.

    Many of the Black Panthers were organizing with neighbors whose families they’d known for two or three generations, sometimes longer. When was the last time you were in a neighborhood where everyone had known each other for that long? Gentrification is a helluva drug.

    The gospels of Marxism and anarchism were spread in cafes. Nowadays, I’m ready to shed tears when I see strangers so much as strike up a conversation with each other at a cafe. Most people prefer interacting with a screen.

    Our current state of hyper-alienation and total cybernetic mediation has effectively destroyed our communal relationships. Nobody like Malcolm X or Fred Hampton could ever have emerged from the world of smartphones and zuckerbook. Tech is the problem, and has been for a long time… yet people act like uncensored access to Twitter is the key to a functioning democracy.

    What is to be done?

    I don’t know. But I have an extra sledgehammer if you wanna play Luddite with me.

    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Malik Diamond.