230

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

submitted 1 month 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%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 44 points 1 month 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 12 points 1 month 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 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 4 points 1 month 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 1 month 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.

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024

230 points (96.7% liked)

World News

38554 readers

2561 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.
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.