
Children of the Yuan Percent: Everyone Hates China's Rich Kids - xenophon
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-10-01/children-of-the-yuan-percent-everyone-hates-china-s-rich-kids
======
rcarrigan87
Further down in the article, some interesting points about the motivations
behind philanthropy.

"philanthropy is about more than just social responsibility—it’s about social
stability."

So other than a genuine desire to do good or vanity seeking that can motivate
philanthropy, you have a third element in China - preventing a revolt by the
poor on the rich. If you give just enough, you'll keep the poor subdued.

I wonder if there are similar motivations for super rich American
philanthropists. My guess is they're less worried about revolt and more
motivated by vanity.

~~~
littletimmy
I really liked this sentiment of Oscar Wilde on charity:

“[Charity] is not a solution [to poverty]: it is an aggravation of the
difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis
that poverty will be impossible…Just as the worst slave-owners were those who
were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being
realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who
contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who
do most harm are the people who try to do most good…”

~~~
veidr
That quote has always bugged the shit out of me, because: those were only the
worst slave owners for future generations of sociology and history students
(who mostly didn't descend from slaves).

For the actual slaves themselves, the worst slaveowners were the ones who
whipped and tortured their slaves in an attempt to extract more value (or just
for fun), those who separated children from parents, raped the women or
forcibly bred them, and who killed their loved ones for relatively minor
insubordination (or just for fun).

It's one of those pithy cocktail party quotes that is complete bullshit。

~~~
Retra
>those were only the worst slave owners for future generations of sociology
and history students

That's the thing, though: he wasn't speaking as an owned slave, but as a
future sociologist/historian. So if they are the worst for future generations,
why would it be bullshit that he's claiming they're the worst?

Maybe he simply isn't optimizing for immediate value, but for long-term value.
And why would you be objecting to that?

~~~
jsprogrammer
Why should we care about a future sociologist's or historian's opinion about
what was "worst"?

It seems like the determination of worst would need to be made by someone who
actually experienced these things, not someone who never experienced them or
even saw them.

~~~
Retra
_We_ are those future sociologists and historians. Why should we care about
some long-dead slaves' opinion about what is good or bad?

The point is that we are trying to do what we can _now_ to make the world
better _later_. It matters what those in the future will think of us, because
they will be the ones with the resources to improve upon it after we are gone.
And if we do it right, they will be better at handling this stuff than we are.

Of course, if you actually believe things can't improve, then by all means:
maximize your own happiness.

~~~
jsprogrammer
>Why should we care about some long-dead slaves' opinion about what is good or
bad?

Because they had a more direct experience of it than we can ever have.

I think the (even if implicit) claim that it is better to physically harm,
rape, and kill slaves than to be nice to them is highly questionable.

Yes, both are bad situations, but adding additional physical violence doesn't
make things better, only worse.

Edit: I guess I should also add that we can never truly know what someone
else's experience was. It is especially difficult to know if all you have left
after hundreds of years is some text.

~~~
Retra
I guess my own position is tainted by the belief that slavery is fundamentally
wrong as a restriction of freedom, not as a matter of being beaten. So if I
were a slave, though I would personally prefer not to be beaten, I would also
prefer slavery be seen as a vile practice, and if I have to take a few
beatings to make that be known, I would take them.

The alternate of nobody being beaten, but still being slaves where everybody
is waffling and unsure about whether slavery is bad _because_ nobody is being
beaten seems to me a bit like a losing proposition. It's the same reason we
can't do effective political reform today: people will choose their own
convenience when they're not facing a visible evil as a group.

The last thing I would want is for people to think I got beaten because I'm a
"naughty slave" or because my owner was a particularly bad guy. No, the reason
I got beaten was because I couldn't choose my path. Because I was a _slave_ ,
and slaves can't choose not to be beaten, even if they would prefer it. When a
slave gets beaten, he or she is beaten by _slavery_ as an institution, not by
some violent individual.

How much different would the world be if Hitler had announced from day 1 his
play to conquer Europe and massacre millions of people? Heck, if we had ended
slavery 100 years earlier, maybe we'd be 100 years closer to managing global
warming. We don't have time for evils to fester in the margins pretending to
be nice.

I remember a couple years ago there was some politician saying we don't need
minimum wage laws because companies _already_ pay more than that, so the law
is redundant. And in the name of "small government" declared that we should
remove the law from the books. All because his favorite corporations are "nice
slaveowners" who don't beat their slaves, he thinks that there's nothing wrong
with destroying a very important institutional protection.

~~~
jsprogrammer
I do not consciously support slavery. I just find some objection to the
apparent false dichotomy that beating slaves is a sound path to their freedom.

 _If_ (and it's a very big if), the only way to end slavery is to have slaves
be beaten, then you might have a good point. However, I can think of no way to
verify that, nor can I think of any evidence in support of that premise that
can withstand even most most basic scrutiny.

>How much different would the world be if Hitler had announced from day 1 his
play to conquer Europe and massacre millions of people?

How do you know he didn't?

~~~
Retra
Would you allow yourself to be beaten if it meant your children could be free?
Or would you rather let your children be slaves and neither of you be beaten?

This isn't just about slavery: it could apply to any war-like situation. But
if you aren't being beaten as a slave, how are you resisting slavery? Your
owner just lets you get away with not doing what you're told?

Because I really don't see how not resisting is supposed to end slavery, and I
don't see how avoiding beatings is any kind of resistance.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Surely there are other ways to resist slavery than being beaten?

If there were some highly effective and rapid communication system, for
example, the slaves could possibly organize and GTFO before their owners had
any way to stop them. Yes, there's the chance that it could turn bloody, but I
can imagine scenarios where it might end peacefully (as far as one can imagine
such a hypothetical).

~~~
Retra
Even if such a thing were possible, it seems highly unlikely that a bunch of
slaves could pull it off successfully. How's a slave going to gain access to a
high-speed communication network in a way that doesn't immediately prompt
retribution?

Slaves are either compliant or tortured for not being compliant. That's why
slavery is so brutal; if your owner doesn't beat you, he'll either kill you or
sell you to someone who will. There's really no other option for dealing with
a slave who refuses to obey. (And I don't see how a compliant slave can help
end slavery.)

> I can imagine scenarios where it might end peacefully

How? People who legally own slaves aren't going to just let their slaves walk
away anymore than any company now is going to let their employees walk away
with all their profits.

------
lordnacho
Well it sounds like they have the same problems other rich kids have. Mainly
that it's hard to get away from from your parents' influence, and anything you
achieve is credited to the family. Also there's a wariness about new people,
and a feeling of being disconnected from ordinary society.

I know a couple of heirs, and they've handled it differently. One kid works in
the family office, investing the family fortune. He takes the view that his
life belongs to the family, and he's just a temporary caretaker, whose duty is
to keep things good for the next generation.

Another has avoided the family business, and doesn't use the family name
(everyone who read Forbes would recognise him). He works a job that he didn't
need connections to get, and seems happy with it now. When we were in school,
it took a while to come to terms with the fact that he didn't have to work,
ever.

~~~
blazespin
TBH, if you can accept a lower standard of living, few people really need to
work that much - at least in developed nations.

Most people work for social pride and connection to the community. Which is a
good reason.

I just wish we could remake how to generate this social pride. Buying a nice
car or nice house shouldn't be a reason to feel proud. Teaching, doing or
learning something new and useful for your community - should be.

~~~
timwaagh
most people i know do need to work if they dont want to sleep in the streets.
i program others wait tables or clean out the garbage. you think somebody does
that for 'pride'? it does not matter if the country is developed or not you
still have to work because real estate is expensive even if food is not. if
you dont well congrats but then you (and your buddies) are one of these second
generation dandies.

~~~
vijayr
_even if food is not._

 _Good_ food is not cheap. In NYC, we pay 8$ for a decent sized watermelon -
almost all fruits are expensive, and most vegetables too. Only _shitty_ food
like chips, soda, candy, fast food etc are cheap.

~~~
dragontamer
Watermelons are out of season dude. They're only cheap in the summer. Its
fall, so citrus (ie: oranges, tangerines) and apples are now cheap.

Carrots, Celery, Potatoes, Oats (Oatmeal), Breakfast Cereal, Cereal Cereal,
Onions, Kidney Beans, Green Beans, Milk make a good baseline for a cheap and
nutritious meals year round.

You grab Broccoli in the Winter, Pineapples and Lettuce in the Spring,
Cherries and Watermelons in the Summer, and Apples in the fall. Farms
literally can't make Watermelons in the fall or winter, so you're importing
those Watermelons from the southern hemisphere. Of course it's expensive.

But in the summer, Watermelons are made locally and are probably $2 or $3 a
pop.

\------------------------------

If you don't know what's in season, here's a little trick. Look at the coupons
at your local grocery store. Everything that is on sale is what is in-season.

A sampling of my store is $5 for 5lbs of tangerines and $0.88/lb for Gala
Apples. Clearly, these are the fruits in season and what I'll be eating.

Eventually, as winter sets in... the prices of oranges and apples will
increase while Broccoli and Winter Squash will become cheap.

~~~
ido
Being in NYC probably inflates the prices overall too.

~~~
dragontamer
Not much compared to my area, which is also one of the highest cost of living
spots in the US.

In fact, the primary difference is that $8 per fast food meal in NYC. The
Milk, Eggs, Bread, Apples, and Potatoes are hit and miss (some cheaper where I
live, some cheaper in NYC)

At least according to this: www.expatistan.com/

------
blisterpeanuts
I visited China in 1982, when the capitalist revolution was just getting
started. Such wealth did not exist, but there was a deep, simmering anger
among the people over Communist corruption and general unfairness and
inequity. I witnessed it personally.

Now that there's a bit more prosperity and availability of material goods, but
still no freedom and still a simmering resentment of government corruption,
this fuerdai generation of spoiled children have put themselves out there with
brash behavior and big targets painted on their foreheads.

An economic slowdown and a loss of jobs to cheaper locales in South Asia and
to manufacturing technologies like 3D printing could be the catalyst to large
scale social unrest. It's a worrisome situation.

~~~
o0-0o
Large scale social unrest is just what the communists fear the most. To me,
that's not worrisome - it's hopeful. Just opining, and I understand that the
collateral costs would be worrisome for everyone in the short term.

~~~
_nedR
You probably don't know what you are wishing for.

Just scroll through this list :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll)

4 out of the 10 most deadliest human conflicts in human history happened in
China. I have a suspicion that the Chinese leadership is acutely aware of
this, and their world-view has been moulded by this (favouring stability over
everything else including justice, freedom or human rights). When things go
wrong there, they tend to go wrong in a big way.

edit: To get some idea of the scale, The An Lushan Rebellion that occurred in
the 7th century wiped out 15% of the world population at the time.

~~~
mkehrt
The An Lushan rebellion probably did _not_ wipe out 15% of the world's
population. This number comes from comparing before and after census numbers,
which is hard because (a) the census was vastly disrupted by the war, and (b)
the size of the empire was decreased by the war, so former provinces weren't
counted in the later censuses.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll)

------
jb613
An underlying motif of the article seems to be that the fuerdai not only do
not want to work hard but also that they only deserve the best jobs. One
example:

"It’s no surprise that most fuerdai, after summering in Bali and wintering in
the Alps, reading philosophy at Oxford and getting MBAs from Stanford, are
reluctant to take over the family toothpaste cap factory."

However, at least some of the parents fortunes came from precisely working
hard at menial work (e.g. owning and operating a toothpaste cap factory). For
those that didn't build companies, while luck may have played a role, I
suspect the parents who found their way into the upper levels of government or
political jobs also had some degree of working hard or being smarter than
others.

"the son of Wang Jianlin, a real estate mogul and the richest man in China"

Or taken risks - because unless you inherit or are granted land there is no
other way to make the vast fortunes from real estate than leveraging and risk.
Bankrupt or rich, it could have gone either way.

~~~
mattzito
I think you are underestimating the amount of graft and corruption that may
have been involved in a lot of these fortunes. From knowing folks who have
opened factories and businesses in China, there is a staggering amount of
market manipulation by various government functionaries who pick and choose
who gets to win and lose.

~~~
jb613
Sure, in many instances, corruption may have played a role too, but corruption
requires work too - something the article implies is beneath the fuerdai.

------
roymurdock
Funny to think that China was reforged under communist ideals only 50 years
ago, and that the hatred of the poor rural folk for the wealthy, corrupt
royals and warlords was strong enough to unite allow the country to expel the
Japanese, the British, and the KMT.

It's my view that the standard of living for the poor and lower classes has
improved enough that there would not be enough hatred to fuel a revolution.
Disgust and indignation, maybe, but it seems like a quaint notion that a
leader could unite peasants and farmworkers, outfit them with weapons and
train well enough to fight against the PLA and its allies.

Anyone from China/living in China travel to any rural areas and have any
insights they're willing to share?

~~~
douche
It really only takes a single spark and semi-charismatic leadership to start a
revolution if there is widespread hostility to the ruling party. The Taiping
nearly overthrew the Qing dynasty, and they were led by a deranged religious
fanatic who had a breakdown after failing repeatedly to get into civil service
and claimed to be the second coming of Jesus. This came at a time when the
expansion and prosperity of the Qianlong emperor was well in the rear-view,
and population pressures, corruption, monetary shifts (the massive influx of
Spanish silver in exchange for tea, silk, china, etc, was replaced by opium,
which threw off the rates of exchange between gold, silver and cash) and other
factors were resulting in a real decline in standard of living.

Today, any rebellion would probably need to involve a dissatisfied faction of
the PLA, because China is so disarmed - the Communists arose at a time when
the supply of firearms within China was probably at it its all-time high,
between the decades of warlord control, the war with Japan, and military aid
arriving from all sides in WW2. And quite frankly, the KMT armies were not
particularly professional or formidable adversaries, compared even with the
rank-and-file of the PLA today.

~~~
ISL
A rebellion can take more peaceful forms. In the United States, we have the
opportunity to change the government entirely every six years (House,
President, and Senate).

China's single-party system is, of course, different on the surface, but
competing factions within the party provide the opportunity for change.

Today's Chinese Communist Party's policies are substantially different from
those of Mao. History won't end, even if outright violence is tempered.

------
talloaktrees
I had trouble understanding this title, and I realized it's because I speak
Chinese. "Yuan" doesn't sound anything like one. it's more like "you" \+ "an"

~~~
joshuaheard
I was told in China it was pronounced "wahn", so the title makes sense to me.

~~~
anonnyj
Eh, thats simply wrong though. Maybe it'd sound like that with a thick
accent/someone who doesn't speaks putonghua well...

Either that or you're thinking of 万 / wan / 10,000

------
happywolf
Just in case you wonder how to pronounce the Chinese word 'fuerdai', it sounds
like 'foo-earl-die', which literally means 'rich second generation'

~~~
Apfel
Uhhh... I think Foo Arr Die is a more accurate pronunciation, no?

~~~
happywolf
No, it has 'er' instead of 'ar' sound. In fact, 'err' is a better word than
'earl'

~~~
zhemao
In Standard Mandarin pronunciation, er is definitely pronounced like "arr". If
you don't believe me, listen to the pronunciation given by Google Translate.

[https://translate.google.com/#zh-
CN/en/%E4%BA%8C](https://translate.google.com/#zh-CN/en/%E4%BA%8C)

There might be some regional accents which pronounce it more like "err", but
"arr" is the standard pronunciation.

~~~
happywolf
I agree the google translate link above pronounces this character very close
to 'Arr', however do note the Pinyin (Chinese phonetic system), 'Er' starts
with 'E'.

Just for the sake of discussion, here is character that starts with 'A'. See
if you feel the difference.

[https://translate.google.com/#zh-
CN/en/%E5%95%8A](https://translate.google.com/#zh-CN/en/%E5%95%8A)

------
adventured
This reminds me a bit of _Born Rich_ , the documentary by Johnson & Johnson
heir Jamie Johnson:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-
TfNY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o46HH-TfNY)

------
clickok
It seems to me that, while wealthy, these _fuerdai_ kids are uncomfortable
bordering on neurotic. They're mainly notable because of their connection to
their parents, and anything that they do accomplish is suspect because they
never know if they got (hired|admitted|published|married) because someone was
trying to curry favor with their folks. Attempts to branch out, to find wealth
and power on their own, are not usually successful, especially when compared
to their parents[0]. Their whole identity seems to be formed around "being
wealthy", yet that wealth is based on things that they have little control
over.

Thus the concern that at some point the money's going to stop flowing, whether
because their parents fall out of favor with the government, or because a
popular uprising takes place. They talk about emigrating to the US[1], or how
philanthropy is really just a way of ensuring social stability.

In contrast, first generation rich people[2] seem to talk as if business were
interesting (if not downright fun), and only discuss emigrating as some sort
of inside joke whenever Obama wins an election.

\---

0\. Although maybe that's because they're starting fashion lines, concierge
agencies, or magazines, while their parents run toothpaste conglomerates or
shoe manufacturers. Missing opportunities because they're not sufficiently
exciting, and then rushing off to compete in already crowded (but sexy!)
businesses seems to be universal.

1\. I thought that Britain was supposed to be the top destination for fleeing
oligarchs and their scions? Is there like a Yelp for billionaires? Maybe
Berezovsky left a bad review?

2\. Jim Clark from that Michael Lewis book springs to mind, or any character
meant to represent capitalism from Ayn Rand.

------
mrkickling
"You deserve to be poor because you don’t work hard."

I wonder how they can allow themselves to be rich if they don't work?

~~~
EliRivers
That's a bit out of context. The full quote radically changes the meaning:

"There are two groups of poor people. One is, you don’t work hard. You deserve
to be poor because you don’t work hard. Second is, you work hard but can’t
succeed. I think we should help the second group of people."

~~~
gozo
Which is still ridiculous because the Chinese are the hardest working people
I've ever seen. I would assume she and her friends are by far the least hard
working demographic in China. It's a just world fallacy if anything.

~~~
sliverstorm
A sixth of the world's population lives in China. Not every one is hard
working.

------
danmaz74
"A survey conducted in 2013 found that 64 percent of Chinese high-net-worth
individuals had emigrated or wanted to emigrate overseas" that's a pretty
impressive figure (even if an outdated one).

------
gd1
Cool headline, but given the population of China, we're probably talking
children of the 0.001%

~~~
k__
Wasn't "The 1%" really "The 0.001%" in the US already?

~~~
0xcde4c3db
Pretty much. The bottom of the 1% is the elite of people who still actually
work for a living, such as lawyers, dentists, and doctors.

~~~
sulam
And software engineers. :)

~~~
djhn
1% in terms of income, or in terms of wealth?

A low-to-mid 6 figures household income? Definitely possible. 8 million net
worth? You're gonna have to be a rather.. senior software engineer.

~~~
sulam
I've heard numbers for the top 1% in wealth for Americans being more like
$14M. At any rate, most doctors and lawyers I know get there by saving their
1% incomes, which software engineers can also do (although I think it's easier
for a lawyer/doctor to get north of $300K than it is for a software engineer,
excluding stock)

And speaking of stock... you can get lucky that way, although you still need
to save / diversify!

------
dssddsds
Sounds like a Brave New World kind of hell

