How families are changing in China – Update

For thousands of years in China, the elderly were held in great esteem for their knowledge, and expected to guide future generations by passing along their hard earned wisdom.  This is based in part on the Confucian principle of filial piety which requires not just respect and care for the older generation, but also an almost unthinking obedience to their authority.

This post updates my 2021 piece How families are changing which described how long-standing customs were being challenged by industrialization and urbanization.  A social structure built for a rural society with stable extended families living together was overturned when hundreds of millions of young people moved to newly built cities, to take advantage of the opportunities of China’s rapidly growing economy. 

As an article in the Journal of Comparative Family Studies noted, the changes in China family structure reflect worldwide trends related to industrialization. “Modernization impacts family structure, relationship, values and beliefs. Families become nuclear while people become mobile and the society becomes urban. Economic development provides employment opportunities outside the birthplace.”

The effects on families were magnified in China by its ill-advised “One Child Policy.” Beginning in 1979, the government attempted to reduce population growth by limiting each family to a single child through financial incentives and penalties, including loss of employment, and even forced abortions and sterilization.  This unpopular policy worked so well that the percentage of the population young enough to work shrank, while the percentage of old people grew.  People began talking about the “4-2-1 problem,” with four grandparents and two parents supported by one working-age adult.

A propaganda poster for the one child policy

It took 37 years for the central government to respond to the problem and change the law to the Two Child Policy in 2016.  When that didn’t work, they went to the Three Child Policy, which is still in effect.  But the harm had already been done, as the number of working age adults has declined and the percentage of elderly non-laborers has exploded.

The average family size in China decreased from 3.4 in 2000 to 2.6 in 2020, and the number of single persons living alone doubled between 2010 and 2020, to 8.9% of all households.  Disruptions to the traditional family were magnified when women increasingly entered the labor force.  They now represent about 45% of China’s workers. 

One unintended side effect was that “Soon after China implemented its one-child policy in 1979, reports reached the West of a new breed of plump, pampered creatures who had never learned to share. They were called Little Emperors, and nobody said ‘No’ to them.”

Social scientists who have studied the Little Emperor Syndrome describe such effects as egocentrism, selfishness, poor social skills, spoiled behavior, and a low tolerance for frustration. As an article in the UK newspaper The Guardian summed it up: “It was as if Britain had decided to spawn millions of Prince Andrews.”  (That’s not a good thing.  In case you don’t follow the fortunes of the House of Windsor, a few weeks ago Prince Andrew was formally stripped of his royal titles due to his associations with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.) 

But life is not all a bed of roses according to an article in the South China Morning Post entitled Little emperors to little slaves.  The 4-2-1 problem implies that many elders’ security ultimately depends on the financial success of a single working adult.  According to one Chinese teenager quoted in The Guardian article, “Our parents sometimes do lots of things that we should be doing for ourselves because they want us to concentrate on our grades.  For instance, my mom pushes my bike out of the door, presses the elevator button and waits for me to finish my breakfast and go out. It’s just study, study, study, study and nothing else.”

Another described working on grades 14 hours a day: “We wake up at 6:30 AM. We don’t have enough hours to eat: I skip my dinners for homework.”  Parental standards are high. “ It is common… to score 100% in a school test, then be urged to try harder next time.”

These standards are reinforced by China’s cultural emphasis on education as the key to success, as I explained a few years ago in a post entitled:  Do children in China study harder than Americans?  The short answer is: yes they do.  By a lot.

One 22 year old summed the consequences up like this: “It’s a huge burden for us, to take care of our mother and father. At our age, you have to start thinking about that. When I get married, my wife and I will have to take care of four old people, so I am deliberately screening out certain jobs already.”

And for young adults who don’t succeed in school and get a good job, the result is public failure.  According to Peng Zizhe, director of the Institute of Population Research at Shanghai’s Fudan University “it is not uncommon for people in their late 20s still to be living like children with their parents. They still get enough love from their mothers, so they don’t need to create a solid marriage unit.” 

If a parent loses their only child, it’s called the shidu parent tragedy because it leaves no one to support the elderly person.  What makes it a tragedy is the fact that China lacks the types of safety nets provided by Social Security and other systems in the US. 

A related change involves shifts “in the form of filial behavior. With more adult children working longer hours, living at a distance, or focusing on their own nuclear families, filial piety increasingly emphasizes financial support, frequent communication and occasional visits rather than full-time caregiver co-residence or daily obedience.”

Some experts on Chinese family structure now talk about two different types of filial piety:  the traditional duty based authoritarian model, and a more modern transactional model is built on “emotional attachments and intimate relations,” often referred to by the Mandarin word qinqing.”

A lengthy article in The Journal of Chinese Sociology by Yunxiang Yan reviews the way these sociological changes “are altering the ethical foundation of eldercare” by making a family’s history of qinqing the basis for how they treat their elderly parents.  In this view, family history becomes sort of a qinqing balance sheet.  What children will do for their parents in old age is based on how the parents treated them growing up.

The paper includes several case studies illustrating how this works, including one Mr. Guan, a widower in his 80s who complained at length “about his poor health, his unlucky fate, and how much he was suffering from his unfilial children.”  But when the researchers talked to other villagers, they learned Guan had a long history of “beating up his wife and children” and favoring one child over the others.  In the eyes of his neighbors, Guan got what he deserved.  He “had not paid attention to qinqing, so no one in his family looked after him in his old age.”  More generally, “family history and memories of individual experiences… may determine the quality of familial eldercare and its social sanctions by public opinion.”

Given all these changes, in 1996, the Eighth National People’s Congress adopted a 50 article law on the “Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly.”  It required children to support their parents after the age of 59, including paying for medical care, providing nursing care, assuring proper housing and “not compelling the elderly to move to inferior houses.” In rural areas, grown children also had a “duty to help farm the land… and take care of trees and livestock” with all earnings going to the elderly. 

Most importantly, this law gave the elderly the right to “bring a lawsuit directly to a People’s Court… when [they] have disputes with their family members over their support, or over housing or property.”

You can imagine how well that went.  Over time, the law was supplemented by “family support agreements,” voluntary contracts signed by parents and children which can be legally enforced.  However, a 2011 study found that these agreements actually “harmed relationships and led to more family lawsuits, suggesting that authoritarian methods may not be effective in sustaining filial relations.” 

Yue Du’s 2023 book State and Family in China described how the Chinese government has repeatedly tried to rely on filial duty as a low-cost solution to the growing problem of an aging population.  There’s just one problem: it doesn’t work.  My reaction to this fact mirrors that of Captain Renault in the 1942 film Casablanca: “I am shocked.  Shocked I tell you.”

The lack of a Social Security type safety net, and the failure of alternatives, is one reason a New York Times article described China’s aging population as a “looming crisis” and Time magazine called it China’s “number one economic problem.”  For more on the implications, see my post entitled: Will China grow old before it grows rich?

How rich Is Xi Jinping?

Exactly how rich is the President of the People’s Republic of China?  According to an April 2024 Congressional Research Service report based on public records: “Xi Jinping holds an estimated hidden wealth of $700 million.”  But wait.  Nobody really knows if this is correct.  Other published estimates place Xi’s total worth as high as $1.2 billion or as low as $1 million.

That’s quite a range:  the highest of these three estimates is 120,000 times larger than the lowest.  What’s behind this enormous disagreement?  Secrecy.

The estimates above refer to family wealth, not personal wealth.  That’s because in China, “generally the big corruption does not happen with the officials themselves, but with relatives of officials. Just being related to a big-wig means that people will throw money at you.”  Then add the fact that “Much of the family’s wealth remains unclear and untallied because of the absence of Chinese corporate and real estate disclosure rules, as well as a propaganda system that bans media discussion of leaders’ personal details and removes them from the internet.”

For example, around the time Xi first became China’s President, Bloomberg News journalist Michael Forsythe published an expose regarding Xi’s wealth.  Soon after “Forsythe and his family received death threats, and Bloomberg’s site was blocked within [China].”  This intimidation worked.  As a result of the reaction to Forsythe’s piece, “Bloomberg declined to publish a subsequent investigation…”

Despite the difficulty of coming up with a reliable total figure, it is very clear that Xi lives a VERY comfortable life, including:

Also note that in China, “for very high ranking officials [in China], all things for their entire life are provided by the government… [and they] do not have much opportunity to use their own money” for living expenses.  But the world is full of luxuries and many Chinese leaders and their families don’t seem to have trouble finding things to spend their excess money on. 

Some examples can be seen in a Twitter account started in 2022 by Xi’s only child — his 32 year old daughter Xi Mingze (nicknamed Xiao Muzi) — showcasing her lavish lifestyle including:

  • A Van Cleef &  Arpels’ bracelet valued at over $135 thousand (US)
  • A custom Patek Philippe diamond watch worth $1 million (US).  (Normally, this particular watch is reserved for VIPs who spend over $5 million annually on this brand.)
  • A customized Rolls-Royce Cullinan worth $28 million (US)
  •  $100 million (US) mansion in Hong Kong
  • And much more
In 2022 Xi Mingze – Xi Jinping’s only child – posted these images to a Twitter account illustrating her luxurious lifestyle.  In 2023, they were deleted from the internet.

But Xi Mingze’s posts on luxuries ended “on September 25th 2023 when her Twitter account was exposed by Luda media.”  As a result, Xi Mingze “allegedly [issued] a death threat against Luda media indicating that any harm coming to the media network would be her family’s doing.”

Some US politicians seem to believe that if the facts become available “about the enormous wealth of individual leaders of the CCP, the Chinese people will turn China into a respected democracy like Taiwan.” 

For example, “Sen. Marco Rubio inserted language into… the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act… which required the US Director of National Intelligence to produce a ‘Report on the Wealth and Corrupt Activities of the Leadership of the CCP’” by December 2023.  The report would investigate not just “Xi Jinping… [but also] other members of the Central Committee, the Politburo, the Politburo Standing Committee, and regional Party Secretaries.”

Interestingly, as of the date of this post — 10 months after the publication deadline had passed — the report yet to be published.  My personal guess is that Avril Hines – Director of National Intelligence – is slow walking the report, at least until after the Presidential election. 

If all of the info on Communist leaders’ wealth was fully vetted by US intelligence, and released as part of a well-thought out strategy to manage the contentious US-China relationship, perhaps it might make a difference.  But in this case it feels more like an isolated action poking Xi Jinping in the eye with a stick, to show the world that we’re right and he’s wrong.  In my opinion, Cruz and his allies range from naïve to downright stupid if they really think that such a report would convince Chinese citizens that they would be better off in a Taiwan-style democracy. 

When (or if) this report is published, it will almost certainly prove that Xi is just one of many leaders who live luxurious lifestyles on the backs of the Chinese people.  In fact, Xi’s offenses are likely to be relatively modest compared to some others.  Since coming to power in 2012, Xi has focused on anti-corruption campaigns and earlier this year, he vowed to intensify this campaign and “target industries such as finance, energy and infrastructure.”

Corruption is a long-standing tradition in China, going back thousands of years, at least to Qin Shi Huang, the first Chinese emperor in 259 BCE.    

After the Chinese Communist Party won its revolution in 1949, many Party leaders lived the high life.  Numerous examples appear in the controversial book “The Private Life of Chairman Mao,” written by Mao’s long-term personal physician Li Zhisui, including:

  • “Luxuries not even imaginable to the Chinese citizenry, [such as] owning numerous estates, and having numerous extramarital affairs with very young women and even boys”
  • “Like Chinese emperors of antiquity, Mao believed that regular sex ensured a long life and had at least 3,000 concubines over his lifetime… He aimed to have sex with a different virgin girl every night.
  • He was also “a gourmet… [whose] favorite foods were flown to Beijing from all over the country, including a special kind of fish [that needed to be] kept alive in a plastic bag filled with water and accompanied by a servant responsible for administering oxygen.

I don’t know about you, but it feels more than a little odd to me that the heads of the largest Communist nation on Earth would have access to privileges denied China’s 1.4 billion residents.

When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, they focused on “the exploitation of the proletariat (working class of wage laborers) by the ruling bourgeoisie.”  They did not mention the possibility that the success of the Communist Party could create a new class of leaders who would exploit the proletariat.

In 1887, English historian Lord Acton wrote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  It’s still true.

So, in my opinion, the fact that many of China’s leaders are rich while more than a billion of its citizens are poor is not surprising.  The fundamental causes lie not in communism or in capitalism, but in human nature. 

The possible role of human nature in inequality will be the basis for a number of posts in my soon to be updated “other blog”:  Understanding US economic inequality, five minutes at a time.