"I don't want an annual salary of a million, nor do I want to shoulder a 30-year mortgage in a big city. I just want to get eight hours of sleep a night, soak up the sun in the park on weekends, and have enough money to buy the 'blind box' toys I like." When young people born in the 90s and 00s say things like this, their parents' generation often frowns: "How can young people lack ambition like this?" Yet, behind these words that seem to signal a "lack of drive," a quiet revolution regarding success and happiness is unfolding. Young people are "voting with their feet," redefining what makes a life worth living.
I. From a "Single Track" to a "Multiverse"
In the dictionary of the older generation, success had a clear, standard answer: get into a prestigious university, land a job at a major state-owned enterprise, marry and have children, and buy a house and a car. This path was like a one-way street where everyone was expected to race in the same direction.
But today's young people are carving out "divergent paths."
The phenomenon of "full-time children" is a prime example. Instead of rushing to find a job after graduation, they stay home to care for their parents in exchange for living expenses and time to study for exams. To traditional eyes, this is merely a euphemism for "living off one's parents"; to the individuals involved, however, it is a rational "career plan"—rather than squandering their youth in low-quality jobs, they use this time to prepare for civil service or graduate school exams, or simply adopt a low-cost lifestyle to weather the "employment winter."
"Buddy culture" (*dazi* culture) is also upending traditional views on friendship. Dining buddies, gym buddies, travel buddies—people form temporary alliances based on specific needs, without intruding on each other's private lives, and can part ways at any time. While older generations might view such relationships as "cold" or "transactional," young people find this "light socializing" to be more efficient and relaxed, sparing them the emotional baggage and social obligations inherent in traditional relationships.
II. "Cost-Effective Living": Doing the Math with Clarity
Young people are re-evaluating their life choices through an economic lens.
Buying a home was once an obsession for the previous generation, but now, more and more young people are crunching the numbers: a single apartment drains the savings of three generations (the buyer's and both sets of grandparents) and saddles the buyer with a 30-year mortgage—but what do they get in return? It is a suburban lifestyle involving a two-hour daily commute—the life of a "mortgage slave" who dares not quit, fall ill, or have children for fear of missing a payment.
"Rather than being a slave to a house, why not be the master of your own life?" An increasing number of young people are choosing to rent, using the money they save to improve their quality of life, pursue further education, or travel the world. They have discovered that without the burden of a mortgage, a multitude of life choices suddenly opens up.
The phenomenon of "Gen Z shaking up the workplace" follows the same logic. Refusing unpaid overtime, standing their ground against bosses, and filing for arbitration when dissatisfied—these actions are often labeled as "willful" or "immature." Yet, from the perspective of young people, this is about defending their legal rights and sending a clear message to capital: a worker's time and dignity come at a price.
III. The Generational Divide Behind the Controversy
The fundamental reason this redefinition sparks such heated debate lies in the vastly different ways the two generations perceive "security."
For the older generation, security stems from "certainty": a stable job, a fixed home, and a complete family. Having lived through eras of material scarcity, they deeply understand that "having" is more important than "not having," and are thus willing to pay a high price for such certainty.
For young people, security comes from "flexibility": diversified income streams, careers that can be restarted at any time, and lifestyles not tethered to a single role. Growing up in an era of relative material abundance, they care more about the *quality* of their lives than merely *possessing* things.
When these two logics of security collide, misunderstandings arise. What parents view as acting "for your own good," children may perceive as "moral coercion"; what young people see as "living for oneself," parents may view as "irresponsibility."
IV. Not Degeneration, but Evolution
Critics often claim that today's young people "cannot endure hardship," are "too selfish," or "lack a sense of responsibility." However, such criticism overlooks a crucial fact: it is not that young people lack drive, but rather that they refuse to foot the bill for someone else's dreams.
They continue to work, but no longer view work as the sum total of their existence; they still date, but no longer marry simply for the sake of marriage; they still consume, but prioritize quality and experience over conspicuous consumption.
In a sense, this shift is a sign of societal maturity. When a society no longer needs "successology" to whip everyone into a frenzy, and when young people can calmly accept their ordinariness—and find happiness in it—that society gains a sense of composure and tolerance.
V. Concluding Thoughts
Redefining success and happiness is not an act of youthful rebellion, but a rational pursuit of quality of life. This process inevitably brings growing pains and controversy, as old value systems loosen their grip while new ones are still taking shape.
Yet one thing is certain: as more young people dare to say, "I don't want to live that way," the society opens up new possibilities. Success is no longer defined in just one way, nor is there a single template for happiness. And this, perhaps, represents the greatest progress of our era.
After all, a society that permits only one way of living is impoverished, whereas a society that embraces diverse choices is truly rich.
