The most content-rich output from an entrepreneur often appears in the years when they have just gained some fame but have not yet become a "big shot."

For example, Sun Yuchen's "The Road to Financial Freedom Revolution." Looking back at his judgments and arguments from nine years ago, they have been discussed and reviewed multiple times today, with many conclusions and trends partially validated by reality; more importantly, the underlying methodology and decision-making framework still hold reference value.

Among the most impressive and widely discussed topics is "Sun Yuchen's Three No Principles": no buying a house, no buying a car, and no getting married before the age of 30. Is he permanently denying houses, cars, and marriage, or does he have other considerations? Recently, there have been rumors and public opinions about Sun Yuchen: why did he break up with his ex-girlfriend? Why did he only buy a garage for his father who wanted a luxury car? Why does this billionaire seem both extravagant and stingy? In the audio course materials from nine years ago, answers and explanations can actually be found.

To facilitate reading, Rhythm BlockBeats has made minimal edits and structural rearrangements to the audio of Sun Yuchen's public course from 2016: retaining the original tone as much as possible, and rearranging and polishing the content on why Sun Yuchen chose "not to buy a house, not to buy a car, and not to get married," for everyone to review.

Question: Why are most young people hardworking yet not wealthy? What are they lacking?

Sun Yuchen: The strategy of a company is very important, and the strategy of a person is also very important. So I strongly oppose many young people who haven't thought about anything, haven't made a strategy, and directly rush into marriage, treating marriage as a strategy, having children as a strategy, buying a house as a strategy, treating parents as a strategy, and treating their spouse as a strategy, without ever considering their own life and themselves as a strategy.

The core reason why the vast majority of people are hardworking yet not wealthy is that they haven't made a strategy. Many people feel that strategy is a big word, that only Jack Ma makes strategies, and what strategy can I make? In fact, it's quite the opposite; those without money should make strategies, as it is the only factor that determines success. I think first of all, you shouldn't rush to roll up your sleeves and get to work. You should first think clearly about what your life is for. Why do you want to do these things? What are the benefits? Does this align with your original intention? Who are you? Where do you come from, and where are you going? You need to clarify these fundamental questions first. If you haven't thought through these questions, you will definitely not live a good life, which will lead to the problem of being hardworking yet not wealthy. This is also why we often say in the entrepreneurial circle that tactical diligence covers up strategic laziness; you may feel busy every day, but in fact, you haven't accomplished anything.

The vast majority of people in China seem to have been programmed to rush into the trilogy of buying a car, buying a house, and getting married right after graduating from university, like those fake people in The Matrix, with a controller plugged into the back of their heads, lacking any autonomous personality or free will, because everything is pre-programmed. Most people do not reflect on why they should get married, why they should buy a car, or why they should buy a house. They just execute the program blindly, you know? I find this very terrifying.

Next, let's take a deeper look at Sun Yuchen's thoughts from nine years ago from the three dimensions of not buying a house, not getting married, and family relationships.

Why not buy a house?

Question: With housing prices rising so sharply recently, should we buy?

Sun Yuchen: I think this actually varies from person to person. First of all, I don't have a bearish view on housing prices in first-tier cities; however, the housing price bubble in China's second and third-tier cities is indeed serious. I think the bubble is very obvious in non-Beijing and non-Shanghai areas, even including Shenzhen. I believe Shenzhen's future urban development actually relies on the city's further improvement. Even so, the price increase in Beijing and Shanghai is limited. You say that in the past decade, prices have increased tenfold; is it possible for them to increase tenfold again in the next decade? That's definitely impossible. If that were the case, housing prices would be higher than those on Mars, which is not feasible.

Let's talk about affordability. For the vast majority of people born in the 90s and 95s, buying a house is essentially an "opportunity they cannot afford to participate in." There are many investment opportunities in this world that you cannot participate in. For example, there is an insurance company in Portugal that is going private; if I invest, I can make money, but the threshold is 500 million. Would you participate? You can't, right? Similarly, in Beijing and Shanghai, a house starts at 5 million. For most people born in the 95s, 5 million and 500 million are no different—they can't come up with either. So this is not your opportunity; there's no need to get tangled up in "can I afford it," because it is simply not within your choice range. With your current cash flow as collateral, the bank may not even dare to lend to you.

Unless we are talking about three generations contributing to one house, with grandparents, both sets of parents all involved. But at this point, you will find a problem: yes, it is indeed very likely that you have seized this investment opportunity, but there is no free lunch in this world. When all the elders participate, you and your partner's "small limited company" suddenly have 12 shareholders behind it, and everyone has veto power—because they contributed to the company. So if you complain at this point about buying this house, saying what your parents are doing every day, or what your grandparents are doing, then there is nothing to complain about. Because it is only natural; they participated in the establishment of your company, how could they not share in the profits or participate in decision-making?

More realistically, the vast majority of young people lack the most basic understanding of investment and investment thresholds, so they will definitely buy at the highest, most easily trapped prices. Buying a house is a very complex matter; I think it could take ten classes to explain it clearly. It is not just about wanting to buy.

So for the vast majority of young people, if they buy a house, I believe they are entering a dangerous field for which they have no economic strength, no investment strength, and no discernment ability. They will ultimately pay a very high life price for this decision, truly a very high life price. Because many people buy houses not for investment; the vast majority buy houses to get married, which can make their marriage even more, you could say, a dead end. Because at this point, they will find that even if they can't go on, they can't get divorced, because this house binds them so tightly. This house ties two people and two families together—both sets of parents, four elders, plus the two of you, almost 14 people are bound to the same asset. The complexity of this relationship, I think, is no less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Returning to the issue of price increases, even looking at the most insane recent phase, the overall transaction price in Beijing has only increased by about 10% to 15% month-on-month, for example, from 45,000 to 55,000. It sounds like an increase, but from an investment perspective, there are many opportunities in fields where young people can invest that exceed 20%. Take the mobile internet that I am familiar with, for example; companies like Weibo and Momo, some have doubled in a year, and at certain stages, the increase has been even more dramatic. In contrast, houses may be a choice for those who do not understand the internet, but for most ordinary people, this choice is too cruel and unnecessary.

As for cars, if you have money and want to buy a luxury car to play with? Of course, you can. When I was a poor student, I also fantasized about driving a Lamborghini. But you may be curious: I made over 10 million at the end of 2013, and my net worth is over a billion now, so why haven't I bought a car? The real reason is simple: I don't have time. After starting my business, I have been too busy; I struggled to learn to drive and only got my license last year, and I'm still a novice; I don't even dare to reverse alone.

At the same time, I think there is another reason: the unprecedented prosperity of the sharing economy, with apps like Didi and Yidao, and in the U.S., there is Uber. For daily transportation in big cities, not having a car does not affect you at all. In small cities, driving to places like Keke Xili or Highway 1 in the U.S.? I don't have that time; I can't use it. In Beijing, the commuting experience with Didi and Uber is already very good, so I have never bought a car.

Moreover, the experience is really better: no need to park, and I can make phone calls, work, and write while on the road. Everyone understands Beijing traffic; it often takes one to two hours to get from Zhongguancun to Guomao. If I drive myself, all that time is spent on the steering wheel; if I take a taxi, I turn that time into output. So up to now, I haven't seen the necessity of buying a car. Of course, if someone gave me a car for free, I would still accept it.

Question: But as business people, we still need a decent car to maintain appearances, what should we do?

Sun Yuchen: Do we really need a decent car to maintain appearances in business? I don't think so. Real partners are very shrewd and won't pay for your "face project." As long as your product, service, and personal professionalism have established trust, there is no need to rely on a car to score points. I didn't buy a car for many years, and the core reason is here.

Of course, there is also the issue of license plate lotteries in Beijing—just because you want to buy one doesn't mean you can get it. If you really want to buy, renting a plate isn't too difficult, but considering all the previous analyses, I still think it's meaningless. To give another example: when I was using Yidao the most, I charged 80,000, and they gave me 100,000, which is equivalent to having 180,000 in taxi credits, plus two TVs and a bunch of coupons. I used this account for about 18 months, covering almost all my transportation needs. With an average monthly consumption of three to four thousand, after discounts, it was only a little over two thousand. For business occasions, taking an A6 or renting a car for a day is enough; it really doesn't cost much.

Buying and maintaining a car is a very bad choice. First of all, from an investment perspective, it is almost a disaster. Even for someone like me who runs a company, buying a car can deduct VAT, theoretically making it cheaper than for others. But even so, I still don't want to buy one because a car is a fixed asset that inevitably depreciates; in a few years, it will be worth nothing and will not appreciate. I tend to do internet-related "light asset" businesses.

What's worse is that buying a car is like adding a child; you have to take care of it every day. A car won't wash itself, won't refuel itself, won't find a parking space by itself, and if it gets sick, it needs repairs. You also have to "buy it a house"—a parking space, and usually, you have to pay in full. Entrepreneurs around me generally reflect two major burdens: one is raising children, with various medical issues slowing down the pace; the other is revolving around the car: fixing it today, charging it tomorrow. We have a friend who is a post-90s entrepreneur who bought a Tesla, and on the way to charge it, the car ran out of power, and he had to call for roadside assistance. There are too many similar troubles, so I won't elaborate. So how do we travel without a car? The sharing economy can basically solve this perfectly; at least, there are mature alternatives for "using a car" in China.

From the perspective of the sharing economy, it is one of the perfect solutions to replace fixed asset investments. Cars and houses have already spawned giants like Didi and Airbnb; home services have 58 Daojia and Ayi Bang; second-hand circulation has Zhuanzhuan and Xianyu; knowledge services have Zhihu Live, etc. All the "luxury goods" that used to require large investments will have their thresholds lowered by the sharing economy.

So from my perspective, the reasons for buying a car are hard to justify.

Question: If I must buy a house in Beijing, which areas in the city are worth investing in? Do you have any suggestions?

Sun Yuchen: I believe I have some say in this matter. The overall idea is very simple: look for "price valleys" in Beijing. In my personal judgment, the area in Beijing that is truly still in a valley position is mainly Tiantongyuan. If you search on platforms like Lianjia, you can still find listings in Tiantongyuan with unit prices just over 20,000. Against the backdrop of an overall transaction price in Beijing of over 50,000, this price is indeed rare and offers good value.

Some fans say they found that Tiantongyuan is over 40,000; that's because most of what you are looking at are smaller units with lower total prices and higher liquidity, or better locations and newer buildings. In Tiantongyuan, larger units, such as those over 200 square meters, often have lower unit prices, and you need to rely on "digging"—not every house will be cheap, but the probability of finding low-priced houses in Tiantongyuan is definitely higher than in other areas. As for the question of "if I buy and lose money, is it my fault," investment always has fluctuations. I have already drawn the circle to the relatively lowest area in Beijing; the rest depends on your own selection and execution.

Any investment fundamentally revolves around price. It’s not surprising if the asset has value; the key is at what price you buy in. Many people attach too many attributes to buying a house that should not be borne by "investment"—such as face, marriage, and comparison—resulting in distorted judgment and ultimately ruining an investment that could have been successful.

This method can be applied to other cities: first, find undervalued areas in the rotation of districts, focusing on "price valleys." The homework I’ve done includes: looking at Kangcheng in Shanghai; Tiantongyuan in Beijing; and nationwide, Chongqing offers a high overall cost-performance ratio. I am from Huizhou, and before Shenzhen's housing prices surged, the areas near Shenzhen in Huizhou were a good transitional place. Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Huizhou can also find low-position areas within the same city districts.

It’s also important to remember that houses are different from stocks. The price of a stock for a company is the same at any given time; however, housing prices are highly differentiated: different districts within the same city, whether it’s street-facing or not, floor orientation, age of the building, whether it’s new or second-hand, size of the unit, total price range, school district affiliation, and even whether the landlord is in a "hurry to sell" can create huge price differences. Coupled with your financing conditions—down payment ratio, loan interest rate, term, and whether you can get a lower discount—the "real cost" that ultimately falls into your hands is a comprehensive assessment.

Therefore, buying a house is essentially more like a complex "comprehensive battle." It’s not something that can be concluded with a simple "what is the average price in Beijing/Shanghai." For example, in Tiantongyuan, the early opening average price was three to four thousand, which was the level from over a decade ago; even last year, some people managed to get houses under special circumstances for 13,000. If you can still close a deal for just over 20,000 now, looking back over ten years, it has only multiplied three to four times; meanwhile, some districts in Beijing have multiplied tenfold during the same period. Where does the difference come from? It’s from the district, unit type, timing, and price you bought at back then. Choosing accurately and holding steady is everything in the business of buying houses.

Question: Why do you advocate "not buying a house, not buying a car, and not getting married before the age of 30"?

Sun Yuchen: I believe that within ten years—by 2027—the independent lifestyle of "not buying a house, not buying a car, and not getting married before the age of 30" will become mainstream among young people in China. Today, people still ask: Can you survive before 30 without buying a house, a car, or getting married? Ten years from now, people might ask: You actually bought a house, a car, and got married before 30?

To prevent our generation from being "stereotyped" before the age of 30, I want to conduct a public "control experiment." Using ourselves as a sample, I want to prove to peers across China that it is possible to live well, or even better, without getting married, buying a car, buying a house, or having children before the age of 30. It’s like a "large-sample double-blind trial" in biomedical research—everyone has similar backgrounds; you walk your path, and I walk mine, and we’ll see who does better in ten years.

Of course, in today’s China, choosing not to buy a car, a house, get married, or have children before the age of 30 does come with significant pressure. I have experienced this myself: a core reason for breaking up with my last girlfriend was that she couldn’t see the possibility of marrying me within the next three years. Some might say: What’s the point of dating if you’re not getting married? Are you just fooling around? If someone thinks this way, I can only express my regret. I know that making "not buying a house, not buying a car, and not getting married" a life goal before 30 is not easy; it really isn’t easy. But I also believe that as long as we use the golden decade from 20 to 30 to enhance our personal abilities, especially the core competitiveness in the internet age, we will not regret it when we look back in ten years.

Why not get married?

Question: Why are you still not married? You are already 27.

Sun Yuchen: Indeed, I feel that as a man, the pressure is a bit less, but it seems that in China, if you are a woman and not married by 26, this question will definitely be asked by everyone. A significant reason for some of my previous breakups was that my ex-girlfriends couldn’t see the possibility of marrying me within the next three years; in fact, most women wouldn’t even wait three years—if there’s no response in six months, they would want to break up.

I really admire the social environment in Europe and America, where everyone’s life goal is not marriage, but rather their own personal and career development. In such a social structure, no one has to explain their reasons for choosing not to marry. It’s strange that in this society, married people don’t have to explain their motives for getting married, but unmarried people have to explain their reasons for not marrying; it’s truly baffling. So I hope that this situation in China can change in the next 10 to 20 years.

If we return to marriage itself, I personally believe that the essence of marriage is to form a family. It’s essentially about choosing your family partner, and the way of choosing a partner in this context is much scarier than choosing a partner for a company, because if you can’t reach an agreement in a company, you can still exit. However, there is no exit mechanism for family partners; the day you exit means the collapse of the company, the breakdown of the family, and all assets must be immediately liquidated, with each person taking half.

You can see several issues: first, it’s a complete communal living situation; second, the exit mechanism is a destruction mechanism, right? So in this case, I think finding a partner should be done with great caution. I even believe that two people should live closely together for at least two years before getting married; one year is the bottom line, so you can understand whether this person is compatible with you and whether you can maintain consistency when significant life issues arise.

So I personally feel that in terms of marriage, I do not take marriage as my goal, and I think that if I, Sun Yuchen, never get married in my life, it’s not a big sin or an unfinished task. However, I do hope to find someone I truly like and be with her, but I will be very cautious in this matter.

Question: Why do people born in the 90s not need marriage? Why did our society in the past not resist marriage?

Sun Yuchen: First, it’s important to understand that not everyone is suited for marriage, nor does everyone need to get married. Marriage is essentially a "family partnership" project, similar to entrepreneurship; it’s not suitable for everyone. Whether or not to find this partner depends on yourself, and it’s perfectly fine not to find one—that’s the first point.

Secondly, marriage means relinquishing freedom from both parties, forming a partnership system. Therefore, it’s normal for two people to have disputes in their independent development, and their independence may be compromised because one of the costs of marriage is sacrificing a portion of independence. Can you accept that? If you can’t, it may lead to divorce, and the cost of divorce is significant. In other words, "relinquishing freedom to form a partnership" is not suitable for everyone, nor is it suitable for every stage of life.

Thirdly, the marriage unit often amplifies social risks. Ideally, it should be mutual support, but in reality, there often arises the risk of "one person’s trouble, the whole family pays the price": one person gambles, the whole family bears the consequences; one person incurs debt, the whole family is liable; one person falls seriously ill, the whole family bears the burden. Risks that an individual could face independently are amplified by the financial and emotional ties of the family, and the unit’s ability to withstand risks is often insufficient, easily leading to cascading effects that hinder everyone’s development.

Fourthly, from the current practical experience, marriage may generally lead to a decline in quality of life, which is also normal. There are only 24 hours in a day; if you invest a lot of time in "partnering with a partner," you naturally cannot allocate the same amount of time to explore your personal life. Many interests and many things you want to do require negotiation between two people, and personal rhythm inevitably gets diluted. In the past, being single was not "comfortable" enough; living alone was costly and cumbersome; now, technology and services have made single life increasingly friendly, with more choices and higher efficiency. Once married, that portion of free time will be relinquished.

Fifthly, the "exit mechanism" of marriage is not perfect, and divorce often brings huge economic and energy costs. It’s not a breakup that can be ended by "deleting a WeChat contact"; it involves property, division of joint assets, and even child custody and visitation arrangements. The complexity and cost are often much higher than when not married. This is also a realistic risk that we must consider when contemplating marriage.

Sixth, and I believe this is the most important point in the context of China: once you enter the marriage track, it easily triggers strong intervention from parents, relatives, and even the entire social circle. Especially when your wedding is tied to "traditional checklists" such as buying a house, buying a car, dowries, and gifts, and requires parental savings or endorsements from elders, you can easily get caught up in the value system and behavioral logic of the previous generation, becoming a "vassal" of the entire event, allowing the worldview of your elders to dominate your life choices.

Marriage is no longer the ultimate purpose of human existence in the internet age. For the vast majority of people, at least in traditional and industrial societies, marriage was once seen as the most important mission in life. However, as we enter the internet age, this trend is clearly changing. Many people find it difficult to adapt at first, but I believe they will gradually learn: the ultimate purpose of a person is singular—oneself. It’s not about houses, cars, marriage, or parents; it’s about you.

Returning to feudal and industrial societies, marriage/family, as the basic unit of society, indeed undertook many functions and divisions of labor. First, forming a family can significantly reduce living costs: cooking together, renting or living in a purchased house together, or even bringing parents over to care for each other, which can dilute both costs and time. In the past, without family division of labor, one person had to work during the day, cook and wash dishes at night, and manage household chores, making it difficult to balance everything. Secondly, the division of labor and cooperation based on family units—what we are familiar with as "men work outside, women manage the home, men plow, and women weave." In ancient times, women often could not support themselves independently; mothers and children relied on men’s income, and men thus took on the responsibility of supporting women and raising infants. Thirdly, families fulfill social responsibilities: supporting the elderly and raising children primarily rely on internal family support. Fourthly, from a familial perspective, blood relations and clans were the earliest forms of interpersonal organization, and passing on the family line was seen as the core of family and power continuity, with the inheritance of the crown prince being a typical example. Fifthly, marriage/family has long been the most stable and accepted way for human reproduction.

However, in the internet age, these functions are gradually weakening. First, consider living costs: the cost of living alone is significantly decreasing because the coarse division of labor within families has been replaced by socialized and internet-based fine division of labor. Take cooking as an example; my mother has always said, "Either learn to cook or find a wife who can cook, or you’ll starve." Yet here I am, still unable to cook rice, and I haven’t starved, simply because of O2O food delivery. In the past, eating out every day was both expensive and time-consuming; now, food delivery saves time and isn’t too costly, and often it’s more economical than cooking for yourself, even more so than "marrying someone who can cook." Household chores can also be outsourced: services like Ayi Bang and 58 Daojia use the sharing economy to match idle time and labor, directly replacing the need to "marry a housekeeper." Additionally, with washing machines, dishwashers, and dry cleaners, trivial tasks have been simplified to the extent of "just pressing a button." Thus, the slight "reduction in costs and time" that marriage brings can mostly be resolved through socialized services.

Let's look at the premise of "men supporting women." The Industrial Revolution and the Internet Revolution have brought society into the era of knowledge economy, where the marginal value of physical strength has decreased, and "men's strength" is no longer a decisive productivity factor. Since the 20th century, women's rights have continuously advanced, and women have gained equal opportunities and income in most fields, with some industries even surpassing men. Therefore, the old premise that "men must support women and children" is gradually collapsing. In the past, once divorced, women might fall into a survival crisis; now, at least in cities and most industries, women have achieved considerable economic independence. Of course, the mindset of "male superiority and female inferiority" or viewing oneself as a tradable resource still exists, but it is undeniable that, economically, the equality between women and men is continuously strengthening, and the necessity of the family as a "one-way support unit" is naturally declining. Moreover, the social responsibility of "elderly care and child-rearing" being solely borne by the family is diminishing. The reason agricultural societies relied on families was due to the lack of public services; entering the 21st century, most developed countries and major cities in China are gradually improving their social security and pension systems, and public and market-oriented services such as education, healthcare, and childcare are also expanding. Families are still important, but they are no longer the only option, nor do they have to be everything.

Question: Life in big cities in China is so difficult; should I return to my hometown?

Sun Yuchen: I think life in big cities is not simple at all, but the notion that "living in big cities is extremely difficult" is largely exaggerated. Why is it exaggerated? Because directors and media people are mostly concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, while small cities lack a mature entertainment industry, and almost no one goes to film or tell stories about those places. What does the media like? "A dog biting a person is not news; a person biting a dog is news." Living well is not newsworthy; living poorly has drama, so the theme of "struggling in Beijing" is repeatedly filmed and told, creating a false impression that life in big cities is very hard.

I’m not speaking from a position of privilege. I have also experienced days when I had little money. Back then in Beijing, I received 1,000 yuan a month from my dad; it was indeed tight and tough, but it wasn’t as exaggerated as imagined. At least I could manage three meals a day, and I still had dreams and hopes. The pressure was certainly high, stemming from the pressure of striving itself, but I didn’t feel that it was "impossible to survive." Big cities are called "big cities" because they create jobs and opportunities every day, far exceeding their new population. Companies like "Accompany Me" sometimes face cash flow issues but still need young people; if operational conditions improve, they need to hire even more. As long as a young person has the ability to work, is willing to learn, and knows a bit about the internet, they will generally be needed in big cities, making it not so hard to live.

Conversely, looking at returning to my hometown, especially in areas with a single industrial structure and lower levels of development, the real problems begin. Many places only have primary and secondary industries, which basically do not require the creativity and trial-and-error of young people; management positions are highly rigid, with low mobility. Even if they hire newcomers, it is often for purely physical, repetitive assembly tasks, which have low value and limited growth potential; in many places, machines are more suitable than people. Positions that truly require ideas, creativity, drive, and ambition are mostly concentrated in big cities. Therefore, I have always believed that big cities belong to young people—no matter how tough or tiring it is, it is worth holding on. If you say you want to go back for "stability," earning one or two thousand yuan, encountering a little wind or grass movement, your risk resistance ability becomes almost nonexistent; and when you get older and want to return, the costs are high, and the window of opportunity has long passed, making it even harder to re-enter big cities. So my advice to young people is clear: prioritize big cities and try not to leave easily.

Question: Will women continue to depreciate with age?

Sun Yuchen: To some extent, this is also why we always say that those born in the 90s should try to postpone marriage. As personal development and social mobility increase, you will see a larger world and be able to make more mature and better choices. Here’s an example that may seem a bit utilitarian but illustrates the point: a 17-year-old girl from a rural area, if she has not been exposed to mobile internet or left her hometown through college entrance exams, might get married before she turns 20, and her potential partners are basically limited to her village or town, often among those with the heaviest moral pressures. However, if she waits a few more years, gets into a good university, or uses mobile internet to open a Taobao store, create a public account, become a streamer, or a social media influencer, she will have new development opportunities, and her potential partners will expand to university classmates or various people in the upstream and downstream of the internet industry. As she progresses further, starting a business, entering large companies, or even studying or working abroad, the people and industries she can connect with will broaden even more, and her range of choices will increase. Thus, as she moves from 17 to 27, and even to 37, the people who can appreciate, tolerate, and truly resonate with her are far beyond the group she could reach initially. Ultimately, the reason marriage can bring higher happiness is that you have comprehensively improved yourself; marriage is merely a means to achieve this improvement and happiness, heavily relying on personal capability enhancement.

Secondly, in the internet age, "childbearing" is no longer an obligatory duty for individuals, and a woman's value is not solely derived from her uterus. A recent landmark event is Xu Jinglei freezing her eggs in the U.S. I believe that in the future, egg freezing and surrogacy may become fashionable choices for new women, containing huge industrial opportunities; there will be significant development space around this "value system industry chain." From the female perspective, both egg freezing and surrogacy could become necessities.

Furthermore, to break the so-called narrative that "women will depreciate with age," it is best to go to big cities where internet ethics prevail, rather than small cities dominated by traditional morals. Morality reflects the stage of social development and can change: in places where traditional economy and systems dominate, the ideas of "three obedience and four virtues" and "a woman without talent is virtuous" emphasize obedience to parents and husbands; women pursuing independence and happiness, whether to marry or not, are often labeled as "immoral." In big cities, personal value and personal enhancement are the highest "morals." If you continue to impose traditional values on people, it will appear even more immoral. For example, our 28-year-old female listener might be pointed at in her hometown in Henan: "Still not married at this age, how embarrassing." But in Beijing, almost no one would say that to her face; even in private, the proportion is very low. The tolerance in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen is high, and the lifestyles are diverse, making it difficult to find uniform moral judgments that forcefully pressure personal lives. Therefore, we repeatedly emphasize: you must come to big cities to find your kind. Don’t waste time fighting against traditional morals in small cities; what you need to do is to meet another version of yourself in a different world, and you can definitely find like-minded people in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. We also do not recommend that those who hold such views stay in small cities to "struggle"; they should come to big cities.

Thus, the proposition "Will women continue to depreciate with age?" is itself flawed. According to the methodology and worldview of the internet, people are the greatest value carriers of the era and society, regardless of gender. Your age, fertility, and appearance are not decisive factors; what truly makes a difference is often the level of effort and the path of growth.

Question: If your wife and your mother fell into the water at the same time, who should you save first?

Sun Yuchen: Marriage is sacred; once you have made a marriage vow, you leave your family and form a new family with your partner. From this perspective, your vow to this family is even more significant than your vow to your parents because this is the first vow you actively chose in your life. When this vow is challenged, you must do everything in your power to defend this free vow.

Therefore, I believe that a true man should answer that he should save his wife first because she is the vow he freely chose, while his vow to his mother is one that comes from blood relations. And we know that in a truly civilized country, any actively chosen vow has a higher priority than a blood relation vow because blood relation vows are not chosen. This is similar to how we often prioritize debts in economics; you indeed owe both, but which debt you pay first and which you pay later is certainly prioritized. The important distinction for this priority is whether the fulfillment of this vow is the result of your own active choice, which is very important.

Is not providing a safety net for family relationships cold-blooded?

Question: You often say that there should be boundaries with parents; wouldn’t the idea of not helping parents or siblings be too cruel or cold-blooded? After all, in family life, not distinguishing between each other can also lead to harmonious days.

Sun Yuchen: Today, I will take some time to respond to this question in detail; later, I will talk about the issue of "forgetting to remember money."

First, let’s talk about "cold-blooded." I actually think that the distribution of "sex and power" is colder; money, in a sense, is warmer. Because money does not discriminate against anyone; it gives you the possibility to change your fate: as long as you have money, you have the space to turn things around, to change your power and status in the family, society, and country. Conversely, the distribution of gender/blood relations is a fixed allocation: in traditional families, women often have no rights; no matter how hard they try, they are essentially easily treated as "tradable resources," with parents "selling" them to subsidize the growth and development of males. If money is not used for distribution, it will revert to the distribution of "sex and power."

From this perspective, the distribution of "sex and power" is colder. And even when talking about "cold-blooded," it is not about cold-blooded values but rather cold-blooded reality. The basic law of the world is simple: to reap, you must first sow; if someone wants to spend money, someone must earn it. There are no free lunches, and there is no "you reap without sowing" or "you have money without earning." We are merely articulating a set of values that align more closely with reality.

To put it more bluntly: it’s as simple as 1+1=2. A country’s high welfare must be built on higher taxation of "those who contribute more" to allow "those who contribute less" to enjoy welfare. The state itself does not create tax revenue; it is merely an organization for taxation and redistribution, and aside from operational losses, it does not directly produce value. Therefore, if the state wants to give money to A, it must first take money from B. Many people fail to grasp this principle of "there is no free lunch": if someone gains in distribution, someone else must give up; unless someone expands the "cake." But we also know that the hardest thing in the world is precisely to expand the cake and earn money.

Thus, this set of values does not have a distinction of "cold-blooded/not cold-blooded"; it merely reveals the facts. At the same time, if we must compare, the distribution of "sex and power" is colder; the distribution of "money and freedom" is better. Much of the aversion to this comes from the psychology of "shooting the messenger": not facing the facts but venting anger at the person who states the facts.

There is a saying from the Roman Republic: King Tigranes II of Armenia received a report from a messenger that the Roman general Lucullus was invading. He was furious: "How dare you bring such bad news!" He immediately executed the messenger. But executing the messenger does not change the fact that the Roman army was already on the way. After that, no one dared to report the war situation until the king himself was captured by Lucullus, and even his head was cut off. Shakespeare's plays often depict such scenarios. The reasoning is the same: we are not creating a "cold-blooded reality"; we are merely stating it.

Moreover, I am not pessimistic about human nature. Today's society is generally improving; the distribution rules of "money and freedom" are fairer, more flexible, and can provide individuals with the space to rewrite their destinies compared to the distribution rules of "sex and power." So rather than being cold-blooded, it is more about being clear-headed. By laying the facts on the table, clearly defining boundaries, and then discussing family ties, responsibilities, and mutual assistance, we can avoid turning love into exploitation.

Question: Do your parents hope you will take the civil service exam or work for a state-owned enterprise?

Sun Yuchen: This is a very good question. I think this is the expectation of most Chinese parents for our generation, including my dad. Because I studied at Peking University for my undergraduate degree, many parents believe that since I got into Peking University, especially in the humanities departments like history and Chinese, the best option after graduation is to work in ministries like the Organization Department, the Ministry of Finance, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or to go to monopolistic state-owned enterprises like China Minmetals, China National Petroleum, or Sinopec, to receive a "stable salary" and settle down in Beijing. This would satisfy my dad's feeling of "my son has connections in Beijing."

But from the very beginning, I knew I wasn't suited for that. I remember one time my dad came to Peking University to walk with me, and I laid out my true thoughts to him: these places offer almost no space for creativity and will strongly suppress young people's creativity. The only value of young people there is to be obedient, to be a cog in the machine, to be an unautonomous execution tool. They offer a semblance of stability: a monthly salary of five thousand yuan, a promise of possibly "getting a house," some vague benefits, and the psychological comfort of "not being fired."

But I don't believe in the so-called "not being fired." China experienced large-scale layoffs in state-owned enterprises in the 1990s; during Mao Zedong's era, that was a true iron rice bowl, even a "steel rice bowl," but by the 1990s, it was shattered. Since history has already proven this, what reason do we have to continue believing in the "iron rice bowl" today?

Moreover, young people entering these systems are already quite outstanding among their peers. With just a little more effort, earning ten thousand yuan in the market is quite normal. No one who is worth ten thousand yuan should be grateful for receiving five thousand and feel lucky that "at least I wasn't fired." This mindset reflects an overly low expectation of one's own abilities. You are not that bad; you are just bound by a low-paying "stable" narrative.

Thirdly, the so-called stability is built on low salaries and low growth, with almost zero improvement in capabilities. The daily work content is vastly inferior to what you can learn in a startup or an internet company. After two or three years of graduation, the gap becomes very obvious. Many people will pay a high price for that initial "stable" choice.

Therefore, I do not recommend anyone to consider civil service or state-owned enterprises as default options. The reason parents insist on us taking these exams is mostly based on their generation's experiences and narratives, which is a stereotype, a conceptual trap brought about by a fixed path. The real choice should return to personal character, abilities, aspirations, and the speed of life you desire.

Question: Have you ever had a big fight with your parents? What was it about?

Sun Yuchen: There was indeed a time when my relationship with my parents was quite strained. Looking back now, it seems a bit funny, but at the time, it was really tough. The biggest conflict occurred during my junior and senior years, when I was preparing to go to the United States, specifically in 2011 and 2012. The reason was simple: being in the U.S., I was financially tight and under a lot of economic pressure; yet I chose to do the "poorest" thing—start a business. Under that pressure, my relationship with my parents began to deteriorate.

They also didn't quite understand the investment I was making to study abroad. At that time, spending three hundred thousand yuan a year in the U.S. seemed to them like a waste of money that could be better spent on buying a house or doing something else back home. In their eyes, that was a more "stable" arrangement; to me, going abroad was an investment in myself, an upgrade. The difference in perspectives essentially represented a clash between traditional paths and my more avant-garde choices.

For a while, the arguments were intense, and they even paused their financial support for me. I was living quite difficultly abroad. Looking back, my parents were indeed gradually influenced by me, and they now recognize many of my viewpoints. However, this change didn't need to come at the cost of damaging our relationship or even "cutting off support"—I was the one who suffered, and everyone was hurt. If I had to do it again, I would still hold the same views but would handle things in a gentler way and communicate more gently.

Question: What do you think about parents saying they will arrange a safety net for their children?

Sun Yuchen: I believe that not only in my relationship with my parents, but in any relationship, there should not be an obligation to provide a safety net. What is a safety net obligation? It means giving the impression that no matter how bad things get, I will take care of everything, or actually doing so is wrong. Of course, we know that in most real-life situations, you clearly indicate to the other party that you have a safety net obligation, and with the ability to provide that safety net, but when the other party truly needs you to provide it, you simply cannot. I think this is the most common scenario. So if you cannot provide that safety net, you shouldn't have claimed you could in the first place. Children should not provide a safety net for their parents, and parents should not provide a safety net for their children. Just as I believe that the state should not provide a safety net for citizens, citizens should not provide a safety net for the state; the obligations between the state and individuals are the same as those between parents and children.

Moreover, most tragedies in life arise when you give the other party the impression of a safety net or set expectations for a safety net, but in the end, your ability does not meet those expectations, leading to a significant gap between the expectations and the outcome of not being able to provide that safety net, which often becomes a crucial trigger for destroying the relationship. Recently, for example, I saw in the news that someone even physically assaulted their parents because they couldn't buy a wedding house for them. The tragedy itself is that parents should not give children the expectation of buying a wedding house, and you are not obligated to do so. In the end, if you cannot buy it, you cannot buy it. Therefore, the rupture in relationships caused by this gap is often a very important fuse that destroys the relationship, stemming from inconsistent expectations and the significant problems caused by the existence of a safety net obligation.

I have seen many people who, during my college entrance examination period, thought that my dad or mom could help me find connections to get into a good university. In the end, the vast majority ultimately find that they are unreliable, and relying on this idea of parents leads to a lack of effort, ultimately harming themselves by going to a very poor school. This is just a very simple example. We all know that achieving success in this society is a very complex outcome; it sounds easy, but in essence, it is the result of a complex variable multi-dimensional competition, making success very difficult. The variables that parents can control are very few, so can you really expect your parents to pull you up to success? That is as naive as the single-variable thinking we discussed earlier: if I just do this, I can achieve that. This is a very naive single-variable thinking. I know too many examples of second-generation rich kids who lost thirty to forty million yuan and ended up with nothing. And these rich kids' parents are very successful entrepreneurs; I won't name names to avoid offending anyone. But I truly know too many outstanding Chinese entrepreneurs whose children lost everything when starting their own businesses. So think about it: their parents are so outstanding in China, and some are even on the Forbes list, yet they cannot help their children achieve genuine success in entrepreneurship.

For the vast majority of people, how can you expect your parents to make you successful? Ultimately, everything relies on oneself. Therefore, I must do some psychological construction: no one should have excessive expectations or thoughts about their parents. Although parents have an obligation to raise you, if they do very little, there is really nothing you can do about it. I hope everyone does not have excessive expectations in this regard, as this is ultimately a matter of self-awareness.

Secondly, I believe that parents' nurturing of their children should be seen as an obligation. I am 26 years old this year, and I believe that in the next ten years, I will likely have children. I think it is my natural obligation to raise my daughter or son because my children did not choose to come into this world; I brought them here against their will. My children did not vote to choose to come into this world; I brought them here forcibly. Therefore, raising them is my inherent obligation. For example, as Sun Yuchen, I will not use the fact that I raised this child as a major reason to coerce them into giving back or to control their lives. I absolutely will not do that, and this is also fundamentally untenable in legal terms.

Thirdly, I believe that children have an obligation to help their parents establish a safety net, such as helping them complete a certain level of insurance, assisting them in arranging their future living conditions, and providing the legally mandated support obligations. However, when making such arrangements, it should be within the parents' own capabilities and should not provide excessive assistance. What does this mean? Even if you help your parents buy insurance, you can help them choose, but they must pay for it themselves. Then, provide the legally mandated support obligations without offering excessive assistance. I think as long as children do this, they will be fine.

Lastly, relationships between people can be both good and bad; this is completely normal. In the world, you cannot have a very close relationship with everyone you interact with, and you may even have many enemies and people you clash with; this is very normal. Therefore, I believe that after meeting the four points mentioned earlier, the quality of your relationship with your parents, and with others, does not warrant wisdom or discussion from anyone else.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。