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

For example, Sun Yuchen's "The Road to Wealth Freedom Revolution." Looking back at his judgments and arguments from 9 years ago, they have been discussed and reviewed repeatedly today, and many conclusions and trends have been partially validated by reality; more importantly, the methodology and decision-making framework behind them still have reference value.

The most impressive and widely discussed topic among them is "Sun Yuchen's Three No Principles": not buying a house, not buying a car, and not getting married before the age of 30. Is he permanently denying houses, cars, and marriage, or does he have other considerations? And the recent rumors and public opinion about Sun Yuchen: Why did he break up with his ex-girlfriend? Why did he only buy a garage for his dad who wanted a luxury car? Why does this billionaire seem both extravagant and stingy? In these audio course materials from 9 years ago, you can actually find answers and explanations.

To facilitate reading, Rhythm BlockBeats made minimal edits and structural rearrangements on Sun Yuchen's public course audio in 2016: trying to retain the original sense of language, and logically re-editing and polishing the content of why Sun Yuchen chose "not to buy a house, not to buy a car, not to get married" for everyone to review.

Q: Why are most young people hardworking but not wealthy? What are they lacking?

Sun Yuchen: A company's strategy is very important, and a person's strategy is also very important. So I am very opposed to many young people who don't think about anything, don't make strategies, 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, treating a wife as a strategy, and never treating their own life, themselves as a strategy.

The core reason why most people are hardworking but not wealthy is that they haven't made a strategy. Many people always feel that strategy is a big word, only Jack Ma makes strategies, what strategy should I make? In fact, on the contrary, people without money should make strategies, as it is the only factor that determines success. I think first of all, don't rush to roll up your sleeves and start working. First, think clearly about what your life is for? Why do you want to do these things? What are the benefits? Does this thing align with your original intention? Who are you? Where do you come from and where are you going? Think about these fundamental questions first. If you haven't thought about these questions clearly, you will definitely not live a good life, which will lead to the problem of being hardworking but not wealthy. We often talk about a popular saying in the entrepreneurial circle, which is to cover up strategic laziness with tactical diligence, which means you feel busy every day, but you haven't accomplished anything.

Most people in China seem to be implanted with a program, rushing to buy a car, buy a house, and get married as soon as they graduate from university, just like those fake people in The Matrix, with a controller inserted in the back of their heads, without any independent personality and free will, because it's all programmed by computers. Most people don't reflect on why they want to get married? Why buy a car? Why buy a house? They just start executing like executing a program, you know? I think this is very scary.

Next, let's take a deeper look at Sun Yuchen's thoughts from 9 years ago from the three dimensions of not buying a house, not getting married, and family relationships.

Why not buy a house?

Q: The house prices have risen so much recently, should we buy?

Sun Yuchen: I think this question actually varies from person to person. First of all, I don't look down on the house prices in first-tier cities; but the housing bubble in China's second and third-tier cities is indeed serious, and I think the bubble is very obvious outside of Beijing and Shanghai, even including Shenzhen. I think the future development of Shenzhen actually depends on the further improvement of the city itself. Even so, the increase in Beijing and Shanghai is limited. You said it has increased tenfold in the past ten years, can it increase tenfold again in the next ten years? This is definitely impossible, because if it increases like this, the house prices will be higher than Mars, which is impossible.

Let's talk about affordability. For most 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 afford to participate in. For example, there is an insurance company in Portugal that wants to privatize, and I can make money by investing in it, but the threshold is 500 million. Can you participate? You can't, right? Similarly, a house in Beijing or Shanghai starts at 5 million. For most people born in 95, 5 million and 500 million are no different—they can't afford it. So this is not your opportunity, there is no need to worry about "whether you can afford it," because it is not within your choice range at all. With your current cash flow as collateral, the bank may not dare to lend to you.

Unless we are talking about three generations supporting one house, with grandparents, maternal grandparents, and both parents all involved. But then you will find a problem, yes, it is indeed possible that you have seized this investment opportunity, but there is no free lunch in this world. When all the elders are involved, you and your partner's "small limited company" instantly have 12 shareholders, and everyone has veto power—because they have invested in the company. So if you complain about buying this house, your parents are doing this every day, your grandparents are doing that, then there is nothing to complain about, because it is natural, they participated in the formation of your company, how can they not share dividends or participate in decision-making?

More realistically, most young people actually buy the most expensive and easiest to be trapped prices because they lack the most basic investment understanding of investment thresholds. Buying a house itself is a very complex thing, and I think it can take 10 lessons to explain buying a house clearly, it is very complex, not something you can buy just because you want to.

So for most young people, if they buy a house, I think they are entering a dangerous field where they have no economic strength, no investment strength, and no discernment ability prematurely, and they will pay a very high life price for this decision, really a very high life price, because many people buy a house not for investment, most people buy a house for marriage, and they will make their marriage even more dead-end, because at this time they will find that they can't even leave if they can't live together, because this house binds people so tightly. Because this house binds two people, two families together—both parents, four elders, plus you two, about 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 increase, even in the craziest stage of recent increases, the overall transaction price in Beijing is only 10% to 15% month-on-month, for example, from 45,000 to 55,000. It sounds like it has increased, but from an investment perspective, there are many opportunities in the fields that young people can invest in that exceed 20%. Just take the mobile internet that I am familiar with, companies like Weibo and Momo that everyone is familiar with, some have doubled in a year, and some stages have even increased more. In comparison, houses may be a choice for people who don't understand the internet, but for most ordinary people, this choice is too cruel and unnecessary.

Let's talk about cars. Do you want to buy a luxury car to play with when you have money? Of course, you can. I used to fantasize about driving a Lamborghini when I was a poor student. But you may be curious: I earned more than 10 million at the end of 2013, and now my net worth is over 100 million, why haven't I bought a car? The real reason is simple: no time. After starting a business, I was too busy, learning to drive was stumbling, and I only got my driver's license last year, and I am still at a novice level, I don't dare to reverse alone.

At the same time, I think there is another reason, which is the unprecedented prosperity of the sharing economy, with software like Didi and Yidao, and Uber in the United States. For daily transportation in big cities, not having a car does not affect it at all. Self-driving in small cities, going to Kekexili, or the US Highway 1? I don't have that time, I can't use it. In Beijing, the commuting experience of Didi and Uber is already very good, so I have never bought a car.

And the experience is really better: no need to park, you can make calls, work, and write things on the road. Everyone understands Beijing traffic, from Zhongguancun to Guomao, it often takes one or two hours. If you drive yourself, all this time is spent on the steering wheel; if you take a taxi, I turn the time into output. So far, I haven't seen the necessity of buying a car. Of course, if someone gives me one for free, I will still accept it.

Q: But for us business people, we still need a decent car to support the scene, what should we do?

Sun Yuchen: Do business people need a decent car to support the scene? I think not necessarily. Real partners are very smart 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 add points with a car. I didn't buy a car for many years, and the core is here.

Of course, there is also the lottery issue in Beijing—even if you want to buy, you may not be able to buy it. If you really want to buy, renting a license plate is not difficult, but after analyzing all the previous points, I still think it is meaningless. Let me give you an example: I charged 80,000 in Yidao's most aggressive period, and they gave me 100,000, equivalent to 180,000 in taxi credits, and also gave me two TVs and a bunch of coupons. This account was used for about 18 months, basically covering all car needs. The monthly consumption of three to four thousand, after discounts, is only more than two thousand, enough for business occasions to take an A6 or rent a car for a day, it really doesn't cost much.

Buying and maintaining a car is a very bad choice. 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 cheaper than everyone else. But even so, I am not willing to buy it, because a car is a fixed asset, it will inevitably depreciate, and it will be gone after a few years, it won't appreciate. I tend to do "light asset" things like the internet.

What's more, buying a car is like adding a child, you have to maintain it every day. The car won't wash itself, won't refuel itself, won't find a parking space itself, won't inspect itself, and if it gets sick, it needs to be repaired. You also have to "buy a house" for it—a parking space, and usually, you have to pay in full. Entrepreneurs around me generally reflect on two big mountains: one is raising children, various medical issues slow down the pace; the other is revolving around the car: repairing the car today, charging tomorrow. We have a 90s entrepreneur friend who bought a Tesla, and the car ran out of power on the way to charge, and had to call for roadside assistance. There are too many similar troubles, no need to elaborate. So how to travel without buying a car? Now the sharing economy can basically solve it perfectly, at least "using a car" has a mature alternative solution in China.

From the perspective of the sharing economy, it is one of the perfect solutions to replace fixed asset investment. Cars and houses have already spawned giants like Didi and Airbnb; housekeeping has 58 Home and Auntie Help; second-hand circulation has Zhuanzhuan and Idle Fish; knowledge services have Zhihu Live, etc. Any "luxury goods" that used to require large investments will be lowered by the sharing economy.

So from my perspective, the reason for buying a car is hard to establish.

Q: If you have to buy a house in Beijing, which places in Beijing are worth investing in, any suggestions?

Sun Yuchen: I think I still have some say on this issue. The overall idea is simple: choose "price depressions" in Beijing. Based on my personal judgment, the real depression in Beijing is mainly Tiantongyuan. You can search on platforms like Lianjia, and you can still find listings with a unit price of just over 20,000 in Tiantongyuan. In the context of Beijing's overall transaction price of more than 50,000, this price is indeed rare and cost-effective.

Some fans say they found Tiantongyuan to be more than 40,000, that's because you are probably looking at small areas, low total price thresholds, high liquidity types, or better location and age batches. Large houses in Tiantongyuan, such as those over 200 square meters, often have lower unit prices, and you have to "pick"—not every house is cheap, but the probability of finding a low price in Tiantongyuan is definitely higher than in other areas. As for "buying and losing money, is it my fault," investment always has fluctuations, I have already drawn the circle to the relatively lowest part in Beijing, the rest depends on your own screening and execution.

The core of any investment is still the price. It's not surprising that the target has value, the key is what price you buy in. Many people add too many attributes that "investment" shouldn't bear to buying a house—such as face, marriage, and comparison—which interferes with judgment, and finally ruins an investment that could have been made.

The method can be extrapolated to other cities: first find the undervalued areas in the sector rotation, and focus on "depressions." The homework I have done myself is: Shanghai looks at Kangcheng; Beijing looks at Tiantongyuan; nationwide, Chongqing has a high overall cost-effectiveness. I am from Huizhou, before Shenzhen's housing prices surged, the Huizhou Linshen sector was a good receiving place. Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Huizhou can also find low-position areas in the same city sector to cut in.

Also remember, houses are different from stocks. Stocks have the same price per share at the same time for a company; but house prices are strongly differentiated: different districts in the same city, whether it's street-facing, floor orientation, age, first-hand or second-hand, size, total price range, school district affiliation, and even whether the landlord is "urgent sale," will create huge price differences. Plus your financing conditions—down payment ratio, loan interest rate, term, whether you can get a lower discount—the "real cost" that falls into your hands is a comprehensive evaluation.

So buying a house is essentially more like a complex "comprehensive battle." It's not something you can conclude with "Beijing/Shanghai average price." Take Tiantongyuan as an example, the early opening price was three to four thousand, which was the level more than ten years ago; even last year, someone got a house under special circumstances for 13,000. If you can still close a deal at just over 20,000 now, looking back over ten years, it has only tripled or quadrupled; while some sectors in Beijing have increased tenfold during the same period. Where does the gap come from? It's the area, type, timing, and price you bought back then. Choosing accurately and holding steadily is the whole business of buying a house.

Q: Why do you advocate "not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married before 30"?

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

To prevent our generation of young people from being "shaped" before 30, I want to do a public "control experiment." Using ourselves as samples, we will prove to all peers in China that you can live well, even better, without getting married, buying a car, buying a house, or having children before 30. Just like the "large sample double-blind trial" in biomedical science—everyone has similar backgrounds, you walk your path, I walk mine, and see who walks better in ten years.

Of course, in today's China, choosing not to buy a car, not buy a house, not get married, and not have children before 30 is indeed stressful. I have experienced it myself: one of the core reasons for breaking up with my previous girlfriend was that I couldn't get married before 30. Some people say: Why date if you don't get married? Is it playing rogue? If someone thinks this way, I can only express regret. I know that making "not buying a house, not buying a car, not getting married" a life goal before 30 is not easy, really not easy. But I also believe that as long as you use the golden decade of 20 to 30 to improve personal abilities, especially the core competitiveness of the internet era, looking back in ten years, we will definitely not regret it.

Why not get married?

Q: Why haven't you gotten married yet? You are already 27 years old.

Sun Yuchen: Indeed, I think as a man, the pressure is a bit less, but it seems that in China, if you are a woman and haven't gotten married by 26, this question will definitely be asked by everyone. Including some of my previous girlfriends who broke up with me for the major reason that they couldn't see the possibility of getting married with me in the next 3 years, and most women don't even wait for 3 years, if there is no response in 6 months, they will break up.

I really appreciate the social environment in Europe and America, where everyone's life goal is not marriage, but their own and personal career development. In this social form, no one has to explain the reason for choosing marriage or not to society. This society is strange, married people don't have to explain their marriage motives, but unmarried people have to explain their motives for not getting married, which is really inexplicable. So I hope this situation in China can change in 10 to 20 years.

If we return to marriage itself, I personally think the essence of marriage is to form a family. It's actually choosing your family partner, and this way of choosing a partner is even more terrifying than choosing a partner for a company, because if you can't agree, you can still exit. But there is no exit mechanism for family partners, the day you exit means the company's bankruptcy, the family's breakdown, and all assets must be liquidated immediately, and the two people split half each.

You can see several problems: one, completely communal; two, the exit mechanism is a destruction mechanism, right? So in this case, I think finding a partner should be very cautious, and I think two people should live closely for at least 2 years before marriage, one year is the bottom line, to understand whether this person can get along with you and whether you can maintain consistency when major problems occur in life.

So I personally feel that in terms of marriage, I first don't take marriage as the purpose, and I think if Sun Yuchen never gets married in his life, it's not a big sin or an unfinished thing, but I also hope to find someone I truly like and be with her, but I will be very cautious in this matter.

Q: Why don't 90s need marriage? Why didn't our society resist marriage in the past?

Sun Yuchen: First, we must understand one thing: not everyone is suitable for marriage, and not everyone needs marriage. Marriage is essentially a "family partner" project, like entrepreneurship, not everyone is suitable; whether to find this partner depends on yourself, not finding is also fine—that's one.

Second, marriage means giving up both parties' freedom and forming a partnership system. So it's normal for two people to have disputes in independent development, and for each other's independence to be compromised, because one of the costs of marriage is sacrificing some independence. Can you accept it? If you can't accept it, it may lead to divorce, and the cost of divorce is also high. In other words, "giving up freedom to form a partnership" is not suitable for everyone, nor is it suitable for any life stage.

Third, the family unit of marriage often amplifies social risks. It is supposed to support each other, but in reality, "one person has an accident, the whole family pays" risk transmission often occurs: one person gambles, the whole family covers; one person has debt, the whole family is implicated; one person is seriously ill, the whole family bears it. Risks that individuals could face independently are amplified by the financial and emotional connections of the family, and the unit's risk resistance is insufficient, easily transmitted layer by layer, dragging down everyone's development.

Fourth, from the current actual experience, marriage may lead to a decline in overall life quality, which is also normal. There are only 24 hours in a day, and if you invest a lot of time in "partner affairs," you naturally can't take out the same amount of time to explore personal life. Many interests and things you want to do have to be negotiated by two people, and personal rhythm is inevitably diluted. In the past, being single was not "comfortable," the cost of living alone was high, and affairs were cumbersome; now technology and services make single life more friendly, with more choices and higher efficiency. Once married, this part of free time will be given up.

Fifth, the "exit mechanism" of marriage is not perfect, and divorce often brings huge economic and energy costs. It's not like "deleting a WeChat ends" breakup, but involves property, joint property division, and even child custody and visitation arrangements. The complexity and cost are often much higher than when not married. This is a realistic risk that must be considered when considering marriage.

Sixth, which I think is the most important point in the Chinese context: once you enter the marriage track, it is easy to trigger the strong intervention of parents, aunts, and even the entire acquaintance society. Especially when your wedding is bound to the "traditional list" of buying a house, buying a car, dowry, and gift money, and requires parental savings or elder endorsement, you are easily drawn into the value system and behavior logic of the previous generation, becoming a "vassal" of the whole event, letting the worldview of the parents dominate your life choices.

Marriage is no longer the ultimate purpose of human existence in the internet age. For most people, at least in traditional society and industrial society, marriage was considered the most important mission in life. But entering the internet age, this trend is clearly changing. Many people find it difficult to adapt for a while, but I believe they will gradually learn: the ultimate purpose of a person is only one—yourself. Not a house, not a car, not marriage, not parents, but yourself.

Returning to feudal and industrial society, marriage/family as the basic unit of society did bear many functions and divisions of labor. First, forming a family can significantly reduce living costs: cooking together, renting together or living in a bought house, even bringing parents to take care of each other, costs and time can be diluted. In the past, without family division of labor, it was difficult to balance working during the day, cooking and washing dishes at night, and managing household chores. Second, division of labor by family unit—the "male outside, female inside, male farming, female weaving" we are familiar with. In ancient times, women often couldn't support themselves alone, mothers and children had to rely on men's income, so men took on the responsibility of supporting women and raising children. Third, the family fulfills social responsibilities: supporting the elderly and raising children, mainly relying on the family to bear. Fourth, from a family perspective, blood and clan are the earliest interpersonal organization methods, and passing on the family line was considered the core of family and power continuation, with the inheritance of the throne by the eldest son being a typical example. Fifth, marriage/family has long been the most stable and default way of human reproduction.

But in the internet age, these functions are gradually weakening. First, look at living costs: the cost of living alone is significantly decreasing because the rough division of labor within the family is replaced by socialized and internet-based fine division of labor. Take cooking as an example, my mom used to say: "Either learn to cook or find a wife who can cook, otherwise you'll starve." As a result, I still can't cook this bag of rice, but I haven't starved, for a simple reason—there is O2O takeout. In the past, eating out was expensive and time-consuming, now takeout saves time and isn't expensive, often more cost-effective than cooking yourself, even more cost-effective than "marrying someone who can cook." Housework can also be outsourced: services like Auntie Help and 58 Home use the sharing economy to match idle time and labor, directly replacing the need to "marry a housekeeper." Plus washing machines, dishwashers, and dry cleaners simplify chores to the point of "pressing a button." So the "cost and time reduction" brought by marriage can mostly be solved by socialized services.

Next, look at the premise of "men supporting women." The industrial revolution and internet revolution have brought society into the knowledge economy era, the marginal value of physical strength has decreased, "men's strength" is no longer a decisive productivity. Since the 20th century, women's rights have been continuously promoted, and women have gained equal opportunities and income with men in most fields, even surpassing in some industries. Therefore, the old premise of "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 considerable economic independence. Of course, the concept of "male superiority and female inferiority" or objectifying oneself as a tradable resource still exists, but it is undeniable that in economic terms, the equality between women and men is continuously increasing, and the necessity of family as a "unilateral support unit" naturally decreases. Moreover, the social responsibility of "supporting the elderly and raising children" solely by the family is decreasing. The reason why agricultural society relied on the family was the lack of public services; but entering the 21st century, most developed countries, and major cities in China, social security and pension systems are gradually improving, and public and market services such as education, medical care, and childcare are expanding. The family is still important, but it is no longer the only one, nor does it have to be everything.

Q: Life in big cities in China is so difficult, should we go back to our hometown?

Sun Yuchen: I think life in big cities is not easy at all, but the idea that "life in big cities is extremely difficult" is largely exaggerated. Why is it exaggerated? Because directors and media people are basically concentrated in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, small cities don't have mature entertainment industries, and almost no one goes to shoot or talk about stories in those places. What do media like? "Dog bites man is not news, man bites dog is news." Living well is not news, living miserably is dramatic, so the theme of "Beijing drifters living miserably" is repeatedly shot and talked about, giving people a false impression of living difficultly in big cities.

I'm not speaking without empathy. I've also experienced days with little money. At that time in Beijing, I received 1,000 yuan a month, which was funded by my dad; it was tight, it was hard, but not as exaggerated as imagined. At least I could manage three meals a day, and still had dreams and hopes. The pressure was certainly great, coming from the pressure of struggle itself, but I don't think it was the difficulty of "not being able to live." Big cities are called "big cities" because they create far more jobs and opportunities every day than their new population. Companies like ours, "陪我" (Accompany Me), sometimes have tight cash flow, but still need young people; if the operating situation is better, we need to hire more people. As long as you are a young person with labor ability, willing to learn, and know a little about the internet, you will basically be needed in big cities, and won't live so difficultly.

On the contrary, going back to your hometown, especially those areas with single industrial structures and low development levels, is where the real problems begin. Many places only have primary and secondary industries, basically don't need young people's creativity and trial and error, management positions are highly solidified, and liquidity is small; even if they hire new people, it's often pure physical and repetitive assembly processes, with low value sense and small growth space, and in many places, machines are more suitable than people. Positions that really need ideas, creativity, drive, and energy are mostly concentrated in big cities. So I always think big cities belong to young people—it's worth enduring the hardship and fatigue. You say you want "stability," earning one or two thousand yuan, and when there's a little wind and grass, the risk resistance ability is almost none; and when you get older, if you want to come back, the cost is high, and the window period has long been missed, making it harder to re-enter big cities. So for young people, my advice is clear: choose big cities as the first choice, and try not to leave easily.

Q: Will women continue to depreciate with age?

Sun Yuchen: To some extent, this is also why we always say that people born in the 90s should try to delay marriage. As personal development and class rise, you will see a bigger world and be able to make more mature and better choices. Let me give an example that may be a bit utilitarian but enough to illustrate the problem: a 17-year-old rural girl, if she hasn't been exposed to mobile internet and hasn't left her hometown through the college entrance examination, she may get married before 20, and the objects she can meet are basically limited to her village and town, often the group with the heaviest moral oppression. But if she waits a few more years, gets into a good university, or opens a Taobao store, does a public account, becomes a host, or becomes an internet celebrity through mobile internet, gaining new development opportunities, her suitable marriage objects will become college classmates or various people she can contact in the internet circle. As she moves forward, starts a business, enters the big factory ecosystem, or even goes abroad to study, work, and expand her life, the people and industries she can contact will be broader, and the choice range will be larger. So when she goes from 17 to 27, and even to 37, the people who can appreciate her, tolerate her, and truly be on the same channel are far beyond the group that the original radius can cover. Ultimately, the reason why marriage can bring higher happiness is because you have comprehensively improved yourself; marriage is just a means to achieve this improvement and happiness, and it strongly depends on the improvement of personal ability.

Secondly, in the internet age, "reproduction" is no longer a mandatory obligation, and the uterus is not the only source of women's value. Recently, there was a landmark event—Xu Jinglei went to the US to freeze eggs. I think in the future, freezing eggs and surrogacy may become fashionable choices for new women, with huge industrial opportunities hidden in them; there will be great development space for the extension of this "three-view industry chain." On the female side, freezing eggs and surrogacy may become rigid needs.

Moreover, to break the so-called "women will depreciate with age" discourse, it's best to go to big cities where internet morality prevails, rather than small cities dominated by traditional morality. Morality is a reflection of the stage of social development and will change: in places where traditional economy and systems dominate, it's still "three obediences and four virtues," "women's lack of talent is virtue," emphasizing obedience to parents and husbands; women pursuing independence and happiness, whether married or not, are considered "immoral." But in big cities, personal value and personal improvement are the greatest "morality." If you use the traditional set to oppress people, it seems immoral. For example, our 28-year-old female listener may be pointed at in her hometown in Henan: "It's shameful not to get married at this age." But in Beijing, almost no one would say that to her face; even privately, the proportion is very low. The tolerance and diversity of life in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen make it difficult to have uniform moral judgments that forcefully pressure personal life. So we repeatedly emphasize: you must come to big cities to find your kind. Don't waste time in small cities and traditional morality, you need to meet another world of yourself, and you can definitely find people with consistent views in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. We also don't recommend people with this view stay in small cities to "fight," but come to big cities.

So the proposition of "whether women will continue to depreciate with age" is wrong. According to the internet methodology and worldview, people are the greatest value carriers of the era and society, regardless of gender. Your age, reproductive ability, and appearance are not decisive factors; the real gap is often in the degree of effort and growth path.

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

Sun Yuchen: Marriage is sacred, and once you have the vow of marriage, you leave your family and form a new family with your partner. From this perspective, your vow to this family is even higher than your vow to your parents, because this is the first vow you actively choose in your life, and when this vow is challenged, you must do everything you can to defend this free vow.

So I think as a real man, his answer should be to save his wife first, because the wife is the vow he truly freely chooses, and the vow with his mother is a vow from blood relatives. And we know that in a truly civilized country, any actively chosen vow has a higher priority than a blood relative vow, because a blood relative vow is unchosen, just like we often have debt priority and subordination in economics, it's the same, it's the same debt, you should pay it back, but which debt to pay first and which debt to pay later, of course, there is a priority allocation. And this priority is our important distinction method, which is to see whether the achievement of this vow is the result of your own active choice, which is very important.

Is it cold-blooded not to cover family relationships?

Q: You often say there should be a sense of boundary with parents, is the idea of not helping parents or siblings too cruel and cold-blooded? After all, in family life, not distinguishing between each other can also have harmonious days.

Sun Yuchen: Today, let's take some time to respond to this question in detail; later, I'll talk about the issue of "remembering money" itself.

First, "cold-blooded." I think "distribution of sex and power" is colder; money is warmer in a sense. Because money doesn't discriminate against anyone, it gives you the possibility to change your destiny: as long as you have money, you have the space to turn the tables, and you can change your power and status in the family, society, and country. Conversely, the distribution of gender/blood relations is a fixed distribution: in traditional families, women often have no rights; no matter how hard they try, they are essentially easily treated as "tradable resources," parents "sell" you to subsidize the growth and development of males. If it's not money for distribution, it will return to "distribution of sex and power."

From this perspective, "distribution of sex and power" is colder. And even if we talk about "cold-blooded," it's not about cold-blooded views, but cold-blooded reality. The basic rule of the world is simple: to harvest, you must first sow; if someone wants to spend money, someone must earn money. There is no free lunch, and there is no "you harvest without sowing" or "you have money without earning." We are just talking about a set of views that are more in line with the facts.

To put it more bluntly: it's as simple as 1+1=2. A country's high welfare must be built on higher levies on "those who contribute more" to allow "those who don't contribute much" to enjoy welfare. The country itself doesn't create tax revenue, it is just an organization for taxation and redistribution, and apart from operational losses, it doesn't directly produce value. So if the country wants to give money to A, it must first take money from B. What many people haven't figured out is the "no free lunch" principle: if someone gets something in distribution, someone must give up something in distribution; unless someone makes the "cake" bigger. But we also know that the hardest thing in the world is to make the cake bigger and earn money.

Therefore, this set of views itself has no "cold-blooded/not cold-blooded" distinction, it just reveals the facts. At the same time, if we have to compare, "distribution of sex and power" is colder; "distribution of money and freedom" is better. The aversion to this often comes from the "shoot the messenger" psychology: not facing the facts, but blaming the person who speaks the facts.

There is a story from the Roman Republic period: Armenian King Tigranes II received a messenger's report—Roman general Lucullus was leading an army to invade. He was furious: "How dare you bring such bad news!" and immediately beheaded the messenger. But beheading the messenger didn't 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 write this kind of plot. The same principle: we didn't create "cold-blooded reality," we just said it.

Moreover, I am not pessimistic about human nature. Today's society is generally getting better, and the "distribution of money and freedom" rules are fairer, more flexible, and more able to leave space for individuals to rewrite their destiny than the "distribution of sex and power" rules. So rather than saying cold-blooded, it's better to say clear-headed. Put the facts on the table, draw boundaries, and then talk about affection, responsibility, and mutual assistance, so that love doesn't become exploitation.

Q: Did your parents hope you would take the civil service exam or work in a state-owned enterprise?

Sun Yuchen: This question is very good. I think this is the expectation of most Chinese parents for our generation. Including my dad. Because I studied at Peking University, many parents think: since you entered Peking University, especially in the liberal arts department of history and Chinese, the best thing is to enter the Organization Department, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or these ministries in the first year after graduation, or go to monopolistic state-owned enterprises like Minmetals, PetroChina, Sinopec, and eat "imperial food," settle in Beijing. It can satisfy my dad's feeling of "my son has someone in Beijing."

But from the beginning, I knew I wasn't suitable. I remember once my dad came to Peking University to accompany me for a walk, and I opened up my true thoughts to him: these places have almost no space for creativity, and they strongly suppress young people's creativity. The only value of young people in them is to be obedient, be a screw, and be a tool without autonomy. It gives a kind of apparent stability: the promise of 5,000 yuan a month, maybe "housing allocation" in the future, some illusory 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 state-owned enterprise layoffs in the 1990s; the Mao Zedong era was called an iron rice bowl, even a "steel rice bowl," but it was smashed in the 1990s. Since history has verified it, what reason is there to continue believing in the "iron rice bowl" today?

Moreover, young people who enter these systems are already excellent among their peers. As long as they work a little harder, earning 10,000 in the market is very normal. No one who is worth 10,000 should be grateful and celebrate "at least not being fired" when receiving 5,000. This mindset is a low expectation of one's ability. You are not that bad, just bound by a low-salary "stability" narrative.

Third, the so-called stability is built on low salary and low growth, with almost zero ability improvement. The daily work content is far different from what you can learn in startups and internet companies. After two or three years of graduation, the gap becomes very obvious. Many people pay a big price for the "stability" choice they made back then.

So, I don't recommend anyone to take civil service or state-owned enterprises as the default option. Parents insist on letting us take the exam, mostly based on their generation's experience and narrative, a stereotype, a concept trap brought by a fixed path. The real choice should return to personal character, ability, ambition, and the speed of life you want.

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

Sun Yuchen: My relationship with my parents was indeed very tense for a while. Now it seems a bit funny, but it was really uncomfortable at the time. The biggest conflict happened in my junior and senior years, preparing to go to the US, strictly speaking, in 2011 and 2012. The reason is simple: in the US, money was tight, and the economic pressure was great; and I chose to do the "poorest" thing, entrepreneurship. Under pressure, the relationship with my parents began to deteriorate.

They also didn't quite understand my investment in studying abroad. At that time, spending 300,000 yuan a year in the US, they thought this money was better left in China to buy a house or do something else. In their eyes, this was a more "stable" arrangement; in my view, going abroad was an investment in myself, an upgrade. The difference in concepts was essentially a collision between traditional paths and my more avant-garde choices.

There was a time when the quarrel was the fiercest, they even suspended their financial support for me. I lived quite difficultly abroad. Looking back, my parents were indeed slowly influenced by me, and now they also recognize many of my views. But this change didn't have to come at the cost of hurting feelings or even "cutting off supply"—I was the one who suffered, and everyone was hurt. If I had to do it again, I would still insist on the same ideas, but I would handle it more gently and communicate more gently.

Q: How do you view parents saying they will arrange the future for their children?

Sun Yuchen: I think first of all, I personally believe that not only the relationship with parents, but any relationship should not have a bottom-line obligation. What is a bottom-line obligation? It's the idea that no matter how bad you are, I will accept it all, giving people such a hint, or actually doing it is wrong. Of course, we know that in reality, most situations are that you clearly indicate to the other party that you have a bottom-line obligation, and when the other party really asks you to cover the bottom, you can't cover it, which I think is the most common. So if you can't cover the bottom, you shouldn't have said you could cover the bottom in the first place. Children shouldn't provide a bottom-line for parents, and parents shouldn't provide a bottom-line for children. Just like I personally believe that the state shouldn't provide a bottom-line for citizens, and citizens shouldn't provide a bottom-line for the state, the obligations between the state and people, and between parents and children are the same.

Moreover, most tragedies in life occur because you gave the other party a hint of covering the bottom or gave the other party the expectation of covering the bottom, and when your ability doesn't reach the bottom, the huge gap between the expectation and the result of not being able to cover the bottom will lead to many tragedies. Recently, for example, I saw in the news that someone actually beat their parents because they couldn't buy a wedding house, which is actually a tragedy itself because parents shouldn't give children the expectation of buying a wedding house, and you don't have the obligation to do so, and of course, you can't buy it in the end, so the gap leads to the tearing of the relationship, which is often a very important trigger for destroying the relationship between the two parties, which is the inconsistency of expectations and the major problems caused by the existence of bottom-line obligations.

I've seen many people, when I took the college entrance exam, always thought my dad or mom could help me find connections to get into a good university, but in the end, most people find it completely unreliable, and relying on parents leads to not working hard, and finally harming themselves by going to a very bad school. This is just a very simple example, we all know that achieving success in this society is a very complex result, which is ultimately a complex variable multi-dimensional competition leading to the result of success being too difficult, and parents can control very few variables, so can you expect your parents to pull you and you will succeed? This is as naive as the single-variable thinking we talked about before, I just need to do this and I can do that, this is a very naive single-variable thinking, and most of the rich second-generation entrepreneurs I know have lost three or four million, with too many examples of losing everything. And these rich second-generation parents themselves are very successful entrepreneurs, I won't name names here to avoid offending people. But I really know too many excellent Chinese entrepreneurs whose children lost everything when they started a business. So think about it, their parents are so outstanding in China, some are even on the Forbes list, and they can't help their children achieve real success in entrepreneurship.

Most people, how can you expect your parents to make you successful? So ultimately, everything depends on yourself. So I must do a psychological construction, which is that no one should have excessive demands and ideas for their parents, although parents' upbringing is an obligation, but if they do very little, you really have no way. I hope everyone doesn't have excessive expectations, because this is ultimately a matter of self-awareness.

Secondly, I believe that parents' upbringing of children should be regarded as an obligation, because I am 26 years old this year, and I believe I will likely have children in the next 10 years. I think raising my daughter or son is my natural obligation, because my children didn't choose to come into this world, I forcibly brought them here, my children didn't vote to choose, subjectively choose to come into this world, I forcibly brought them here, so raising them is my obligatory obligation, and I, Sun Yuchen, will not use my upbringing of this child as a main reason to threaten the child to pay in the future, or to control the child's life, I will never do this, and this is naturally untenable in law.

Thirdly, I believe children have an obligation to help parents establish a safety net, such as helping them complete a certain degree of insurance, helping them complete a certain degree of future life arrangements, and providing legally required support obligations. But when you make such arrangements, you should try to be within the parents' own ability range, and not provide excessive help. What does it mean? Even if you help your parents buy insurance, you help them buy it, help them choose, but the money has to be paid by themselves, and provide legally required support obligations, don't provide excessive help, I think as long as children do this, it's basically enough.

Fifth, people's feelings are good and bad, this is normal. In the world, when you interact with everyone, you can't have a very strong relationship with everyone, and you may have many enemies, many people you have bad relationships with, this is very normal. So I think after meeting the 4 points mentioned earlier, the good or bad relationship with parents, no one else has the wisdom or right to discuss.