This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
According to reports, the number of Chinese university graduates reached 12.7 million in 2026. Including people from previous graduating cohorts who remain unemployed and overseas students returning to China, the number of job seekers exceeded 15 million. Data released by the National Bureau of Statistics, meanwhile, showed that the unemployment rate among workers aged 16 to 24 was 14.9% in June. At the same time, the number of full-time vacancies in Hong Kong suitable for university graduates fell from approximately 80,000 in 2022 to around 31,000 in 2025. AI is disrupting entry-level positions in administration, information technology, programming, and other fields. Graduates are facing not merely the question of “how to improve their skills”; the pathway into the workforce itself is narrowing.
Learning new tools and developing interdisciplinary capabilities are, of course, realistic strategies young people can pursue. But if the employment crisis is entirely blamed on individuals for “not working hard enough” or having an “unclear career定位,” structural problems are simply being pushed back onto the generation with the least bargaining power. AI itself is not the culprit. What truly deserves scrutiny is this: Who gets to share in the wealth created by technological progress? Are the costs saved by companies through “reducing costs and increasing efficiency” being converted into fairer wages, more secure labor protections, and more adequate training opportunities? When large numbers of young people are forced to choose among low-paid, unstable, or jobs unrelated to their fields of study, who will oversee companies and governments to ensure that they fulfill their responsibilities?
In mainland China, employment data on young people are themselves constrained by statistical definitions and limited transparency, while public discussion also lacks sufficient, free news reporting and independent investigations. Without genuine democratic elections, workers find it difficult to influence employment, education, and social security policies through political participation. Without checks and balances on power, administrative decisions lack effective accountability. Without judicial independence, even when young people face unlawful dismissal, unpaid wages, or unfair treatment, they may not have sufficiently reliable channels for redress. Employment pressure is therefore not merely a matter of the economic cycle; it also exposes the institutional predicament of citizens’ rights being inadequately protected under one-party rule.
A healthy society should not require young people to silently adapt to every “efficiency revolution” dominated by power and capital while denying them the rights to express themselves, organize, and negotiate. AI should serve human dignity, rather than become an excuse to depress wages and weaken protections. If technological progress is to genuinely benefit the majority, constitutional democracy, the separation of powers, and judicial independence must be established; fundamental human rights, including freedom of speech, association, labor rights, and the right to know, must be protected; governments must be subject to voter oversight; and companies must be governed by open and equal application of the law.
Young people need skills, but they also need rights; they need employment opportunities, but also the civic status to help determine public policy. Only by transforming individuals from passive recipients into citizens capable of supervising power and participating in governance can the changes brought by AI become a force for social progress rather than an amplifier of a new round of inequality.
News background: The original report on which this commentary is based can be found at BBC Chinese。