3 ms·
The article notes that in South Korea, "from next year, cash bonuses of 2m won (£1,320) will be paid to every couple expecting a child, on top of existing child
by hyper_reality 6y ago
The article notes that in South Korea, "from next year, cash bonuses of 2m won (£1,320) will be paid to every couple expecting a child, on top of existing child benefit payments".
These cash awards for having children being paid by developed countries are laughably far too little, too late in their intention. Looking at the issue in financial terms, having a child and bringing them up well is an enormous cost both in money and time. The most significant being the opportunity cost of at least one parent's ability to participate economically being severely reduced for years. Brian Tomasik estimated that having a child may cost over $300k when measured in those terms, although there is some USA slant in his analysis (https://reducing-suffering.org/the-cost-of-kids/ https://reducing-suffering.org/the-cost-of-kids/).
Now, Tomasik does mention that having children cannot be judged economically, it's a special and important experience that you can't place a price on. On the other hand, there's no denying that raising a child in today's world is simply unthinkable for many young adults who are struggling with insecurity in housing, careers, and a bleaker outlook on the future. Many commodities are historically cheap today but property is extremely less affordable, and most prospective parents would rather delay having children until they can achieve career stability and afford a reasonably-sized house, which is happening very late in life (if at all) compared to previous generations.
If governments were really serious about reversing the decline in birth rates, they should be looking at pursuing better policies for ensuring more people can afford a home, or providing free childcare at scale - tackling the underlying societal reasons why this trend is occurring rather than adding a hopelessly insufficient cash bandaid. Furthermore, a cash bonus creates a perverse incentive where some people may grab the short term reward without necessarily considering the long term sacrifice involved in having kids.
- tartoran 6y agoAlso a lot of pressure is being put on being a child in SK so no wonder people refuse to have children and put them through a torturous schooling system.
- mykowebhn 6y agoAlthough I have no issue with the gist of what you wrote, I wouldn't classify South Korea as a developing country.
- hyper_reality 6y agoThat was a typo, I fixed it, thank you.
- Chyzwar 6y agoI do not think it is money. My parents were much poorer but decided to have three children. This global utopia where there is so much to do, experience visit and see. For many millennials and Z gen Netflix is more interesting that having a child. It does not help that there are extremely high expectation for being an parent.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jefftk 6y agoBecause a lot of the cost is opportunity cost, in monetary terms it will be higher for richer families. For example, if the lower earning parent decides to stay home with the kids, that "costs" $15k/y if their take-home pay after tax is $15k, vs $100k/y if it's $100k.
- dan-robertson 6y agoAt some point this stops being the case. Obviously if the family live on passive income and parents don’t need to work then the opportunity cost is less important. If the parents have high incomes then they can, if they are willing, afford to pay for various childcare services. However there is an emotional opportunity cost to this: parents may want to be around and not at work as their children are growing up. Though this matters less once the children are spending much of their time at school.
- powerapple 6y agoNormally it is the middle class don't have more children. They are not poor, then kids are more expensive when you can afford things for kids, you want to invest in them, and they are not rich enough to not worry about cost. Kids in poor family will cost only food, and minimal maintenance :)
- yuppie_scum 6y agoI love my child but I’m glad I had my entire 20’s and part of my 30’s to sow some wild oats and get my career out of the gutter. Unless you have a stepford wife, parenting takes away all your free time for a while.
- bane 6y agoSouth Korea has tremendous structural and social challenges regarding having children. Regardless of what those are it's resulted in the lowest female participation rate in the OECD and among the highest child rearing costs. On top of it, being a child in South Korea is no picnic, with absolutely crushing educational requirements that would probably be illegal in the U.S. My prediction is that as the population shrinks, the existing physical educational infrastructure, especially in the larger cities, will help somewhat as the competition for educational resources won't be as intense. But there's still lots of cultural challenges in terms of the approach to education and in particular college admissions (as well as college acceptance in the workforce).
- dccoolgai 6y ago>most prospective parents would rather delay having children until they can achieve career stability and afford a reasonably-sized house, which is happening very late in life (if at all) compared to previous generations. I think this was the premise of _Idiocracy_.
- BelenusMordred 6y ago> cash awards for having children being paid by developed countries are laughably far too little, too late in their intention The developed world urgently needs far less people, not more. Either you think CO2 emissions in the developing world aren't going to keep rising as living standards improve or live in a fantasyland where first world governments worldwide are meeting conservative 4 degree warming targets quick enough. We need far less children, this is provably the easiest solution with the greatest impact compared to every other measure combined in tackling climate change.
- galfarragem 6y ago> We need far less children Humm.. countries need far less children but need far more immigrants?