7 ms·

South Korea is hostile for new families. Unless you were born to rich parents, have a decent education with a good job (that's with a Multi-national or a Chaebo

by 1-6 3y ago

South Korea is hostile for new families. Unless you were born to rich parents, have a decent education with a good job (that's with a Multi-national or a Chaebol), own property in Seoul, find a partner, and survive the probability of divorce, having a child is impossible--let alone having two to meet the population replacement rate. What's the solution?

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Sounds more like SK is hostile just to middle and lower class families. No that that makes it right but that's the correct interpretation.
- deepsun 3y ago
  I feel like it's the same way in California.
  - 1-6 3y ago
    As someone who's lived in both areas, California still had opportunities for advancement during my career if one was willing to work hard. In SK, you can work hard all your life but as opportunities are limited, you'll get stuck in toil. When tourists look at S. Korea and say, "Hey, it's real nice here!" They don't see the hundreds of low-paid workers who are working behinds the scenes. There are plenty of low paying jobs but nothing that can help one build generational wealth.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      It's exactly the same in western Europe. American tourists visit here on vacation and think "wow it's really nice here, it's walkable and full of culture" but they don't see there's no opportunities for building generational wealth, as all of it has already been captured by the previous generations so the new generation is stuck in serfdom.
      - JambalayaJim 3y ago
        The vast majority of Americans aren’t building generational wealth anyway. Plus is wealth really all that valuable when you don’t have to worry about crime, funding your child’s education, losing your job, or having a major health scare? When living in a walkable area full of culture is an option everywhere, rather than a select few areas?
      - morbicer 3y ago
        Hmm, social mobility index actually puts most EU countries ahead of USA. Hell even South Korea is ahead of USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index The American Dream is just that, a dream.
gottorf 3y ago
To add some color: South Korea is somewhere between the size of Kentucky and Indiana (the 37th and 38th largest states), yet has over 51 million people, almost 15 million more than California, the most populous state. It has very few natural resources to speak of, and is roughly two-thirds mountainous, meaning most of the population is condensed in the few flat areas. In some ways, it's natural that the fertility rate would be so low, purely out of density, if nothing else. It's honestly miraculous how far it's come. Within one lifetime, it went from a primarily agricultural economy to one of the world's largest and most industrialized. It builds (at times) half of the world's ships in tonnage, and its engineers and contractors are responsible for many of the world's tallest buildings.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Indeed. Infinite growth as demanded by capitalism is not physically possible. If they wouldn't hit "the wall" now, they would hit it anyway in the near future. Maybe South Korea's situation should give all ageing rich developed nations something to reflect on and start making preparations for the upcoming demographic plateau/collapse and reform stuff like welfare/pension systems, instead of blindly kicking the can down the road thinking growth is never ending.
  - danuker 3y ago
    The wall manifests as prices. When you barely make ends meet in spite of being a skilled worker, something is off.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      "The wall" is already manifesting in Europe as well, in terms of CoL and real estate prices[1] where even skilled workers can't afford a decent home anymore or build any wealth after paying the inflated rents from their stagnating wages. You either inherit something from your parents or are screwed if you don't get a top FAANG/F500 job out of university. Working for small or average companies doesn't cut it anymore. It feels like the society collectively decided "no more new building" to make housing scarce and inflate up property prices of existing owners at the expense of the newcomers. Seems like a common theme among the developed world from the Americas all the way to AU-NZ. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mavRpBC2dA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mavRpBC2dA8
1-6 3y ago
One issue is that there are many who are not willing to live normal lives and there's this constant battle of trying to outdo one another. People are trying to please even mere strangers standing next to them at the crosswalk. Living mediocre is bad and there's a negative stigma associated to being middle to lower class. If your apartment isn't a Prugio or Lotte Castle and live in Bangbae; If your car isn't a AMG, BMW M, or at least a Genesis; If your bag isn't a Hermes or a LV; If your morning routine doesn't include an Ah-Ah (Ice Americano); If your baby stroller isn't a Yoyo; If your watch isn't an Apple Watch or Omega; If your shoes aren't won through a Nike Raffle and have high resale; If your road bike riding through Hangang isn't a Pinarello; You'll be forever mediocre. My solution? Spread the population apart such that people will stop comparing themselves with one another. There are plenty of places outside of Seoul where there's fiber internet, good schools that are empty (better teacher to student ratio), and cheap land. People should be more willing to embrace the countryside (shigol) and stop thinking it's bad or without opportunity. I hope there will be more remote jobs that pay well to incentivise new families to go outward. Seoul needs some rest!
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > My solution? Spread the population apart such that people will stop comparing themselves with one another. Small villages where everyone knows each other can be just as bad regarding bullying and talking behind one's backs, although I do agree - especially as some here in Western countries keep advocating for megacities and accelerating rural flight because of resource usage efficiency - that too dense populations are a hotbed of all kinds of social issues.
- amrocha 3y ago
  Or just tax the shit out of the rich until they can't afford to flaunt their wealth as status
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    The real rich, the capital owners, are not the ones flaunting wealth for status...that's the upper class people with high-paying jobs; rich but not wealthy.
bachmeier 3y ago
As someone that lived there with a kid a while back, I agree, and it's only gotten tougher since I left. > What's the solution? Let's start by identifying the problem. The problem is that everyone wants to live in Seoul, or even in particular parts of Seoul. Is there a solution to that? Hard to see what it might be.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
ChumpGPT 3y ago
Have the Gov subsidized the young with generous programs, perhaps a monthly fee for each child where at some level (2-3 children), one parent could stay home to raise them and collect a modest salary. Otherwise most young folks can't afford it.
- 1-6 3y ago
  The government is already subsidizing families with children. 700,000 won ($528) per month up to age of one, and 350,000 won ($264) per month up to the age of two. It's certainly a nice to have but not enough.
  - andrewjl 3y ago
    > It's certainly a nice to have but not enough. Agree, it sounds like peanuts. Probably still better than nothing on net but substantially raising this subsidy is the first thing to do if making a serious attempt to improve things for families.
intrasight 3y ago
The solution is fewer people - which is the direction they are headed. S.Korea has twice the population density of Germany for instance. So cutting in to half the current number seems about right. Honest question: who benefits from population growth besides developers?
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Rapid changes are always problematic, no matter the direction. Society and environments can accommodate slow changes much easier than they can accommodate quick ones.
- avisser 3y ago
  Old people. Any socialized support system is predicated on growth.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > Honest question: who benefits from population growth besides developers? Honest answer: next generation of retirees / older people. They need young people in multiple ways - 1. to sustain welfare (which is pay-as-you-go universally), 2. production of food / entertainment / stuff, 3. services If you think automation is going to solve that, just look at who were "essential service workers"[1] in Covid where governments had to make exceptions even in the early days of pandemic when things were at their scariest. All those are essential functions for the society. Who is going to handle all of that when each next generation is only 35% of the previous generation's size (with a TFR of 0.7)? [1] One example: https://covid19.ca.gov/essential-workforce/ https://covid19.ca.gov/essential-workforce/
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Huh? 'Essential service workers' don't even make up 20% of the current adult population of the US.
  - intrasight 3y ago
    Immigration and automation
yobbo 3y ago
Guessing ... because of appreciating real estate and concentration of jobs, living in certain cities/areas became culturally synonymous with "being a winner" while staying in rural/industrial towns meant "being a loser". So the big cities became the bottle neck through which all young people need to funnel before they deem each other worthy of starting families. And that's a bottle neck on population growth. The same mechanism exists elsewhere but the contrasts between "stagnant vs vital" would be more pronounced in SK, probably because of the rate and scale of the economy over the last 40-50 years. Maybe? The government needs to stop fuelling the bubble. Instead, raise mortgage rates (so that "time in market" stops being a factor) and force industry to spread out offices and jobs (of all ranks) evenly throughout the country.
dirtyid 3y ago
Lot's of sticks. No real estate / wealth transfers unless to couples with 2 kids. New nuclear families either have potential windfall of 4x estates/wealth/housing from multiple older generations or they have to work the uphill childless grind. Combine with subsidies for home ownership in desirable areas for those with kids. BAN PET OWNERSHIP for those without kids. IMO This one huge. Increasing trend of emotional surrogate pets filling emotional void in east asia. Need to drive down cost of people settling for medicore relationships. It's not enough to make economics of having kids easier, you have to make not having kids harder.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Ha, I’d you ban pet ownership people will just go shopping with their roombas.
kamaal 3y ago
This seems to be the problem with all the developing countries. Economic growth requires, men and women both prioritising jobs over marriage and family stability. Divorces happen because there is immense incentive for women to look for better partners even after 1, or many marriages. The incentives are life long, premium monthly pensions with annual raises and child support payments. All you have to do is marry some one, and divorce them. They now owe you life long monthly pensions. There is not a job on earth where you can work two years, and then be entitled to life long pensions. Not even in the extreme politics of communism was this even imagined, to the scale marriage has been reduced to now. Given all, marriage and even having kids is heavily disincentivised. You have to be an idiot beyond belief to walk into something like this. Apart from this, even with a perfect marriage. Most men have to deal with never ending disappointed feelings from women for working to death and still coming short of their expectations. Given all this I don't think there is a easy solution for this birth rate problem. Social engineering on the scale of countries is needed. The overall social and cultural trend world wide are no where near whats needed to bring about these birth rate increases.

by 1-6 3y ago

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

Sounds more like SK is hostile just to middle and lower class families. No that that makes it right but that's the correct interpretation.

deepsun 3y ago
I feel like it's the same way in California.
- 1-6 3y ago
  As someone who's lived in both areas, California still had opportunities for advancement during my career if one was willing to work hard. In SK, you can work hard all your life but as opportunities are limited, you'll get stuck in toil. When tourists look at S. Korea and say, "Hey, it's real nice here!" They don't see the hundreds of low-paid workers who are working behinds the scenes. There are plenty of low paying jobs but nothing that can help one build generational wealth.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    It's exactly the same in western Europe. American tourists visit here on vacation and think "wow it's really nice here, it's walkable and full of culture" but they don't see there's no opportunities for building generational wealth, as all of it has already been captured by the previous generations so the new generation is stuck in serfdom.
    - JambalayaJim 3y ago
      The vast majority of Americans aren’t building generational wealth anyway. Plus is wealth really all that valuable when you don’t have to worry about crime, funding your child’s education, losing your job, or having a major health scare? When living in a walkable area full of culture is an option everywhere, rather than a select few areas?
    - morbicer 3y ago
      Hmm, social mobility index actually puts most EU countries ahead of USA. Hell even South Korea is ahead of USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index The American Dream is just that, a dream.

gottorf 3y ago

To add some color: South Korea is somewhere between the size of Kentucky and Indiana (the 37th and 38th largest states), yet has over 51 million people, almost 15 million more than California, the most populous state. It has very few natural resources to speak of, and is roughly two-thirds mountainous, meaning most of the population is condensed in the few flat areas. In some ways, it's natural that the fertility rate would be so low, purely out of density, if nothing else. It's honestly miraculous how far it's come. Within one lifetime, it went from a primarily agricultural economy to one of the world's largest and most industrialized. It builds (at times) half of the world's ships in tonnage, and its engineers and contractors are responsible for many of the world's tallest buildings.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Indeed. Infinite growth as demanded by capitalism is not physically possible. If they wouldn't hit "the wall" now, they would hit it anyway in the near future. Maybe South Korea's situation should give all ageing rich developed nations something to reflect on and start making preparations for the upcoming demographic plateau/collapse and reform stuff like welfare/pension systems, instead of blindly kicking the can down the road thinking growth is never ending.
- danuker 3y ago
  The wall manifests as prices. When you barely make ends meet in spite of being a skilled worker, something is off.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    "The wall" is already manifesting in Europe as well, in terms of CoL and real estate prices[1] where even skilled workers can't afford a decent home anymore or build any wealth after paying the inflated rents from their stagnating wages. You either inherit something from your parents or are screwed if you don't get a top FAANG/F500 job out of university. Working for small or average companies doesn't cut it anymore. It feels like the society collectively decided "no more new building" to make housing scarce and inflate up property prices of existing owners at the expense of the newcomers. Seems like a common theme among the developed world from the Americas all the way to AU-NZ. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mavRpBC2dA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mavRpBC2dA8

1-6 3y ago

One issue is that there are many who are not willing to live normal lives and there's this constant battle of trying to outdo one another. People are trying to please even mere strangers standing next to them at the crosswalk. Living mediocre is bad and there's a negative stigma associated to being middle to lower class. If your apartment isn't a Prugio or Lotte Castle and live in Bangbae; If your car isn't a AMG, BMW M, or at least a Genesis; If your bag isn't a Hermes or a LV; If your morning routine doesn't include an Ah-Ah (Ice Americano); If your baby stroller isn't a Yoyo; If your watch isn't an Apple Watch or Omega; If your shoes aren't won through a Nike Raffle and have high resale; If your road bike riding through Hangang isn't a Pinarello; You'll be forever mediocre. My solution? Spread the population apart such that people will stop comparing themselves with one another. There are plenty of places outside of Seoul where there's fiber internet, good schools that are empty (better teacher to student ratio), and cheap land. People should be more willing to embrace the countryside (shigol) and stop thinking it's bad or without opportunity. I hope there will be more remote jobs that pay well to incentivise new families to go outward. Seoul needs some rest!

mschuster91 3y ago
> My solution? Spread the population apart such that people will stop comparing themselves with one another. Small villages where everyone knows each other can be just as bad regarding bullying and talking behind one's backs, although I do agree - especially as some here in Western countries keep advocating for megacities and accelerating rural flight because of resource usage efficiency - that too dense populations are a hotbed of all kinds of social issues.
amrocha 3y ago
Or just tax the shit out of the rich until they can't afford to flaunt their wealth as status
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  The real rich, the capital owners, are not the ones flaunting wealth for status...that's the upper class people with high-paying jobs; rich but not wealthy.

bachmeier 3y ago

As someone that lived there with a kid a while back, I agree, and it's only gotten tougher since I left. > What's the solution? Let's start by identifying the problem. The problem is that everyone wants to live in Seoul, or even in particular parts of Seoul. Is there a solution to that? Hard to see what it might be.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]

ChumpGPT 3y ago

Have the Gov subsidized the young with generous programs, perhaps a monthly fee for each child where at some level (2-3 children), one parent could stay home to raise them and collect a modest salary. Otherwise most young folks can't afford it.

1-6 3y ago
The government is already subsidizing families with children. 700,000 won ($528) per month up to age of one, and 350,000 won ($264) per month up to the age of two. It's certainly a nice to have but not enough.
- andrewjl 3y ago
  > It's certainly a nice to have but not enough. Agree, it sounds like peanuts. Probably still better than nothing on net but substantially raising this subsidy is the first thing to do if making a serious attempt to improve things for families.

intrasight 3y ago

The solution is fewer people - which is the direction they are headed. S.Korea has twice the population density of Germany for instance. So cutting in to half the current number seems about right. Honest question: who benefits from population growth besides developers?

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Rapid changes are always problematic, no matter the direction. Society and environments can accommodate slow changes much easier than they can accommodate quick ones.
avisser 3y ago
Old people. Any socialized support system is predicated on growth.
RestlessMind 3y ago
> Honest question: who benefits from population growth besides developers? Honest answer: next generation of retirees / older people. They need young people in multiple ways - 1. to sustain welfare (which is pay-as-you-go universally), 2. production of food / entertainment / stuff, 3. services If you think automation is going to solve that, just look at who were "essential service workers"[1] in Covid where governments had to make exceptions even in the early days of pandemic when things were at their scariest. All those are essential functions for the society. Who is going to handle all of that when each next generation is only 35% of the previous generation's size (with a TFR of 0.7)? [1] One example: https://covid19.ca.gov/essential-workforce/ https://covid19.ca.gov/essential-workforce/
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Huh? 'Essential service workers' don't even make up 20% of the current adult population of the US.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Immigration and automation

yobbo 3y ago

Guessing ... because of appreciating real estate and concentration of jobs, living in certain cities/areas became culturally synonymous with "being a winner" while staying in rural/industrial towns meant "being a loser". So the big cities became the bottle neck through which all young people need to funnel before they deem each other worthy of starting families. And that's a bottle neck on population growth. The same mechanism exists elsewhere but the contrasts between "stagnant vs vital" would be more pronounced in SK, probably because of the rate and scale of the economy over the last 40-50 years. Maybe? The government needs to stop fuelling the bubble. Instead, raise mortgage rates (so that "time in market" stops being a factor) and force industry to spread out offices and jobs (of all ranks) evenly throughout the country.

dirtyid 3y ago

Lot's of sticks. No real estate / wealth transfers unless to couples with 2 kids. New nuclear families either have potential windfall of 4x estates/wealth/housing from multiple older generations or they have to work the uphill childless grind. Combine with subsidies for home ownership in desirable areas for those with kids. BAN PET OWNERSHIP for those without kids. IMO This one huge. Increasing trend of emotional surrogate pets filling emotional void in east asia. Need to drive down cost of people settling for medicore relationships. It's not enough to make economics of having kids easier, you have to make not having kids harder.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Ha, I’d you ban pet ownership people will just go shopping with their roombas.

kamaal 3y ago

This seems to be the problem with all the developing countries. Economic growth requires, men and women both prioritising jobs over marriage and family stability. Divorces happen because there is immense incentive for women to look for better partners even after 1, or many marriages. The incentives are life long, premium monthly pensions with annual raises and child support payments. All you have to do is marry some one, and divorce them. They now owe you life long monthly pensions. There is not a job on earth where you can work two years, and then be entitled to life long pensions. Not even in the extreme politics of communism was this even imagined, to the scale marriage has been reduced to now. Given all, marriage and even having kids is heavily disincentivised. You have to be an idiot beyond belief to walk into something like this. Apart from this, even with a perfect marriage. Most men have to deal with never ending disappointed feelings from women for working to death and still coming short of their expectations. Given all this I don't think there is a easy solution for this birth rate problem. Social engineering on the scale of countries is needed. The overall social and cultural trend world wide are no where near whats needed to bring about these birth rate increases.