4 ms·

South Korea spent $200 billion over 10+ years to try to get young people to have more babies while the reasons for the low birth rate (housing costs, etc.) rema

South Korea spent $200 billion over 10+ years to try to get young people to have more babies while the reasons for the low birth rate (housing costs, etc.) remain unaddressed. Sounds like something the USA would do. Hilarious. What a waste of money lol. They could have easily fixed their housing crisis and ensured a better standard of living for young people.

missedthecue 2y ago
People are not having kids because they don't want kids. This is a global trend, in places of all levels of housing affordability.
- neom 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7XchzjMtcw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7XchzjMtcw
- ghaff 2y ago
  Housing affordability, to a large degree, is a major issue in some specific areas. Heck, you go an hour outside of a city like Boston and real estate is priced fairly reasonably relative to typical income levels. People get a very distorted view because of SF/South Bay, Manhattan, Central London, etc. Good housing has always been a significant expense for a household. But most people actually can afford housing.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Exactly. While "Hell Joseon", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon, may be one factor as to why South Korea has such a low birth rate, Finland, which famously provides great support for new parents and is a much more egalitarian society than South Korea, had its fertility rate hit an all time low in 2023 of about 1.3 (better than SK, but still way below replacement rate). Reliable birth control essentially "broke" millennia of evolution. Our evolutionary drive to have sex is as strong as it ever was, but now that drive can be fulfilled without the occasional outcome of children, which has been the case for only about the past 60 years. And children, at least in economic terms, are much more of a burden than a benefit in modern times.
  - meowfly 2y ago
    For this reason, I have been pretty convinced that the only way this is solved is via culture and I am skeptical it's worth the cultural change. For starters, Money and Macro looked into this and a lot of the fertility decline is the result of less unplanned pregnancy. Teenager's are far less likely to give birth. This is seen as a good thing. In many places of the world, woman not having children is seen as bad (see China's shengnu dialog), but that's also immediately also recognized as misogynistic by liberal minded people. So I'm not sure it's worth solving either. So it's basically a classic case of societal values bumping up against personal autonomy. In my mind, the best option is to prepare for population decline and mitigate against the downsides.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > lot of the fertility decline is the result of less unplanned pregnancy. Teenager's are far less likely to give birth. This is seen as a good thing. When I consider the notion that impregnated 16(?)-19yo's were a primary driver of population growth, I find evidence for and against it. Pro isn't about the number of births per se - it's about the number of child producing relationships that began after our school age daughters got knocked up. Against is that the earliest (and latest!) birthing ages are historically highest for stillbirths and other life-ending birth issues. And youngest parents are (historically) the most likely to experience a first child death (that commonly ends young relationships). Mitigating the 'Against' column is that modern medicine reduces those deaths. Mitigating the mitigation is that the ability to access to modern medicine is in decline for young+poor parents - at the same time a war on kid-saving vaccines is heating up.
      - meowfly 2y ago
        Just a clarification to my comment. If I remember correctly, I don't think the claim was teen pregnancy was the "primary driver of population growth" but one of the variables that has a large impact on fertility rates. Most people see the reduction in teen moms as a positive development. I also think the reduction in unplanned pregnancy to be a net positive. So 20 somethings finishing school before starting a family is good, but it's also probably resposible for fewer large families. I believe polling shows most woman want more children than they actually end up having. I'm sure part of that explanation is that people are starting families later in life.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > People are not having kids because they don't want kids. The US currently faces an inability to support a household on 1-2 typical incomes. This pressure pushes away from parenthood. I believe a stronger reason(s) is that the demands on parents have massively increased while kids simultaneously lost most of their nutrients for social and internal growth. Between my parents generation (silent) and mine (genx), parenting time sharply rose. My mom's peers parented a few hours a week; I parented ~ceaselessly. Modern kids face 24/7 adulting. At the same time, kids access to 1) safe [from cars,adults] free range area and 2) adult-free social time went from sq miles to sq ft and from hrs/day to n/a. I argue that stripping critical resources from kids and parents gives us fewer kids and parents.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-exp... https://www.axios.com/2024/07/25/adults-no-children-why-pew-data https://www.axios.com/2024/07/25/adults-no-children-why-pew-... > Stunning stat: 64% of young women say they just don't want children, compared to 50% of men. (US statistics, contextualize accordingly) Certainly, there are potential parents ("fence sitters") who are opting out due to the economics, but the opportunity cost cohort is substantial and is important to recognize, as they will not be swayed with economic policy changes. The population boom and "demographic dividend" (the economic growth that can occur when a country's population age structure shifts) occurred because women were not empowered. Being empowered now, the neutral fertility rate is simply not near replacement (based on all available evidence). https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545397/empty-planet-by-darrell-bricker-and-john-ibbitson/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545397/empty-planet... (“Once a woman receives enough information and autonomy to make an informed and self-directed choice about when to have children, and how many to have, she immediately has fewer of them, and has them later.”) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... | https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 ("Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth. A sustained TFR lower than the replacement level in many countries, including China and India, would have economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. Policy options to adapt to continued low fertility, while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health, will be crucial in the years to come.")
- yongjik 2y ago
  That's just a generic argument that does not really address why South Korea is uniquely horrible in terms of fertility rate. Someone mentioned Finland: it has fertility rate of ~1.3, which is almost double of South Korea (around 0.7). The SK government would be ecstatic to be in Finland's position. Whenever fertility rate is mentioned on HN, I find that a lot of comments just rehash the same talking points, which could apply to any economically developed countries. Rather uninteresting.
- jhanschoo 2y ago
  You cannot use a global trend to explain a specific situation and then explain that global trend as wanting to have kids or not, and then think that you have seriously offered a better hypothesis than OP. As an analogy, I started playing Minecraft because my friendsand I were compelled at the idea of building stuff on our server, not "because" (to use the word you used, though there is no causal connection) people all over the world start playing Minecraft.
- Woodi 2y ago
  Yep. Peoples do not want kids becouse they do not want life long family. Paying for kids without families is not only stupidity but society degeneration. Change laws to pro-family. Do not allow scams on "single-mum with kid send more money".
- jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
  Affordability is one reason I’m not having children. Also, if I was a child and grew up into a ravaged world and knew my parents KNEW they purposefully birthed me into a dying ecosystem where the ruling class and dear corporations treat us as disposable slave labor I’d loathe my parents. My partner and I don’t want that for ourselves or for any offspring. The generation being born now is going to have a rough, maybe unsurvivable, time.
bsder 2y ago
$200 billion is only about $30K per woman (about 6 million women in the right age bracket)--that's chump change. No woman who isn't already planning on having a child is going to change her mind over a single $30K payout when it's obvious that raising a child is in the multiple $100K range. It's going to take multiple $million+ per woman to change the calculation. (And this doesn't even take into account taking care of elderly. Marriage tends to be a prerequisite for children and women often wind up being the caretakers for both sets of elderly parents. And that often never ends. Yet more money required.)
- neom 2y ago
  My wife and I were saying the other day if the korean gov wanted to pay us to start popping out kids, it would be starting at $1.5MM per kid they would have to pay us. Heck we'd have 10 then!
- iJohnDoe 2y ago
  I generally agree with you. However, I would look at the $30k as a get started fund. Stroller, baby clothes, diapers, crib, etc. I think it would go a long ways if it was spent wisely. This is something the US should do. US would probably tax the $30k though.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    It still doesn't really change the equation though. For people that want to have children, it's a nice bonus. But for people that don't want to have kids, it isn't changing anyone's mind, so if the purpose is actually to raise the birth rate, it's a failure on its face.
    - votepaunchy 2y ago
      Might nudge families to have another child, though. And of course the US pays $36,000 per child (tax free) via the child tax credit.
- charlie90 2y ago

missedthecue 2y ago

People are not having kids because they don't want kids. This is a global trend, in places of all levels of housing affordability.

neom 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7XchzjMtcw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7XchzjMtcw
ghaff 2y ago
Housing affordability, to a large degree, is a major issue in some specific areas. Heck, you go an hour outside of a city like Boston and real estate is priced fairly reasonably relative to typical income levels. People get a very distorted view because of SF/South Bay, Manhattan, Central London, etc. Good housing has always been a significant expense for a household. But most people actually can afford housing.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Exactly. While "Hell Joseon", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon, may be one factor as to why South Korea has such a low birth rate, Finland, which famously provides great support for new parents and is a much more egalitarian society than South Korea, had its fertility rate hit an all time low in 2023 of about 1.3 (better than SK, but still way below replacement rate). Reliable birth control essentially "broke" millennia of evolution. Our evolutionary drive to have sex is as strong as it ever was, but now that drive can be fulfilled without the occasional outcome of children, which has been the case for only about the past 60 years. And children, at least in economic terms, are much more of a burden than a benefit in modern times.
- meowfly 2y ago
  For this reason, I have been pretty convinced that the only way this is solved is via culture and I am skeptical it's worth the cultural change. For starters, Money and Macro looked into this and a lot of the fertility decline is the result of less unplanned pregnancy. Teenager's are far less likely to give birth. This is seen as a good thing. In many places of the world, woman not having children is seen as bad (see China's shengnu dialog), but that's also immediately also recognized as misogynistic by liberal minded people. So I'm not sure it's worth solving either. So it's basically a classic case of societal values bumping up against personal autonomy. In my mind, the best option is to prepare for population decline and mitigate against the downsides.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > lot of the fertility decline is the result of less unplanned pregnancy. Teenager's are far less likely to give birth. This is seen as a good thing. When I consider the notion that impregnated 16(?)-19yo's were a primary driver of population growth, I find evidence for and against it. Pro isn't about the number of births per se - it's about the number of child producing relationships that began after our school age daughters got knocked up. Against is that the earliest (and latest!) birthing ages are historically highest for stillbirths and other life-ending birth issues. And youngest parents are (historically) the most likely to experience a first child death (that commonly ends young relationships). Mitigating the 'Against' column is that modern medicine reduces those deaths. Mitigating the mitigation is that the ability to access to modern medicine is in decline for young+poor parents - at the same time a war on kid-saving vaccines is heating up.
    - meowfly 2y ago
      Just a clarification to my comment. If I remember correctly, I don't think the claim was teen pregnancy was the "primary driver of population growth" but one of the variables that has a large impact on fertility rates. Most people see the reduction in teen moms as a positive development. I also think the reduction in unplanned pregnancy to be a net positive. So 20 somethings finishing school before starting a family is good, but it's also probably resposible for fewer large families. I believe polling shows most woman want more children than they actually end up having. I'm sure part of that explanation is that people are starting families later in life.
WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> People are not having kids because they don't want kids. The US currently faces an inability to support a household on 1-2 typical incomes. This pressure pushes away from parenthood. I believe a stronger reason(s) is that the demands on parents have massively increased while kids simultaneously lost most of their nutrients for social and internal growth. Between my parents generation (silent) and mine (genx), parenting time sharply rose. My mom's peers parented a few hours a week; I parented ~ceaselessly. Modern kids face 24/7 adulting. At the same time, kids access to 1) safe [from cars,adults] free range area and 2) adult-free social time went from sq miles to sq ft and from hrs/day to n/a. I argue that stripping critical resources from kids and parents gives us fewer kids and parents.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-exp... https://www.axios.com/2024/07/25/adults-no-children-why-pew-data https://www.axios.com/2024/07/25/adults-no-children-why-pew-... > Stunning stat: 64% of young women say they just don't want children, compared to 50% of men. (US statistics, contextualize accordingly) Certainly, there are potential parents ("fence sitters") who are opting out due to the economics, but the opportunity cost cohort is substantial and is important to recognize, as they will not be swayed with economic policy changes. The population boom and "demographic dividend" (the economic growth that can occur when a country's population age structure shifts) occurred because women were not empowered. Being empowered now, the neutral fertility rate is simply not near replacement (based on all available evidence). https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545397/empty-planet-by-darrell-bricker-and-john-ibbitson/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545397/empty-planet... (“Once a woman receives enough information and autonomy to make an informed and self-directed choice about when to have children, and how many to have, she immediately has fewer of them, and has them later.”) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... | https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 ("Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth. A sustained TFR lower than the replacement level in many countries, including China and India, would have economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. Policy options to adapt to continued low fertility, while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health, will be crucial in the years to come.")
yongjik 2y ago
That's just a generic argument that does not really address why South Korea is uniquely horrible in terms of fertility rate. Someone mentioned Finland: it has fertility rate of ~1.3, which is almost double of South Korea (around 0.7). The SK government would be ecstatic to be in Finland's position. Whenever fertility rate is mentioned on HN, I find that a lot of comments just rehash the same talking points, which could apply to any economically developed countries. Rather uninteresting.
jhanschoo 2y ago
You cannot use a global trend to explain a specific situation and then explain that global trend as wanting to have kids or not, and then think that you have seriously offered a better hypothesis than OP. As an analogy, I started playing Minecraft because my friendsand I were compelled at the idea of building stuff on our server, not "because" (to use the word you used, though there is no causal connection) people all over the world start playing Minecraft.
Woodi 2y ago
Yep. Peoples do not want kids becouse they do not want life long family. Paying for kids without families is not only stupidity but society degeneration. Change laws to pro-family. Do not allow scams on "single-mum with kid send more money".
jsbisviewtiful 2y ago
Affordability is one reason I’m not having children. Also, if I was a child and grew up into a ravaged world and knew my parents KNEW they purposefully birthed me into a dying ecosystem where the ruling class and dear corporations treat us as disposable slave labor I’d loathe my parents. My partner and I don’t want that for ourselves or for any offspring. The generation being born now is going to have a rough, maybe unsurvivable, time.

bsder 2y ago

$200 billion is only about $30K per woman (about 6 million women in the right age bracket)--that's chump change. No woman who isn't already planning on having a child is going to change her mind over a single $30K payout when it's obvious that raising a child is in the multiple $100K range. It's going to take multiple $million+ per woman to change the calculation. (And this doesn't even take into account taking care of elderly. Marriage tends to be a prerequisite for children and women often wind up being the caretakers for both sets of elderly parents. And that often never ends. Yet more money required.)

neom 2y ago
My wife and I were saying the other day if the korean gov wanted to pay us to start popping out kids, it would be starting at $1.5MM per kid they would have to pay us. Heck we'd have 10 then!
iJohnDoe 2y ago
I generally agree with you. However, I would look at the $30k as a get started fund. Stroller, baby clothes, diapers, crib, etc. I think it would go a long ways if it was spent wisely. This is something the US should do. US would probably tax the $30k though.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  It still doesn't really change the equation though. For people that want to have children, it's a nice bonus. But for people that don't want to have kids, it isn't changing anyone's mind, so if the purpose is actually to raise the birth rate, it's a failure on its face.
  - votepaunchy 2y ago
    Might nudge families to have another child, though. And of course the US pays $36,000 per child (tax free) via the child tax credit.
charlie90 2y ago