6 ms·

These countries will do anything but incentivize young people to have kids. Like, hello—affordable housing, sustainable work, and a good work-life balance could

These countries will do anything but incentivize young people to have kids. Like, hello—affordable housing, sustainable work, and a good work-life balance could actually help with that too!

GardenLetter27 2y ago
Just having kids doesn't solve the labour problem though. People don't want to spend their life just taking care of old people - there's no career path there.
- higeorge13 2y ago
  People used to do these jobs and also own a house, have large families and happy lives. So the incentive of a career path and more money is only because people cannot have these things today (and fake social media lives influence).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - stakhanov 2y ago
    > People used to do these jobs and also own a house, have large families and happy lives. Well, careers were for one half of the population, as determined by birth, and caring for large families and their houses and elderly was for the other half. We set it up so that the latter was the shitty end of the deal, so eventually that other half got tired of it. Then we started down the path of industrializing care, and that made doing this kind of work even shittier. So, that's where we are today.
    - nradov 2y ago
      Right. I still see comments here by people praising multigenerational housing in traditional societies. In practice that usually amounts to the wife doing unpaid labor to care for the husband's parents as they age (and constantly criticize her for doing everything wrong).
      - stakhanov 2y ago
        > ...(and constantly criticize her for doing everything wrong) That parenthetical is, in my mind, an often-overlooked, but absolutely crucial aspect. You normally see this framed in a moralising way as a critique against the selfishness endemic within the culture of the working-age generation. But there may be a flip side to that coin, namely a powertrippin' culture on the side of the now-elderly. I actually did work in the care sector for a very short period of time. But the problem I'm having with my aging western boomer dad, is that he never learned how to relate to family in a way where he doesn't get to dominate it all. And if I have a choice of taking care of him and never crawling out from under the thumb of his domination, or shipping him off to a home, then the home it is. I don't want to unduly overgeneralise here, but I'm wondering if there may be something systematic or quantitatively significant going on here: There was a particular generation where young men suddenly had the opportunity for a power grab (taking power away from any intergenerational power structure) based on becoming financially self-sufficient at an early age, including owning a home for use by their nuclear, rather than extended, family. In Europe, this generation was the boomers because of the war. In North America, it might have been one generation earlier. Women wanted power too, so feminism. If that same generation wants the next generation to stick around to take care of them, even when they have alternative options, then a precondition for that would be to renegotiate who is in charge. Doing that is hard, if the only reality you've ever known is a struggle for and steady increase of your power.
    - higeorge13 2y ago
      Where in my post did I focus on care jobs and not generally this kind of jobs (elderly care, teachers, nurses, cleaners, plumbers, farmers, etc).
- rednafi 2y ago
  > there's no career path there That's because the wage is terrible. IDK if the R&D cost of the robots offsets the cost of paying people to take care of the elderly at all.
  - nradov 2y ago
    It's more than just wages, the work is miserable for most people. One of my relatives had Alzheimer's disease and spent the end of his life in an elder care facility. Every time I went to visit I saw how he was abusive and combative towards the staff when they had to dress him or brush his teeth or change his diaper. I see tech company employees on this site whining about minor mistreatment from co-workers all the time but they have no idea how bad it can get in healthcare dealing with patients.
Urahandystar 2y ago
Singapore actually does have a very big social housing program. And gets women out into the workforce after childbirth by having maids.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > And gets women out into the workforce after childbirth by having maids. The gain there sounds a bit risky. The kid still needs a full time caregiver and the amount of time a human needs to put into housework hasn't changed - so there aren't direct improvements. There is an argument from letting people specialise, but the net change could easily be trading down the quality of the kid's life. Nothing wrong with that in principle but it isn't obviously a net win. Getting kids face-to-face time with a high-status and invested parent has to be worth a lot more to them than time with some maid. Outsourcing child rearing to a sort of capitalist factory farm seems like it could be a big picture mistake.
  - infecto 2y ago
    The gotcha here is they import maids from developing SEA countries. Its probably a net positive for all parties but those maids get paid low (comparatively to the local market) but well enough compared to their homeland. They will leave their families to make money so they can send it back. Sometimes this power dynamic creates bad situations. Similar story in Hong Kong. So you can go back to a position that most definitely pays at least double what the maid is making and adding value to the economy. Edit: I have more knowledge on the HK side, the maid works long hours 6 days a week. On their day off they congregate downtown (at least used to) and socialize and create informal markets. Its not an easy life but they are able to send money back home.
    - esperent 2y ago
      > the maid works long hours 6 days a week It's probably exactly the same amount they'd be working back home. 6 days (legally) or even more (illegal but rarely/never enforced) is common in many industries across SEA, maid service assuredly being one of them, along with everything else in the hospitality and F&B industries.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
We see that the current level of human population is unsustainable. It's not just emissions but also, and perhaps especially, pressure on environment and resources. We need to find solutions that do not involve even higher population.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. I see a total mismanagement of resources and incentives.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    > I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. Always very surprising to read this. Population has grown ~8x since 1900, environment is collapsing around us, billions of people are still living in poverty (i.e. their consumption of everything will go up if or when poverty is eradicated globally)... So, yes current population level is completely unsustainable.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      It all depends on how it's managed. If things are REALLY REALLY poorly managed, the entire Earth will be uninhabitable for anyone; with good management we could have >10x as many people as we do now.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        This seems like one of those discussions where people pull numbers out of their butts and then insist they are true.
        dartos 2y ago
        Shhhh… you’re not supposed to say that out loud.
sofixa 2y ago
The Nordics say "hello, this isn't enough". While it's absolutely true that many couples refrain from having children due to financial reasons, many others simply don't want any. You can't really fix the latter, even if a lot more can and should be done for the former.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Seems religious anti-freedom is evolutionary selected for. Take away the pressures that shape society to squeeze into form & function and it unravels in record time.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Surely it also matters "how much" they do it. Anything is possible with enough spending and sacrifice in other areas.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >The Nordics say "hello, this isn't enough". Isn't housing there also very expensive?
  - noisy_boy 2y ago
    Private housing (mainly condominiums) has always been expensive and has touched new highs in recent times, making it out-of-reach for most. Public housing prices have gone up a lot (70-100% increase in last 5 years) but it is heavily subsidized for citizens who can buy directly from the Housing Development Board (HDB). Permanent residents cannot buy from HDB so they have to buy from the resale market where prices are sky high so they are bearing the brunt of it.
- PoppinFreshDo 2y ago
  [dead]
- rednafi 2y ago
  You either deal with mass immigration or address your population decline—there’s no way around it. Historically, Nordic countries haven’t had much experience with immigration, and Sweden’s poorly managed policies make that painfully clear. For immigration to succeed, you need a universal language like English, a thriving industry, and abundant opportunities to attract the cream of the crop. Essentially, you have to compete with countries like the US, Canada, and Australia—all of which offer better conditions for immigrants compared to majority of the places in Europe. Also, I don't know anyone that can get a job in the SV is excited to learn German and move there; let alone in the Nordics. While these nations draw in the best and brightest, the EU ends up handling the leftovers: refugees and others in desperate situations. Then they complain about how immigrants have ruined their economy. Like, hello—you took in the most disadvantaged en masse; what exactly did you expect?
sabellito 2y ago
Almost all housing in Singapore is public housing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
- creamyhorror 2y ago
  Which is indirectly pegged to open-market prices. There's also some encouraging of a view of public housing as an appreciating asset. Insufficient new housing supply due to Covid, combined with these policies, has seemingly led to ongoing runaway (resale) public housing prices: a whopping 40%+ price increase over 2020 Q3 - 2024 Q4: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/-/media/HDBContent/Images/EAPG/EAPG-CSC/4Q2024-Flash-Estimate-Small-Chart.ashx?h=65%25&w=100%25 https://www.hdb.gov.sg/-/media/HDBContent/Images/EAPG/EAPG-C.... A 40% average increase in (resale) public housing prices over 4 years is eye-watering. Non-homeowners' wealth is getting inflated away by the rises, which is going to make it harder for younger people to have kids.
  - lazylizard 2y ago
    it still costs less than 10yrs of median income though..
PoppinFreshDo 2y ago
[dead]
nazgob 2y ago
This is all good but no country in the world managed to turn the tide, even great policies in a rich Scandinavia.
- nradov 2y ago
  Scandinavia isn't doing much to bring down housing costs, or cost of living in general. So I'm skeptical that their policies are really that great. Some of the countries like Sweden have allowed in large numbers of immigrants, many of which ended up working in elder care facilities. While that might be a positive in some ways it also drives up housing prices. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.756686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.756686
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Many countries have a higher birth rate today than last year. They tend to be lower income, have fewer women's rights, or be more agricultural. IMHO, we overemphasized the dangers and impact of children, especially for women or career, and so couples have made the rational decision to have fewer children in industrialized nations, when given the choice.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    I think children actually have a huge negative impact on quality of life if you aren’t rich and if anything that impact is still underemphasized
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      That is a fine opinion to have. Mine have been worth every minute and penny and I wish I had them 10 years ago - but was dissuaded by nearly everyone including my grand plans for myself. I am not trying to convince you, but one rational / philosophical argument goes: Imagine the thing you are trying to accomplish before you have children. Now imagine your neighbor lets his children die (or be taken away) so he can do that, because parenthood was in the way. Everyone is aghast. Yet we deny ourselves parenthood to do that thing all the time.
roenxi 2y ago
That'd be nice but it clearly isn't the root of the problem, because through most of human history people have had kids despite wild poverty, terrible work prospects and a work-life balance that was appallingly bad and that may actually be illegal now depending on where you live. Most monkeys manage to procreate while basically living in the woods foraging. Since the effect seems to correlate with wealth, it seems more likely to me that people are just sniffing out that they, personally, will have a more comfortable existence if they spend money on themselves rather than having children. Birth control means that is an easy option.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  > Most monkeys manage to procreate while basically living in the woods foraging. Monkeys are built for that lifestyle, we aren't anymore. What a terrible comparison. Monkeys evolved to be good at monkey things we've evolved to be good at human things. People don't want to "go back to monke". >Since the effect seems to correlate with wealth No, that's not all it, they're also corelated with intelligence and the lack of wealth. Modern middle class people in developed western countries who aren't wealthy, are smart enough to see the wealth divide growing larger and large, good job opportunities scarcer and scarcer, and realize that unless they'll be leaving their kids a great inheritance they'll basically be breading economic cannon fodder as the future generations will have it worse when it comes to income, housing and wealth building. So if they're already suffering themselves because of this, why would they also want to bring people in this world that will suffer even more in the future? Millionaires have plenty of kinds since they can afford it and they're also increasing their odds of passing their genes further along with diversifying their wealth, and poor uneducated people are subsidized by the state, so it's the middle class who's not having any kids.
  - blue_pants 2y ago
    > they'll basically be breading economic cannon fodder Are you suggesting that it's a new development and that, for example, peasants had it better? I'd say that even if the absolute difference in wealth is greater these days, the disparity in opportunities and quality of life has, on average, decreased (Don't ask for sources as I don't have any)
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Urbanization is like heroin for economics. Governments become addicted to it and the explosion in the GDP, trade and all other traditional indicators of economic health and power. Demographic health is something that needs a long term investment, certainly much longer than capitalism can tolerate. 18 to 25 years? It's to the point now that without immigration, countries are committing demographic suicide even in western "happy" counties, unlike "sad" totalitarian countries where urbanization is combined with reproductive rebellion.
noisy_boy 2y ago
> a good work-life balance That is hard to get in Asia - almost all countries in the region suffer from it.
jhanschoo 2y ago
Parts of the Singapore government is aware of its demographic crisis and has a material incentive to address it. For example, its military doctrine is predicated on conscription from a reserve of able-bodied male citizens that have undergone military training when they came of age; this is not something completely alleviated by mechanization, AI, or naturalization. I'm curious myself why the city-state has yet to take even more extensive measures to address this.

These countries will do anything but incentivize young people to have kids. Like, hello—affordable housing, sustainable work, and a good work-life balance could actually help with that too!

GardenLetter27 2y ago

Just having kids doesn't solve the labour problem though. People don't want to spend their life just taking care of old people - there's no career path there.

higeorge13 2y ago
People used to do these jobs and also own a house, have large families and happy lives. So the incentive of a career path and more money is only because people cannot have these things today (and fake social media lives influence).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- stakhanov 2y ago
  > People used to do these jobs and also own a house, have large families and happy lives. Well, careers were for one half of the population, as determined by birth, and caring for large families and their houses and elderly was for the other half. We set it up so that the latter was the shitty end of the deal, so eventually that other half got tired of it. Then we started down the path of industrializing care, and that made doing this kind of work even shittier. So, that's where we are today.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Right. I still see comments here by people praising multigenerational housing in traditional societies. In practice that usually amounts to the wife doing unpaid labor to care for the husband's parents as they age (and constantly criticize her for doing everything wrong).
    - stakhanov 2y ago
      > ...(and constantly criticize her for doing everything wrong) That parenthetical is, in my mind, an often-overlooked, but absolutely crucial aspect. You normally see this framed in a moralising way as a critique against the selfishness endemic within the culture of the working-age generation. But there may be a flip side to that coin, namely a powertrippin' culture on the side of the now-elderly. I actually did work in the care sector for a very short period of time. But the problem I'm having with my aging western boomer dad, is that he never learned how to relate to family in a way where he doesn't get to dominate it all. And if I have a choice of taking care of him and never crawling out from under the thumb of his domination, or shipping him off to a home, then the home it is. I don't want to unduly overgeneralise here, but I'm wondering if there may be something systematic or quantitatively significant going on here: There was a particular generation where young men suddenly had the opportunity for a power grab (taking power away from any intergenerational power structure) based on becoming financially self-sufficient at an early age, including owning a home for use by their nuclear, rather than extended, family. In Europe, this generation was the boomers because of the war. In North America, it might have been one generation earlier. Women wanted power too, so feminism. If that same generation wants the next generation to stick around to take care of them, even when they have alternative options, then a precondition for that would be to renegotiate who is in charge. Doing that is hard, if the only reality you've ever known is a struggle for and steady increase of your power.
  - higeorge13 2y ago
    Where in my post did I focus on care jobs and not generally this kind of jobs (elderly care, teachers, nurses, cleaners, plumbers, farmers, etc).
rednafi 2y ago
> there's no career path there That's because the wage is terrible. IDK if the R&D cost of the robots offsets the cost of paying people to take care of the elderly at all.
- nradov 2y ago
  It's more than just wages, the work is miserable for most people. One of my relatives had Alzheimer's disease and spent the end of his life in an elder care facility. Every time I went to visit I saw how he was abusive and combative towards the staff when they had to dress him or brush his teeth or change his diaper. I see tech company employees on this site whining about minor mistreatment from co-workers all the time but they have no idea how bad it can get in healthcare dealing with patients.

Urahandystar 2y ago

Singapore actually does have a very big social housing program. And gets women out into the workforce after childbirth by having maids.

roenxi 2y ago
> And gets women out into the workforce after childbirth by having maids. The gain there sounds a bit risky. The kid still needs a full time caregiver and the amount of time a human needs to put into housework hasn't changed - so there aren't direct improvements. There is an argument from letting people specialise, but the net change could easily be trading down the quality of the kid's life. Nothing wrong with that in principle but it isn't obviously a net win. Getting kids face-to-face time with a high-status and invested parent has to be worth a lot more to them than time with some maid. Outsourcing child rearing to a sort of capitalist factory farm seems like it could be a big picture mistake.
- infecto 2y ago
  The gotcha here is they import maids from developing SEA countries. Its probably a net positive for all parties but those maids get paid low (comparatively to the local market) but well enough compared to their homeland. They will leave their families to make money so they can send it back. Sometimes this power dynamic creates bad situations. Similar story in Hong Kong. So you can go back to a position that most definitely pays at least double what the maid is making and adding value to the economy. Edit: I have more knowledge on the HK side, the maid works long hours 6 days a week. On their day off they congregate downtown (at least used to) and socialize and create informal markets. Its not an easy life but they are able to send money back home.
  - esperent 2y ago
    > the maid works long hours 6 days a week It's probably exactly the same amount they'd be working back home. 6 days (legally) or even more (illegal but rarely/never enforced) is common in many industries across SEA, maid service assuredly being one of them, along with everything else in the hospitality and F&B industries.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

We see that the current level of human population is unsustainable. It's not just emissions but also, and perhaps especially, pressure on environment and resources. We need to find solutions that do not involve even higher population.

rowanG077 2y ago
I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. I see a total mismanagement of resources and incentives.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  > I don't see the current level to be unsustainable at all. Always very surprising to read this. Population has grown ~8x since 1900, environment is collapsing around us, billions of people are still living in poverty (i.e. their consumption of everything will go up if or when poverty is eradicated globally)... So, yes current population level is completely unsustainable.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It all depends on how it's managed. If things are REALLY REALLY poorly managed, the entire Earth will be uninhabitable for anyone; with good management we could have >10x as many people as we do now.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      This seems like one of those discussions where people pull numbers out of their butts and then insist they are true.
      - dartos 2y ago
        Shhhh… you’re not supposed to say that out loud.

sofixa 2y ago

The Nordics say "hello, this isn't enough". While it's absolutely true that many couples refrain from having children due to financial reasons, many others simply don't want any. You can't really fix the latter, even if a lot more can and should be done for the former.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Seems religious anti-freedom is evolutionary selected for. Take away the pressures that shape society to squeeze into form & function and it unravels in record time.
HPsquared 2y ago
Surely it also matters "how much" they do it. Anything is possible with enough spending and sacrifice in other areas.
Cumpiler69 2y ago
>The Nordics say "hello, this isn't enough". Isn't housing there also very expensive?
- noisy_boy 2y ago
  Private housing (mainly condominiums) has always been expensive and has touched new highs in recent times, making it out-of-reach for most. Public housing prices have gone up a lot (70-100% increase in last 5 years) but it is heavily subsidized for citizens who can buy directly from the Housing Development Board (HDB). Permanent residents cannot buy from HDB so they have to buy from the resale market where prices are sky high so they are bearing the brunt of it.
PoppinFreshDo 2y ago
[dead]
rednafi 2y ago
You either deal with mass immigration or address your population decline—there’s no way around it. Historically, Nordic countries haven’t had much experience with immigration, and Sweden’s poorly managed policies make that painfully clear. For immigration to succeed, you need a universal language like English, a thriving industry, and abundant opportunities to attract the cream of the crop. Essentially, you have to compete with countries like the US, Canada, and Australia—all of which offer better conditions for immigrants compared to majority of the places in Europe. Also, I don't know anyone that can get a job in the SV is excited to learn German and move there; let alone in the Nordics. While these nations draw in the best and brightest, the EU ends up handling the leftovers: refugees and others in desperate situations. Then they complain about how immigrants have ruined their economy. Like, hello—you took in the most disadvantaged en masse; what exactly did you expect?

sabellito 2y ago

Almost all housing in Singapore is public housing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

creamyhorror 2y ago
Which is indirectly pegged to open-market prices. There's also some encouraging of a view of public housing as an appreciating asset. Insufficient new housing supply due to Covid, combined with these policies, has seemingly led to ongoing runaway (resale) public housing prices: a whopping 40%+ price increase over 2020 Q3 - 2024 Q4: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/-/media/HDBContent/Images/EAPG/EAPG-CSC/4Q2024-Flash-Estimate-Small-Chart.ashx?h=65%25&w=100%25 https://www.hdb.gov.sg/-/media/HDBContent/Images/EAPG/EAPG-C.... A 40% average increase in (resale) public housing prices over 4 years is eye-watering. Non-homeowners' wealth is getting inflated away by the rises, which is going to make it harder for younger people to have kids.
- lazylizard 2y ago
  it still costs less than 10yrs of median income though..

PoppinFreshDo 2y ago

[dead]

nazgob 2y ago

This is all good but no country in the world managed to turn the tide, even great policies in a rich Scandinavia.

nradov 2y ago
Scandinavia isn't doing much to bring down housing costs, or cost of living in general. So I'm skeptical that their policies are really that great. Some of the countries like Sweden have allowed in large numbers of immigrants, many of which ended up working in elder care facilities. While that might be a positive in some ways it also drives up housing prices. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.756686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.756686
jvanderbot 2y ago
Many countries have a higher birth rate today than last year. They tend to be lower income, have fewer women's rights, or be more agricultural. IMHO, we overemphasized the dangers and impact of children, especially for women or career, and so couples have made the rational decision to have fewer children in industrialized nations, when given the choice.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  I think children actually have a huge negative impact on quality of life if you aren’t rich and if anything that impact is still underemphasized
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    That is a fine opinion to have. Mine have been worth every minute and penny and I wish I had them 10 years ago - but was dissuaded by nearly everyone including my grand plans for myself. I am not trying to convince you, but one rational / philosophical argument goes: Imagine the thing you are trying to accomplish before you have children. Now imagine your neighbor lets his children die (or be taken away) so he can do that, because parenthood was in the way. Everyone is aghast. Yet we deny ourselves parenthood to do that thing all the time.

roenxi 2y ago

That'd be nice but it clearly isn't the root of the problem, because through most of human history people have had kids despite wild poverty, terrible work prospects and a work-life balance that was appallingly bad and that may actually be illegal now depending on where you live. Most monkeys manage to procreate while basically living in the woods foraging. Since the effect seems to correlate with wealth, it seems more likely to me that people are just sniffing out that they, personally, will have a more comfortable existence if they spend money on themselves rather than having children. Birth control means that is an easy option.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
> Most monkeys manage to procreate while basically living in the woods foraging. Monkeys are built for that lifestyle, we aren't anymore. What a terrible comparison. Monkeys evolved to be good at monkey things we've evolved to be good at human things. People don't want to "go back to monke". >Since the effect seems to correlate with wealth No, that's not all it, they're also corelated with intelligence and the lack of wealth. Modern middle class people in developed western countries who aren't wealthy, are smart enough to see the wealth divide growing larger and large, good job opportunities scarcer and scarcer, and realize that unless they'll be leaving their kids a great inheritance they'll basically be breading economic cannon fodder as the future generations will have it worse when it comes to income, housing and wealth building. So if they're already suffering themselves because of this, why would they also want to bring people in this world that will suffer even more in the future? Millionaires have plenty of kinds since they can afford it and they're also increasing their odds of passing their genes further along with diversifying their wealth, and poor uneducated people are subsidized by the state, so it's the middle class who's not having any kids.
- blue_pants 2y ago
  > they'll basically be breading economic cannon fodder Are you suggesting that it's a new development and that, for example, peasants had it better? I'd say that even if the absolute difference in wealth is greater these days, the disparity in opportunities and quality of life has, on average, decreased (Don't ask for sources as I don't have any)

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Urbanization is like heroin for economics. Governments become addicted to it and the explosion in the GDP, trade and all other traditional indicators of economic health and power. Demographic health is something that needs a long term investment, certainly much longer than capitalism can tolerate. 18 to 25 years? It's to the point now that without immigration, countries are committing demographic suicide even in western "happy" counties, unlike "sad" totalitarian countries where urbanization is combined with reproductive rebellion.

noisy_boy 2y ago

> a good work-life balance That is hard to get in Asia - almost all countries in the region suffer from it.

jhanschoo 2y ago

Parts of the Singapore government is aware of its demographic crisis and has a material incentive to address it. For example, its military doctrine is predicated on conscription from a reserve of able-bodied male citizens that have undergone military training when they came of age; this is not something completely alleviated by mechanization, AI, or naturalization. I'm curious myself why the city-state has yet to take even more extensive measures to address this.