Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

nationalinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 444 posts

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#161

Post by emptysongglass »

asoneth wrote: post #142
emptysongglass wrote: post #115

I don't see anyone mentioning this so I'll take a gander with my "modern jackass" [1] solution based on my own personal observations of the reasons why I don't want kids: I have so much I still want to do with my life and I want to sink what time free from work into dinners and trips with my wife. Given the extant threat modern nations face, why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children? They'd be raise…

Many countries already invest substantial resources towards caring for children in the form of subsidized daycares, public schooling, subsidized food, etc. I expect demographics will force many countries to become even more generous in this regard. If you're referring to the government or other entity taking primary guardianship of children that does already occur in the foster/adoption system, but I don't understand…

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

> Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born?

Yes, I'd give them all the babies int the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born. "Kibbutz" was the word that sprang to my mind when I wrote my first comment.

I'm curious, too, if the state could professionalize birthing: a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term and the child's care would be taken over by an intimately sized kibbutz. My understanding of the failure of orphanages is that it is both the origin of trauma that haunts its orphans and the poverty of resources and caregivers allocated to them.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#162

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

mathverse wrote: post #103
kijin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been changing very rapidly in SK. Almost everyone in their 40s and 50s today have been putting money into public pension plans as well as a multitude of private options. When they retire, they won't be economically dependent on their children. Nor can they expect to, because their children's generation is by all means poorer than their own. Whether those public funds and private options will be enough, of cour…

The average price of an apartment in Seoul is hitting $1M and the avg gdp per capita is around $38k.I am afraid a lot of that wealth is just real estate market speculation that might burst when the supply outstrips demand in 50 years.

Why are you so confident supply will every outstrip demand?

The government could just mandate old buildings get destroyed and turned into parks.

Remember, >55% of people are homeowners - they'll vote for anything that will protect the value of their homes - especially if non-homeowners pay for it entirely.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#163

Post by [deleted] »

presentation wrote: post #134
eatonphil wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but compared to Japan? All of Asia started from scratch after WW2 and Korea was only 10 years behind Japan due to their war. But Tokyo infrastructure felt basically as old as NYC infrastructure to me (a totally qualitative impression). That said, Tokyo is massively cleaner and nicer than NYC even if some of the infrastructure seems old. There is no question it is nicer than NYC.

I live in Tokyo - on the surface certain lines have dated exteriors on their trains and stations, but they are maintained so much better and built with much more care to the surrounding environment that it's impossible for me to compare with NYC. NYC's trains are constantly late, always go out of service, are deafeningly loud, incredibly slow, filthy, don't have great coverage outside of the Manhattan core and genera…

[deleted]

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#164

Post by asoneth »

calmd wrote: post #36
sct202 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be hard to convince couples living in 1 bedroom apartments to cram in 2 kids just so that the country can hit replacement level fertility rates. Large urban cities just don't seem built for families, especially with the way that larger spaces are priced.

So urban cities are anti-child? Thus we will see cites change or depopulate? Does low fertility correlate with dense urban dwelling and sky high real-estate prices? I suspect it probably does, but I haven't seen any proof. Maybe this shift to remote-first work that happened over the last 18 months will help....

> we will see cites change or depopulate?

Or neither. Cities since at least the Roman era have been considered "population sinks". That is, they often maintain or grow their population by attracting surplus population born outside of the city.

As an experiment, if you ever find yourself in a large city like San Francisco, New York, London, or Tokyo, ask around and note what fraction of the residents you meet were actually born in the city.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#165

Post by jinseokim »

calmd wrote: post #7

SK is committing demographic suicide though, so whatever you think of its success, it has a pretty fatal disease. It has the lowest birthrate in the world. This is going to cause significant economic problems quite soon, or they will have to open up massive immigration which will completely change the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_birth_rate_in_South_Korea How does the developed world pull out of this ty…

I live in SK, so I have a lot of things to talk about the birthrate.

The reason why the birth rate strangely low, is quite interwoven. TL;DR: People (think they) are not capable enough to raise a child.

First: Real estate prices is skyrocketing. This bizarre phenomenon began in the 2000s. The 17th administration completely reversed the situation, which became another problem, and the 18th administration made real estate prices to soar again. The 19th (present) administration tried to control real estate prices with complicated regulation, but it never worked so far.

Second: An educational craze. 386(1960s) and X(1970s) generations believe that children should go to the prestige university to survive in this harsh world. So they let their children go to 'hagwon'[1], something like cram school but really competitive. E.g. (a) Almost students in SK go to hagwon. (b) Some 6th~9th grade students study 10AM~10PM everyday in hagwon during the vacation, to pass an enterance exam specialized high school(10th~12th grade). (c) Some kindergartens promotes themselves as "English Kindergarten"; where every teacher and student speaks English. The problem is -- because of these craze, a lot of childless family concern that they can't afford expenses for hagwon($300~400/mo in average. In the case of the above-mentioned entrance exam, It goes more than $1000/mo) so their child won't be happy because they'll fall behind when they grow up.

Third: Saving for retirement. Because of these problem, rearing child in Korea costs an arm and a leg. In the past, education was not overheated like this, and Korean-specific mindset forced family to give birth. However, starting with military administration's birth control policy, people changed their mindset, and now a significant number of people are more interested in saving for retirement than give birth.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagwon

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#167

Post by backprop1993 »

Balero wrote: post #151
keewee7 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is immigration but with high barrier to entry. I live in Denmark, a country portrayed as anti-immigrant by American and British media. However there is no opposition to educated professional immigrants from India, China, Iran and Eastern Europe. Brain drain of these countries could be a problem but countries like India and Iran are probably producing many more highly educated individuals than they can do…

This is hopefully just a temporary solution though. What happens when these places get rich enough that their birth rates also drop? To butcher an unrelated saying: "We can't all get immigrants from each other".

Iran scheduled to peak in 2060: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/iran-population

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#168

Post by tomato-sauce »

jerkstate wrote: post #109
nerdponx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very much looking forward to a lower-birthrate future in which fewer people live better and more sustainably. The problem is in the short/medium term, figuring out how to pay for all these checks that politicians have been writing over the last 50 years. The problem isn't that "the young" have to support "the old", it's that a lot of promises were made on the assumption of indefinite growth.

So strange to me that when UBI is discussed, pervasive automation is right around the corner to pay for it, but when birth rate decline is discussed, the only solution on the table is open borders. I wonder why that could be?

I don’t think people are saying the only solution is open borders. More immigration is just the most obvious answer. It is possible in today’s world without relying on future technological developments. But when talking about UBI, people don’t look to immigration as a solution since they would need to be payed the same benefits as anyone else (unless this was some sort of two tiered society). UBI proponents then look towards automation as a solution.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#169

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

forkLding wrote: post #149
dragonwriter wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> SK is committing demographic suicide though, so whatever you think of its success, it has a pretty fatal disease. It has the lowest birthrate in the world. Its kind of amazing how often people make judgements based on extrapolating demographic trends over much longer terms than there is any reason to think that they will hold, and then as soon as they fail turn around and do the same thing based on the new demograp…

It is actually quite hard to raise the birth rate, Japan has been trying for years (see https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/Tokyo%E2%... ). The real impediment is that it is now too costly to raise more than 1-2 children and also not enough time. UN 2015 report on Japan's birth rate policy attempts: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf... To summarize, they've started policies a…

There's trying and then there's trying. Japan is doing the first kind, where you put some effort in, but it's kind of limp.

The other kind of trying is when you put vigorous effort into making it easier to have children. Dramatically ramp up childcare support. Strongly enforce anti-discrimination laws, particularly in the case of discrimination against mothers. Forbid employers from requiring more than 40h of work per week under certain (very high) compensation thresholds. Provide direct payments to parents that substantially offset the costs of additional children. Align housing policy with the need for larger dwellings for larger families, but still with decent commutes. Etc.

Re: South Korea: The only middle power of its kind

#170

Post by twelve40 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #159
forkLding wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually quite hard to raise the birth rate, Japan has been trying for years (see https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/Tokyo%E2%... ). The real impediment is that it is now too costly to raise more than 1-2 children and also not enough time. UN 2015 report on Japan's birth rate policy attempts: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf... To summarize, they've started policies a…

> It is actually quite hard to raise the birth rate, Japan has been trying for years Not...really. > UN report on Japan's birth rate policy attempts: And details defects in the specific policies (notably, these defects are, one who is familiar with policies of the type will notice, ways they fall short of the support policies in many European countries that aren't even specifically trying to boost birth rates .) E.g.…

> Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important

Do you have any examples or even just any precedents how decades of declines and lowest birth rate in the world have been easily and successfully turned around, or this is all just hypothetically probably not hard?

Post reply on HN