How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s • Hacker News Board

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#351

Post by thriftwy » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #263

gottorf wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rat…

> 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. Is it miraculous if it's not sustainable, as we are clearly seeing? They had a massive, far-beyond-replacement-rate boom of the population, based on the 1970s and 1980s levels of fossil fuel consumption, fueled also by rapid globalization. If the trend…

They can always Anschluss North Korea, which last time I've checked had 2.1 rate.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#352

Post by wing-_-nuts » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #339

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a certain group of people that take the absolute worst predictions of climate science and just runs with it. Granted, there's a far larger group of people that think we'll be ok with business as usual. Neither is true.

I'm not sure if you're aware that 3-5C is perfectly within the business-as-usual scenarios and 5C is easily a civilization-ending trend.

I'm using BAU loosely here. I'm not referring to RCP 8.5. I have my own issues with the IPCC's estimates relying to much on direct air capture, but I don't think 5-6c is likely unless there's an unforseen feedback loop we haven't factored in.

I'd almost bet money on the eventual use of stratospheric sulfide injection to cool the planet. It's cheap enough that even a third world country could conceivably pay for it. We have no idea what the side effects will be, but it may well be worth the risk to avoid 3-4c of warming.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#353

Post by nemothekid » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #327

nemothekid wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be fair to assume that you are relatively upperclass tech worker; I think your perceptions of what people can do is colored by your social circle. For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else . I'm surprised none of your expectations include basic child care - food, shelter, care. If you are just scraping by on two incomes how do…

It might be fair to assume op is as well. Beyond that, people have 'afforded' kids since there have been people, and this includes the worst deprivations at the beginning of the industrial age. Birth rates are actually inversely correlated with income, and this cuts across industrial and agrarian societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. As income rises and your children are unable (or disallowed) to start working for themselves, the calculus on child rearing changes. It's different when your 8 year old can start collecting eggs. I don't buy that as income rises people would rather go to Italy than have children. OP mentions they can't afford it - the people who I've met who say that really can't afford it. The ones that are DINK, are proudly DINK.

My broader point is that globally, these issues are less about couples wanting maintain their summer vacations to Italy, and more that people who want to have children are unable to responsibly do so. Telling people, in the US at least, that they should have kids because of the government safety net would be considered irresponsible advice.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#354

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

pyuser583 wrote: post #98

munk-a wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've allowed everything in life to be assigned a monetary value and it turns out that kids have a very low RoI

This really defines the problem. (1) we approach child rearing as an economic proposition, and (2) it doesn’t make sense to as an economic proposition. But the more we fight the second proposition, the more we reinforce the first. Trying to make kids less expensive still treats this as a financial calculation. When you ask “why have kids?” there needs to be a real answer, and I don’t think “the economic public good”…

That's why religions tend to assign child rearing a extentential "Go straight to hell" punishment if you don't do it. It turns out it's a great way to keep your religion around.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#355

Post by wing-_-nuts » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:42 PM UTC

rendang wrote: post #251

Daishiman wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are seriously underestimating the impacts that worldwide crop failures in the next 20 years are going to have as far as global human catastrophes go.

There's a great deal of land in the very cold part of the N hemisphere that may become more agriculturally productive with warming.

The soil quality there is very low. Also, large parts of canada are covered by the 'canadian shield' which is basically where glaciers have scraped down to bare granite bedrock. If we had thousands of years to adjust, I'm sure we could manage but you're not planting huge fields of wheat, corn or soybean in that soil.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#356

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

dougmwne wrote: post #302

bryanlarsen wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as long as you recognize that if the worker/retiree ratio gets significantly out of whack, the demand for services needed by retirees is going to massively outstrip supply supply so inflation is going to kill any retirement savings you're planning on. If you're directly or indirectly working on that problem somehow, you're probably doing far more good for future humans than you would just by having kids.

Rich countries will just keep importing labor. The large aged population will throw out any government that threatens their quality of life in retirement. Middle income and poor countries with low birth rates may suffer greatly from having their working aged populations poached.

>Rich countries will just keep importing labor.

This only works so long.... We are running into the issue where almost no rich countries are producing excess population. Couple that with the countries we think of as excess population producers have massively reduced their own birth rates, then one day those rich countries will start having to pay very large amounts for imports, hence threatening the quality of life by increase costs.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#357

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:54 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #322

kjkjadksj wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be better to move to the midwestern US honestly. Housing and childcare is super affordable out there and wages will probably still work out better than in europe. I expect when shit hits the fan you’d rather be in wisconson with american citizenship than on the proverbial maginot line. Civilians don’t often fare well in european continental conflicts.

Yes! And No! Yes: US will continue being an economic powerhouse, and a very rare geopolitical entity that can source all of it’s inputs and can grow it’s own food. I would definitely think about really hard moving my family to US if our kids were 10 years younger mainly because I’ve realised how it geopolitically speaking outclasses anyplace else on earth. No: Please do better research. Civilian population in North E…

Lets add a No: to that safety group.

No: As an immigrant you may run into safety issues from the current residents that live in the midwest. Add potential government instability and loss of democratic freedoms, and it starts swinging the balance back over to northern Europe.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#358

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:56 PM UTC

havblue wrote: post #181

markus_zhang wrote: post #92

Chinese people are seeing the same decline of birth and marriage. Part of that contributes to better life but I'd say the majority is because of Capitalism. This form of Capitalism is initiated by the government so there is not much to check its power. Essentially, if you look at housing, cost of education and cost of medical services, you will understand why middle class in China does not want to give birth to child…

I'll note that this isn't intended to start a political argument, but I'm confused when people blame capitalism, even in countries that are themselves communist. What does this even mean? Are we blaming the global market economy? What would the solution be then, severely limit trade between countries?

China is not communist, it is authoritarian capitalist.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#359

Post by qqqwerty » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #327

nemothekid wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be fair to assume that you are relatively upperclass tech worker; I think your perceptions of what people can do is colored by your social circle. For many people they aren't worried about kids going to a private school, it's whether they can afford to feed someone else . I'm surprised none of your expectations include basic child care - food, shelter, care. If you are just scraping by on two incomes how do…

It might be fair to assume op is as well. Beyond that, people have 'afforded' kids since there have been people, and this includes the worst deprivations at the beginning of the industrial age. Birth rates are actually inversely correlated with income, and this cuts across industrial and agrarian societies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

As a new-ish parent in a HCOL area, this actually makes sense to me. Before children, we needed two incomes just to afford a relatively modest but comfortable lifestyle (both STEM related jobs, but not anywhere near FAANG salaries). But childcare is expensive and there are not a lot of affordable resources to lean on when things go haywire, for example when the child is sick and needs to stay home from daycare (a week of short notice babysitting can cost as much as an entire month of daycare). It has been extremely stressful and everyone around us that seems to be making it work either makes a lot more money than us (and can pay for a lot more help) or have a lot more help from relatives (or both).

In LCOL areas, single income households are more realistic. And retired grandparents and relatives are more likely to be able to afford the area and help out with childcare. So it is not really about "affording" the kids, it is really more about how much help you can get. Certainly food and diapers cost money, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to child care.

EDIT: Also, in terms of number of kids, there are some subtle influences there as well. A couple on FAANG salaries can easily afford 4-5 kids in a HCOL area. But modern car seats are massive and to shuttle that many kids around you would need a large SUV. But driving one of those around in an urban-ish area is a nightmare. It is little things like this that push down the fertility rates in these areas. Big rural open settings are great places for popping out kids. Expensive, high cost, high density environments are not.

Re: How South Korea’s birth rate dropped below Japan’s

#360

Post by gottorf » Thu, Aug 31, 2023, 8:13 PM UTC

jimlongton wrote: post #320

grej wrote: post #206

South Korea was among the poorest countries in the world - poorer than many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa as recently as the 1960s. Withing a single lifetime they transformed themselves into one of the most advanced developed economies on the planet with a madman (mad men) on their doorstep. It’s natural that that kind of change will have some massive societal implications, many of which they are still sorting out.…

> it’s worth noting what they’ve accomplished in getting to a place where they can afford to worry about that as one of their primary concerns It's probably also worth noting the long history of military dictatorships, murderous suppression of worker rights, massive ongoing corruption (including a literal cult controlling the government until 2016) and the highest suicide rate in the world. Reducing the story to just…

And yet, despite all that, the median person is much, much better off than prior to all the economic development.