411–420 of 439 posts
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?
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?
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?
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 sur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did your parents know the answer to that? Did your grandparents? No. But it's not really relevant to me. My grandparents' generation was largely motivated by religious faith (and lack of birth control) to have a bunch of kids. My parents' generation mostly lost the religious motivation, but inherited the inertia without questioning it. It's not to say they didn't want their kids, but having kids was just "what you…
Sorry, I'll be more specific - do you wish you were never born?
But if I had a kid and e.g., watched that kid become a climate refugee, I think I'd regret my decision to make that kid.
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…
poor people have more kids so your entire argument is nonsense
Yes poor people have more babies, but those poor people are becoming a smaller set in South Korea. You now need to analyze why, specifically, SK's (and many other country's) middle class aren't having children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe for you, but the value proposition isn’t there for me. There’s no indication that the world is willing to fix its global problems (climate change, housing problems and etc.), why would I also subscribe my child to this “fun”? It is weird to write that sentence, as I am generally a fairly optimistic person. But “let me sacrifice a ton, for a decent chance of misery of myself and my offspring” doesn’t sound righ…
> Whenever I see your sentiment - that you are choosing to not have kids because the world sucks and you don't see us solving anything - my immediate reaction is that you deserve no voice whatsoever in how the rest of us decide to solve those problems. No voting, no representation, nothing. Having kids, in a sense, is a bet that we'll figure things out one way or another. What an odd perspective. Are children the onl…
What, specifically, is odd about it? I think the stranger position is the one that allows people to inform policy that affects future generations when they themselves are intentionally not making themselves a part of that future. Put simply: why do you get a voice in what will affect my kids when you think the future is all for naught anyway?
Think of it like this: why do you think politicians always advertise the fact that they have a family when they're running for office (or hide the fact that they don't)? Because it, at a subconscious level, makes people feel comfortable. "This person's progeny have to live with these policies." It's a trust signal.
>One consequence...
I've stated twice now that intentionality matters. If you're referring to things like Monasteries, where people take vows of chastity (which would obviously preclude children), the idea of political participation is already complicated. I've known a Priest or two who don't believe Clergy should vote.
>Having just read...
I'm radically opposed to AWT for other not-unrelated reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sacrifice is a choice in this scenario. I think, I agree with the OP above, that one chooses to not to make that sacrifice (e.g. lifestyle change). Just the value of the sacrifice has been getting lower and lower every year for younger people.
The value of the sacrifice hasn’t changed, just the perceived value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But doesn't raising kids also provide a big set of exciting experiences you are trading-of against? Maybe for you, but the value proposition isn’t there for me. There’s no indication that the world is willing to fix its global problems (climate change, housing problems and etc.), why would I also subscribe my child to this “fun”? It is weird to write that sentence, as I am generally a fairly optimistic person. But…
People have lived through plague, famine, mass deaths caused by invasion, etc and still manage to raise and pass the torch to the next generation. Get over yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't doubt that, but speaking as someone building a non profit in stealth that covers the cost of permanent birth control for folks who can't get it completely covered by health insurance (or who have to rely on medical tourism to obtain it), I've spoken to many folks who adamantly don't want children and not because they are lazy or don't want a challenge. Kids are a choice, not a mandatory checkbox. That is the…
You misunderstand my point. > Some people will enjoy the experience of raising kids, some will not. Thats not why people have kids. Even people that have kids (and dont regret it) would like to spend their time on other things if they could. People dont choose to have kids based on how they like to spend their time.
I did, I made a conscious thoughtful decision that I'd be trading off stuff I wanted to do and taking care of a child instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sacrifice is a choice in this scenario. I think, I agree with the OP above, that one chooses to not to make that sacrifice (e.g. lifestyle change). Just the value of the sacrifice has been getting lower and lower every year for younger people.
My point is people are choosing kids because of a deeper responsibility and meaning. Not because the experience of raising kids is more fun than hanging out with friends or other alternatives. The parent in this scenario is not maximizing their enjoyment or personal satisfaction in the way someone choosing their hobbies is. That distinction did not seem observed when comparing the choice to raise children with the ch…
People are not having kids because they have good alternatives now. International travel is affordable for more and more people, regularly going to fine dining establishments is something accessible to most American software engineers, and the people left having kids are the ones either too poor to afford those good things anyways, or people who are knowingly giving them up in exchange for expected joy from raising a child.