South Korea: The only middle power of its kind(nationalinterest.org)
nationalinterest.org
South Korea: The only middle power of its kind
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/south-korea-only-middle-power-its-kind-190911
443 comments
Not really. Immigration has become an issue lately because a human (or a bare-human) is worth much less.
1.000 years ago a bare illiterate human had some considerable value. He could work in the field or he could fight. More humans, more food and production. More humans, more manpower to fight your enemies.
Now a bare semi-educated human is a liability. Which is why most countries are refusing their entrance. Times have changed. In a near future where wars will be fought with robots and drones, you need less manpower (and their wives/kids); and thus you need much less of your general population; and much more of a few specialized people to achieve your goals.
We are getting there, whether we are self-aware of it or not.
1.000 years ago a bare illiterate human had some considerable value. He could work in the field or he could fight. More humans, more food and production. More humans, more manpower to fight your enemies.
Now a bare semi-educated human is a liability. Which is why most countries are refusing their entrance. Times have changed. In a near future where wars will be fought with robots and drones, you need less manpower (and their wives/kids); and thus you need much less of your general population; and much more of a few specialized people to achieve your goals.
We are getting there, whether we are self-aware of it or not.
This is inaccurate. More people, even low skilled ones are still a huge benefit to your society. They buy goods and services in the local economy increasing demand and work tax paying jobs. Immigrants children grow up to greatly out earn their parents pay way more in taxes than they their parents. The only immigrant group that could be considered a liability are older low skilled workers who have passed the age to have kids and live a couple of decades of working years. The reason certain countries don’t like immigration is because a conservative faction wants to keep society in place.
Maybe we have to rethink our economic system so that producing more humans just to create new customers is a perverse incentive.
Less humans means less demand means less work. In our current paradigm, this is a problem. In a healthy paradigm, it is a solution.
Less people? Rebalance human development with nature. Less consumption of resources? Wonderful. Less jobs? Great, let's all work less and live more.
Many would call this utopia, I call it sanity. I'd also say that couple not reproducing or doing so at increasingly old age, is the ultimate sign of how our economic system doesn't even support one of the most natural things there are: to form a family. It is openly hostile to this option.
And we want do double down on that? The trend of economic security is going to be even less, not more.
Less humans means less demand means less work. In our current paradigm, this is a problem. In a healthy paradigm, it is a solution.
Less people? Rebalance human development with nature. Less consumption of resources? Wonderful. Less jobs? Great, let's all work less and live more.
Many would call this utopia, I call it sanity. I'd also say that couple not reproducing or doing so at increasingly old age, is the ultimate sign of how our economic system doesn't even support one of the most natural things there are: to form a family. It is openly hostile to this option.
And we want do double down on that? The trend of economic security is going to be even less, not more.
> The reason certain countries don’t like immigration is because a conservative faction wants to keep society in place.
This is so simplified that it is basically false. There are a range of reasons for not supporting immigration, but basically no one wants to "keep society in place". I will note that the USA had historically low immigration in the post-war period that was associated with rapidly rising wellbeing[0].
[0]: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Ann...
This is so simplified that it is basically false. There are a range of reasons for not supporting immigration, but basically no one wants to "keep society in place". I will note that the USA had historically low immigration in the post-war period that was associated with rapidly rising wellbeing[0].
[0]: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Ann...
That was almost entirely due to America rebuilding Europe and every other major industrial power knocked off their perch for a couple of decades. It had nothing to do with immigration. Additionally Americans were still having lots of kids at that point so the population was growing without immigratiom.
Those European countries also developed fast without much immigration (including Switzerland and the Nordics, which were not affected much by the war). It may have nothing to do with immigration, but you certainly haven't proved that.
Edit: Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse.
Edit: Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse.
> Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse.
An argument that immigration is a net positive for the economy:
https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-econo...
Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/...
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/08/15/hmong-immigrants-he...
An argument that immigration is a net positive for the economy:
https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-econo...
Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/...
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/08/15/hmong-immigrants-he...
> Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration
Why would saving small towns in general be a value?
The US has desperately needed vast consolidation of small population centers and increased population density toward greater urbanization, for many decades.
One of the worst attributes of the US is its over-sprawl and weak development of public transportation. The ideal would be to eliminate thousands upon thousands of small towns, with those populations moving to far superior situations in or near cities, and for the US to stop being lazy and stupid about building out public transportation.
Saving small towns is certainly not a good argument for huge volumes of low-skill immigration at exactly the wrong time in history for that type of immigration. The US should be copying Canada and Australia, focusing primarily on high-skill immigration and dramatically reducing low-skill immigration. What the highly developed welfare states all grasp that the US still doesn't (apparently), is that the immense value in high-skill immigration, beyond the obvious, is that it brings a huge immediate net tax positive that pays for your existing population's social welfare costs, whereas low-skill labor does something closer to the exact opposite. Most low-skill labor would struggle to covers its own real social security cost over time, much less everything else. The US has a very progressive taxation system, high-skill labor foots the tax bills. High-skill labor is also vastly superior as it pertains to net healthcare costs and system subsidization. Every functional welfare state in Europe knows all of this, meanwhile the US is wandering around like an idiot in the dark bumping into walls.
Far less low-skill labor, more automation, far more high-skill labor, increased social safety net from the net tax boost of inverting the labor focus, build public transportation, greater consolidation of population centers, all linked by regional high-speed rail. We already know this model works exceptionally well and we know exactly why it works.
Why would saving small towns in general be a value?
The US has desperately needed vast consolidation of small population centers and increased population density toward greater urbanization, for many decades.
One of the worst attributes of the US is its over-sprawl and weak development of public transportation. The ideal would be to eliminate thousands upon thousands of small towns, with those populations moving to far superior situations in or near cities, and for the US to stop being lazy and stupid about building out public transportation.
Saving small towns is certainly not a good argument for huge volumes of low-skill immigration at exactly the wrong time in history for that type of immigration. The US should be copying Canada and Australia, focusing primarily on high-skill immigration and dramatically reducing low-skill immigration. What the highly developed welfare states all grasp that the US still doesn't (apparently), is that the immense value in high-skill immigration, beyond the obvious, is that it brings a huge immediate net tax positive that pays for your existing population's social welfare costs, whereas low-skill labor does something closer to the exact opposite. Most low-skill labor would struggle to covers its own real social security cost over time, much less everything else. The US has a very progressive taxation system, high-skill labor foots the tax bills. High-skill labor is also vastly superior as it pertains to net healthcare costs and system subsidization. Every functional welfare state in Europe knows all of this, meanwhile the US is wandering around like an idiot in the dark bumping into walls.
Far less low-skill labor, more automation, far more high-skill labor, increased social safety net from the net tax boost of inverting the labor focus, build public transportation, greater consolidation of population centers, all linked by regional high-speed rail. We already know this model works exceptionally well and we know exactly why it works.
Postwar sprawl is a huge problem, but it'd be good if prewar towns were saved.
You're going to get pushback if you try to say "everyone needs to live in the Big City". They don't. There are other options.
Because streetcar suburbs are fine. Villages are fine. Actual towns are fine.
What's bad is strip-mall sprawl. Highways, burbclaves, and office parks. None of that is worth saving.
And some of the new "denser" development misses the point. Rows of townhomes set up in a farm off the highway with no commercial center? That's dense but bad.
New condo complexes -- private compounds with pools and such -- that take up whole city blocks? Also dense, but bad. These represent the "enclosure" (with everything that entails) of urban space.
But "small towns"? Fine -- if they're actually towns, and not just strip-mall wastelands.
You're going to get pushback if you try to say "everyone needs to live in the Big City". They don't. There are other options.
Because streetcar suburbs are fine. Villages are fine. Actual towns are fine.
What's bad is strip-mall sprawl. Highways, burbclaves, and office parks. None of that is worth saving.
And some of the new "denser" development misses the point. Rows of townhomes set up in a farm off the highway with no commercial center? That's dense but bad.
New condo complexes -- private compounds with pools and such -- that take up whole city blocks? Also dense, but bad. These represent the "enclosure" (with everything that entails) of urban space.
But "small towns"? Fine -- if they're actually towns, and not just strip-mall wastelands.
You're wrong that low-skilled immigration is a net loss for the USA. Low skilled immigrants contribute more than they take out by a good amount. They increase demand and grow the economy. Additionally their kids grow up and out earn them drastically being huge net-positives.
Small towns not connected to big cities are shrinking unceasingly, unless there is some special local thing to save them, like a special factory or a tourist attraction. In my part of the south almost every town had their downtown destroyed first by walmart, and then later by the ecosystem of small businesses all withered away and now the downtowns of places with a few thousand people have almost nothing but a grocery store and gas station. On top of the young people move out of all of these towns looking for work. It's got to be incredibly sad for older people to see their world just disappearing, which is think is part of the appeal of certain nationalist politicians.
Your point about high-skill vs. low-skill immigration is interesting, but allow me to invert it: If developed countries can benefit by causing (only) high-skilled people to immigrate, can they also benefit by somehow causing (only) low-skilled people to emigrate?
> Those European countries also developed fast without much immigration
That doesn’t seem correct, at least not universally. Germany invited a large number of immigrant workers to deal with its labor shortage after WW2.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter
That doesn’t seem correct, at least not universally. Germany invited a large number of immigrant workers to deal with its labor shortage after WW2.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter
Similar for the Netherlands and Belgium
Yea they were mostly rebuilding the physical world and not having to completely rebuild society from the ground. Small countries like the Nordics aren’t great examples because they’re so small and a massive part of their wealth came from selling oil to the wider world. The amount of oil revenue generated per person in those countries allowed them develop such a high standard of living along with really smart and egalitarian government policy and investment. That’s not really repeatable for a country as large as the US although money could certainly be used better.
France invited large amounts of immigrants from Africa to help rebuild so it’s not like they didn’t see immigration.
I think there are two main reasons that the poorest parts of the population are stagnating. One is poverty traps, and especially multi generational poverty traps are very hard to escape. Another is geographic location. Americans dont move as much as they used to, all around the world poorer people move to areas with more jobs and opportunity but today mostly richer people move and poorer people stay put in areas that are impoverished.
Immigrants largely don’t come with a set geography or generational poverty weighing them down which is why their kids do so well.
France invited large amounts of immigrants from Africa to help rebuild so it’s not like they didn’t see immigration.
I think there are two main reasons that the poorest parts of the population are stagnating. One is poverty traps, and especially multi generational poverty traps are very hard to escape. Another is geographic location. Americans dont move as much as they used to, all around the world poorer people move to areas with more jobs and opportunity but today mostly richer people move and poorer people stay put in areas that are impoverished.
Immigrants largely don’t come with a set geography or generational poverty weighing them down which is why their kids do so well.
That's inaccurate at best about the Nordics. Norway, yes, and Denmark to some degree. Neither Finland or Sweden have or had any significant oil and gas reserves, but built their economies on industry (and mining to some extent).
Agreed, but mining has historically been a big in Sweden (part of the reason why so many minerals were named by Swedish scientists). While we now have focus on other areas it has always been an important part of the economy.
This is pretty wrong. Most immigrants come from much poorer countries, and they themselves have to restart everything from scratch, with little saving and no home ownership.
People coming from the Philipines, or India, or Eastern Europe, post communism from the 90s had to restart everything from scratch, including learning the language, yet over time they end up doing well.
You have this weird mentality, that all immigrants are coming rich, and from rich countries, which is the opposite from the truth.
I guarantee, that Someone in Bangladesh coming here, has had a much harder life, than the average minority living in Brooklyn or Queens.
Yet, even the obstacles, they end up doing better than the locals. So, initial conditions are not the major hamperer of success.
People coming from the Philipines, or India, or Eastern Europe, post communism from the 90s had to restart everything from scratch, including learning the language, yet over time they end up doing well.
You have this weird mentality, that all immigrants are coming rich, and from rich countries, which is the opposite from the truth.
I guarantee, that Someone in Bangladesh coming here, has had a much harder life, than the average minority living in Brooklyn or Queens.
Yet, even the obstacles, they end up doing better than the locals. So, initial conditions are not the major hamperer of success.
Not sure where you got that idea but I definitely don't think all immigrants coming here are rich, I'm a huge advocate for more poorer/low skilled immigration. I've outlined in a bunch of other comments why exactly but for them if their life struggling in the US is better than where they left and they are voluntarily here to give themselves and their children a better life it's good with me and a huge benefit to the USA.
Their point is that is becoming less and less true and will likely be false soon. Most labor simply isn't worth as much as it used to be. This is evident in stagnant wages and the view of large families not as assets but as liabilities.
You can try to spur local demand by expanding your population (via birth or immigration) but what we really care about is GDP per capita. Most very populous countries are not wealthy.
You can try to spur local demand by expanding your population (via birth or immigration) but what we really care about is GDP per capita. Most very populous countries are not wealthy.
> Most labor simply isn't worth as much as it used to be. This is evident in stagnant wages
You're assuming an efficient market, which we've long known is a flawed assumption.
You're assuming an efficient market, which we've long known is a flawed assumption.
Where is that assumption? I'm not seeing it in the claim.
Taking stagnant wages to imply that the labor is worth less is taking for granted that reduced prices means reduced value. It's probably more accurate (though still oversimplifying) to view it as a cartel suppressing wages.
> They buy goods and services
the wonder of economic development is that as a country's quality of life and wealth increases, consumption increases.
the typical american probably consumes about 4000x as much energy as the typical DRC. we still have a long, long way to go before we can accommodate the whole world living like an american.
even as population growth stalls, or even reverses course, the ability of humans to keep expanding its appetite for the finer things in life can never be quelled.
the wonder of economic development is that as a country's quality of life and wealth increases, consumption increases.
the typical american probably consumes about 4000x as much energy as the typical DRC. we still have a long, long way to go before we can accommodate the whole world living like an american.
even as population growth stalls, or even reverses course, the ability of humans to keep expanding its appetite for the finer things in life can never be quelled.
The average energy usage per person in the USA has been going down in the past few decades as appliances and electronics get more efficient. It will continue to go down as more things electrify and shift to renewables. We can decrease resource consumption through smarter growth policies like building denser, public transit while growing our population for economic benefit.
[deleted]
> They buy goods and services in the local economy increasing demand and work tax paying jobs.
That heavily depends on the immigrant group, and is, on average, not true in most of Europe where many immigrants heavily depend on welfare and it turns into intergenerational dependency. I'm sure it's different in countries that aren't offering full benefits to immigrants, and are much harder to reach via illegal migration, i.e. the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, but that kind of blanket statement isn't accurate.
That heavily depends on the immigrant group, and is, on average, not true in most of Europe where many immigrants heavily depend on welfare and it turns into intergenerational dependency. I'm sure it's different in countries that aren't offering full benefits to immigrants, and are much harder to reach via illegal migration, i.e. the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, but that kind of blanket statement isn't accurate.
I’ve read about this and a big reason is it’s simply so much easier to get a job in the US. You’re not dealing with unions and America just has way more low paying jobs. You can def argue this isn’t a good thing but working a low paying job is better than working no job.
More low paying jobs just leads to more misery for poor people, and more money for me. That is not how I want to live.
There is limited supply of housing and low qualified jobs.
Maybe read what Marx wrote about Irish immigrants to UK. And those already spoke local language and shared similar culture.
Maybe read what Marx wrote about Irish immigrants to UK. And those already spoke local language and shared similar culture.
Limited supply of housing is an artificial local government constraint using tools like zoning and permitting to stop the construction of new housing keep prices high for incumbent owners. I agree it’s a huge problem but I would rather fight the constraint on supply than limit demand (partially immigrants) when they contribute so much else. We shouldn’t restrict economic growth and deny millions of people the chance at a better life to appease NIMBYs.
USA is amazing at assimilating immigrants. Mostly the places the furthest away from any immigrants that don’t actually interact with them have a problem. The melting pot isn’t a myth it’s real.
USA is amazing at assimilating immigrants. Mostly the places the furthest away from any immigrants that don’t actually interact with them have a problem. The melting pot isn’t a myth it’s real.
Please. We have 40% unemployment in Greece among young people. Housing is bloody expensive to build. It is not some goverment conspiracy!
Did you actually try to immigrate into US? It is one of the worst countries at accepting immigration. Any normal country gives citizenship after 5 years of residency. In US it is like 30 years.
And from far away it looks like your melting pot is broken. Too many groups fighting each other.
Did you actually try to immigrate into US? It is one of the worst countries at accepting immigration. Any normal country gives citizenship after 5 years of residency. In US it is like 30 years.
And from far away it looks like your melting pot is broken. Too many groups fighting each other.
"30 years" is factually incorrect. The requirement is to be a permanent resident for 5 years (I can find links if needed). Source: I'm currently awaiting my naturalization appointment, if all goes well the total time from setting my foot in the US to becoming a citizen will be few months short of 9 years (~2.5 years on work visa & 5 years on green card + ~1.5 years wait for naturalization appointment).
With that said, it may be tricky to become a resident [1] in the first place. There are per-country-of-birth quotas, currently the wait times for people born in China / India can be significant (if taking the work visa route), up to 11 years. The longest wait that I see is for family-based immigration from Mexico - 24 years' wait for "married sons/daughters of US citizens". [2]
[1] resident to me means lawful permanent resident
[2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...
[1] resident to me means lawful permanent resident
[2] https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...
That may be true for you or the Greek person here. Not for indians, Chinese, and Mexican.
Only one category ("married children of US citizens"), only for Mexicans, comes close enough to ~30 years total time (~24 years waiting to become LPR, +5 years being an LPR in USA) to consider the "30 years" as valid IMO. The fact still remains that the requirement for citizenship is to be a LPR for 5 years (this is the upper bound, there are cases where less is possible), it is the LPR part that may take time, as I've already mentioned in a reply to my comment. For China and India the total times are closer to 15-20 years. All of this is for family-based immigration, which I'd expect to be generally less interesting as it requires people to already have a fairly close family member who is a US citizen.
Not familiar with housing in Greece. I should have clarified I’m talking about the US where housing is quite cheap to build but regulations make it illegal to build most types of housing.
I was born in the US but a lot of my family are immigrants and I know how tough the system is, I’m arguing to make it much easier.
I’m sure on the outside it does look broken and there are lots of issues to fix, but take a walk around pretty much any American urban metro area and it’s working amazingly well.
I can understand the situation in Greece is much different, especially when compare the amount of refugees compared to the population of Greece. But I think a lot of the issues boil down to Greece having a quite shit economy at the moment causing more issues. If jobs were abundant in Greece then I think immigration wouldn’t be as contentious. Although that’s just me taking from no experience. I’m interested in hearing your view.
I was born in the US but a lot of my family are immigrants and I know how tough the system is, I’m arguing to make it much easier.
I’m sure on the outside it does look broken and there are lots of issues to fix, but take a walk around pretty much any American urban metro area and it’s working amazingly well.
I can understand the situation in Greece is much different, especially when compare the amount of refugees compared to the population of Greece. But I think a lot of the issues boil down to Greece having a quite shit economy at the moment causing more issues. If jobs were abundant in Greece then I think immigration wouldn’t be as contentious. Although that’s just me taking from no experience. I’m interested in hearing your view.
I would love to see how American cities deal with large scale immigration. SF got maybe 10k people on its streets and there is already talk about martial law and forcefully mopping people into rehabs. What would SF do with 1 million people on its streets? Athens and other cities managed...
Greece does not have a shit economy, we do relatively well. There are simply not enough jobs.
US is the same. Show me an entry level job, that pays enough to buy a house and raise a family...
Greece does not have a shit economy, we do relatively well. There are simply not enough jobs.
US is the same. Show me an entry level job, that pays enough to buy a house and raise a family...
Do you mean like NYC? Literally the city built on large scale immigration? Also the state of California. Houston, Texas is the most diverse city in the country and you can buy a house for less than the national average. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US who own homes and raise families on entry level jobs, the just don't live in high cost of living areas. That's not to say their lives are all perfect and rosy but its possible. I'm not denying housing affordability is a problem, it absolutely is but narrowing your view of America to SF when it is the most extreme example is a little disingenuous. My hometown has tons of people where 2 parents work slightly above minimum wage jobs and own homes and raise families. It's 2 hours from 2 major cities. You can absolutely have a good life without making a ton of money. Now healthcare... that's a separate issue.
I'm not sure where you're getting your news on America but martial law isn't being declared anywhere. Most of the country is relatively peaceful and people are happy - https://news.gallup.com/poll/351932/americans-life-ratings-r...
If there are simply not enough jobs in Greece, that means the economic situation isn't great. A highly functioning economy should be produces lots of jobs as businesses grow and expand. I'm not arguing Greece should take more immigrants though, you sound like you don't want them and neither does your country. I would be happy for America to accept all of them, refugee or PhD Scientist, but unfortunately the political situation at the moment doesn't allow for that.
I'm not sure where you're getting your news on America but martial law isn't being declared anywhere. Most of the country is relatively peaceful and people are happy - https://news.gallup.com/poll/351932/americans-life-ratings-r...
If there are simply not enough jobs in Greece, that means the economic situation isn't great. A highly functioning economy should be produces lots of jobs as businesses grow and expand. I'm not arguing Greece should take more immigrants though, you sound like you don't want them and neither does your country. I would be happy for America to accept all of them, refugee or PhD Scientist, but unfortunately the political situation at the moment doesn't allow for that.
》but take a walk around pretty much any American urban metro area and it’s working amazingly well.
I choosed SF bcos you wrote this. NY etc have similar problem. Modern US cities are not capable to accept and absorb large scale immigration of people who are not already integrated into society. People who do not speak local language and have very different culture.
Martial law was suggested as a way to force homeless into shelters and rehabs. SF gets around 700 people per year, and it already abandoned basic humanitarian principles. Look at recent Louis Rossmann video, this mishandling is systemic problem in US: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8WGjCeFyr1g&pp=sAQA
》USA is amazing at assimilating immigrants
I disagree with that. I will leave it here.
I choosed SF bcos you wrote this. NY etc have similar problem. Modern US cities are not capable to accept and absorb large scale immigration of people who are not already integrated into society. People who do not speak local language and have very different culture.
Martial law was suggested as a way to force homeless into shelters and rehabs. SF gets around 700 people per year, and it already abandoned basic humanitarian principles. Look at recent Louis Rossmann video, this mishandling is systemic problem in US: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8WGjCeFyr1g&pp=sAQA
》USA is amazing at assimilating immigrants
I disagree with that. I will leave it here.
Why didn't you try to look at some numbers? If anything, immigration to the US has accelerated in the last 50 years. 4.7 percent of the population were immigrants in 1970. The number increased to 13.7 percent in 2019.
"Since 1970, the share and number of immigrants have increased rapidly, mainly because of large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia. The vast diversification of immigration flows was ushered in by important shifts in U.S. immigration law (including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished national-origin admission quotas; the creation of a formal refugee resettlement program with the Refugee Act of 1980; and the Cold War-era grant of preferential treatment to Cuban immigrants); the United States’ growing economic and military presence in Asia and Latin America; economic ties, social linkages, and deep migration history between the United States and its southern neighbors; and major economic transformations and political instability in countries around the world." - [0]
People from Asia and Latin America, those who contribute the majority of the boom in migration since 1970s, are those by default don't speak English natively and have distinct culture. 22 percent American spoke a language other than English at home.
> Modern US cities are not capable to accept and absorb large scale immigration of people who are not already integrated into society. People who do not speak local language and have very different culture.
Incorrect. As of 2018, 20% of NYC residents are naturalized citizens (born abroad), 10.9% are legal and 6.3% are undocumented immigrants. [1]
[0] - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested...
[1] - https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/moia_an...
"Since 1970, the share and number of immigrants have increased rapidly, mainly because of large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia. The vast diversification of immigration flows was ushered in by important shifts in U.S. immigration law (including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished national-origin admission quotas; the creation of a formal refugee resettlement program with the Refugee Act of 1980; and the Cold War-era grant of preferential treatment to Cuban immigrants); the United States’ growing economic and military presence in Asia and Latin America; economic ties, social linkages, and deep migration history between the United States and its southern neighbors; and major economic transformations and political instability in countries around the world." - [0]
People from Asia and Latin America, those who contribute the majority of the boom in migration since 1970s, are those by default don't speak English natively and have distinct culture. 22 percent American spoke a language other than English at home.
> Modern US cities are not capable to accept and absorb large scale immigration of people who are not already integrated into society. People who do not speak local language and have very different culture.
Incorrect. As of 2018, 20% of NYC residents are naturalized citizens (born abroad), 10.9% are legal and 6.3% are undocumented immigrants. [1]
[0] - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested...
[1] - https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/moia_an...
You can disagree but it's true, the melting pot isn't a myth. I'm a brown skinned child of immigrants and my entire friend group is white and black people who have been here for generations along with other children of immigrants. Even my anti-immigrant Trump supporting next door neighbors are like a second family to me. Again for the vast majority of the country people get along amazingly well regardless of background, you just hear about the bad parts on the news. You can keep thinking people don't integrate into society but after 1 generation of being in the US anyone from anywhere can safely call themselves American. I can't say the same for Greece but culturally in the US wave after wave of immigrants become fully integrated American quite fast.
You’re thinking in humanistic terms, not geopolitical terms.
I’m thinking in purely economic terms
There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
And as retirees continue to make up a larger portion of the popular vote - they'll continue to demand more from a shrinking workforce.
At some point (I imagine in my lifetime) - the straw will break the camel's back.
And as retirees continue to make up a larger portion of the popular vote - they'll continue to demand more from a shrinking workforce.
At some point (I imagine in my lifetime) - the straw will break the camel's back.
> And as retirees continue to make up a larger portion of the popular vote - they'll continue to demand more from a shrinking workforce.
Sure, if you fail to outsource to other countries; or automate your economy enough.
> There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
For most countries, you can get access with a job offer. Countries are not against people who can get employment where they have shortages.
But a "bare human" is barely employable which is how he turns into a liability. ie: immigrating more people (randomly) will generate a negative return at least in the short-term.
Sure, if you fail to outsource to other countries; or automate your economy enough.
> There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
For most countries, you can get access with a job offer. Countries are not against people who can get employment where they have shortages.
But a "bare human" is barely employable which is how he turns into a liability. ie: immigrating more people (randomly) will generate a negative return at least in the short-term.
>> juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce
On the assumption that the economy is based on a workforce. An economy can be based on paper assets. An "innovation nation" that makes GDP out of intellectual property assets, banking and offshore investments could sustain itself without the need for an ever-growing labor force. SK isn't Luxembourg, but nor is it India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg
On the assumption that the economy is based on a workforce. An economy can be based on paper assets. An "innovation nation" that makes GDP out of intellectual property assets, banking and offshore investments could sustain itself without the need for an ever-growing labor force. SK isn't Luxembourg, but nor is it India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg
As a tax haven, Luxembourg depends on France + Germany's tolerance for tax evasion though. Granted, it has worked out great for them, but it's not necessarily a long-term strategy.
> There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
For the developed world, where a lot of the wealth coming in is capital returns from global corps whose ability to generate wealth isn’t constrained by local population size, that just means you need to tap that more effectively. It’s a problem for the payroll tax model of social support funding, perhaps, but unless you are emotionally attached to that model, I don't see that as a big cost.
For the developed world, where a lot of the wealth coming in is capital returns from global corps whose ability to generate wealth isn’t constrained by local population size, that just means you need to tap that more effectively. It’s a problem for the payroll tax model of social support funding, perhaps, but unless you are emotionally attached to that model, I don't see that as a big cost.
Yes, similarly retiree savings isn’t limited to your economy. A country could have a continuous stream of goods imported that’s supported by past investments, which is more or less the goal of sovereign wealth funds.
However, it requires great long term management making the system overall less stable.
However, it requires great long term management making the system overall less stable.
Automation is progressing faster than new 'types' of jobs are created. In many sectors they'll be poised to be oversaturated with workers. Owners are happy to remove the human element wherever reasonably possible.
Except the US has a large labor shortage that predates covid in construction, agriculture, domestic work, scientists, engineers and more. If automation comes then great but the basic principals of more people in an economy means more demand for goods and services still applies.
> Except the US has a large labor shortage
No, it has less labor supplied at current prices than purchasers would prefer. Market clearing quantity at current prices being less than buyers would prefer is...the normal case of a market economy.
It's only a shortage if buyers paying more wouldn't increase market clearing quantity, because of some constraint besides “you haven't offered enough money to convince more people to sell their labor”.
No, it has less labor supplied at current prices than purchasers would prefer. Market clearing quantity at current prices being less than buyers would prefer is...the normal case of a market economy.
It's only a shortage if buyers paying more wouldn't increase market clearing quantity, because of some constraint besides “you haven't offered enough money to convince more people to sell their labor”.
I agree with you. The critical question here is, on a broad scale, whether the competitiveness of the American economy depends on lack of choice for low-wage workers. Example: The health insurance system reduces choice for workers, who are legitimately terrified of losing healthcare.
The US def has a labor shortage if it wants to stay globally competitive in some sectors. Americans will either buy strawberries from immigrants on agricultural visas, they will buy strawberries overseas or they won’t buy strawberries. There is no scenario where they buy strawberries picked by people making $30/hr.
The US tech sector can pay every software engineer 300k starting salary but at some point you’re completely hobbling the ability for new businesses to start and grow.
US has been letting in millions of IT immigrants for decades and it’s technology salaries are highest in the world. Simply put the demand created by these immigrants for more software services outstrips the increase in supply of engineers. They also start a ton of new companies so you have agglomeration effects of having more people.
Sure US companies can and should pay more but there is certainly a point where labor is expensive enough to make new growth prohibitive. The USA has much more abundant cheap labor than Europe which is why we have all the new innovative companies starting and not there. When these companies grow they produce lots of high skilled jobs as well. Think of Uber. Lots of drivers are low skilled immigrants, but the ability for a new company to have so many to drive for them spurred and entire new industry with thousands high paying tech jobs as well.
Low skilled immigration is a win win win for the USA. Americans get cheaper goods and services, a fast growing dynamic economy and hard working tax paying citizens to grow the nation and make it richer. They create huge demand for goods and services growing the US economy and market size. Low skilled immigrants may not be working the most glamorous jobs but they come to the US voluntarily knowing their children will vastly out earn them and be American. They prefer it to the situation that they left behind. These people are not financial liabilities to the USA.
None of this is an argument against higher pay, workers rights, safety standards. Uber drivers and strawberry pickers should be protected with the full force of the US government from abuse, and we should have safety nets in place to make sure they’re not destitute. Those should all be sought after. But increasing low skilled immigration makes the USA much richer overall and should be drastically increased.
The US tech sector can pay every software engineer 300k starting salary but at some point you’re completely hobbling the ability for new businesses to start and grow.
US has been letting in millions of IT immigrants for decades and it’s technology salaries are highest in the world. Simply put the demand created by these immigrants for more software services outstrips the increase in supply of engineers. They also start a ton of new companies so you have agglomeration effects of having more people.
Sure US companies can and should pay more but there is certainly a point where labor is expensive enough to make new growth prohibitive. The USA has much more abundant cheap labor than Europe which is why we have all the new innovative companies starting and not there. When these companies grow they produce lots of high skilled jobs as well. Think of Uber. Lots of drivers are low skilled immigrants, but the ability for a new company to have so many to drive for them spurred and entire new industry with thousands high paying tech jobs as well.
Low skilled immigration is a win win win for the USA. Americans get cheaper goods and services, a fast growing dynamic economy and hard working tax paying citizens to grow the nation and make it richer. They create huge demand for goods and services growing the US economy and market size. Low skilled immigrants may not be working the most glamorous jobs but they come to the US voluntarily knowing their children will vastly out earn them and be American. They prefer it to the situation that they left behind. These people are not financial liabilities to the USA.
None of this is an argument against higher pay, workers rights, safety standards. Uber drivers and strawberry pickers should be protected with the full force of the US government from abuse, and we should have safety nets in place to make sure they’re not destitute. Those should all be sought after. But increasing low skilled immigration makes the USA much richer overall and should be drastically increased.
Since you mentioned strawberries, Driscolls, the U.S. berry giant, a) actually yields most of its strawberries from Mexico, and b) is poised to increase automation even further. Have a look at the careers page here and take note of what they're seeking in the U.S. proper - https://www.driscolls.com/about/careers
> There is no scenario where they buy strawberries picked by people making $30/hr.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Not only would people would pick strawberries in the U.S. season for less than that (assuming they would seek unskilled labor), consumers are accustomed to paying premium for "local" produce when in season.
> The US tech sector can pay every software engineer 300k starting salary but at some point you’re completely hobbling the ability for new businesses to start and grow.
There are always young engineers starting out desperate to get a job who would kill for the opportunity to work at a startup.
> the demand created by these immigrants for more software services outstrips the increase in supply of engineers.
FANG serves a global market, and the notion that there's some sort of lack of software services that consumers want is ludicrous. In the first place these are quickly filled in by app creators capitalizing on opportunity, in the 2nd, people generally don't know what they want when it comes to as-of-yet-invented software, they're told what they want by large companies.
> Americans get cheaper goods and services,
They already get that from imports.
> a fast growing dynamic economy
Benefiting the rich overwhelmingly.
Notwithstanding skill, because immigration isn't just about low-skilled workers (Canada doesn't prioritize it for instance), high supply of workers is lobbied for on the part of companies in order to suppress wages. That is the only reason.
> There is no scenario where they buy strawberries picked by people making $30/hr.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Not only would people would pick strawberries in the U.S. season for less than that (assuming they would seek unskilled labor), consumers are accustomed to paying premium for "local" produce when in season.
> The US tech sector can pay every software engineer 300k starting salary but at some point you’re completely hobbling the ability for new businesses to start and grow.
There are always young engineers starting out desperate to get a job who would kill for the opportunity to work at a startup.
> the demand created by these immigrants for more software services outstrips the increase in supply of engineers.
FANG serves a global market, and the notion that there's some sort of lack of software services that consumers want is ludicrous. In the first place these are quickly filled in by app creators capitalizing on opportunity, in the 2nd, people generally don't know what they want when it comes to as-of-yet-invented software, they're told what they want by large companies.
> Americans get cheaper goods and services,
They already get that from imports.
> a fast growing dynamic economy
Benefiting the rich overwhelmingly.
Notwithstanding skill, because immigration isn't just about low-skilled workers (Canada doesn't prioritize it for instance), high supply of workers is lobbied for on the part of companies in order to suppress wages. That is the only reason.
>>Notwithstanding skill, because immigration isn't just about low-skilled workers (Canada doesn't prioritize it for instance), high supply of workers is lobbied for on the part of companies in order to suppress wages.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment but Canada does prioritize high(er)-skilled immgrants over low-skilled immigrants as per the Canadian Federal Skilled Workers points system used to score potential immigrants applying to enter the country on a long-term basis.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
Maybe I misunderstood your comment but Canada does prioritize high(er)-skilled immgrants over low-skilled immigrants as per the Canadian Federal Skilled Workers points system used to score potential immigrants applying to enter the country on a long-term basis.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
Yep that's what I meant.
> Since you mentioned strawberries, Driscolls, the U.S. berry giant, a) actually yields most of its strawberries from Mexico, and b) is poised to increase automation even further. Have a look at the careers page here and take note of what they're seeking in the U.S. proper - https://www.driscolls.com/about/careers
Yea but that's my point. In the US for a lot of industries such as agriculture you can allow immigrants to come to the US and pick them for cheap or its going to get outsourced. There isn't a scenario where you have highly paid strawberry pickers. The amount of people paying premium for local produce is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall market. American consumers overwhelming buy whatever the cheapest produce is. I think increasing the number of agricultural visas for Mexican & South/Central American workers to come the US is a good thing, otherwise those strawberries just get grown in Mexico. Even in the depths of the great recession Americans were not lining up to pick produce, it's just not a job Americans want to do or are there enough non-immigrant workers in places with lots of farms.
> There are always young engineers starting out desperate to get a job who would kill for the opportunity to work at a startup.
This is much more true in the US than Europe because we have way more startups that make it big. And we have way more startups that make it big because there are so many more engineers here. More skilled tech immigrants is good. It's a cycle.
> FANG serves a global market, and the notion that there's some sort of lack of software services that consumers want is ludicrous. In the first place these are quickly filled in by app creators capitalizing on opportunity, in the 2nd, people generally don't know what they want when it comes to as-of-yet-invented software, they're told what they want by large companies.
I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make tbqh, did I say there way a lack of software services? I'm arguing when more tech immigrants come to the US, they create more demand for services like cloud computing and other SaaS. That in turn increases the need to hire more engineers to fulfill the demand. The end result of letting more highly skilled immigrants come to the US is a fast growing and innovative tech sector more-so than other nations. Yes tech is global but a huge, outsized part of it is centralized in the US. The more people we allow to come here, the more startups can hire and grow. If you cut off immigration, lots of startups wouldn't be able to hire enough engineers to grow as they would get out competed by the big tech companies. Yes you can pay more, but if you have 20k job opening and 10k engineers then the companies that lose that bidding war just won't get started or grow.
> Americans get cheaper goods and services,
America is filled with lots of double income highly educated couples with children that rely on low skilled immigrants as nannies, landscapers, cab drivers and other domestic jobs that can't be exported but make their lives run. As long as there is no abuse and the immigrants want to be here and make enough to get by, I don't see this as a bad thing. They are willing to work incredibly hard to give their children the chance at a better life.
> Benefiting the rich overwhelmingly. If you're in the top 40% of America you're rich. Hacker News is filled with rich engineers due to the points I've outlined above. America is really good at creating more and more rich people because we're good at business. Back to my Uber example, how many millionaires has Uber created, and how many immigrants make some money and get the chance to support a family based on it. Now if they think the bargain isn't worth it, then they don't have to stay in the US. But the truth is lots of them do think its worth it because they and their children will be better off down the line.
> Notwithstanding skill, because immigration isn't just about low-skilled workers (Canada doesn't prioritize it for instance), high supply of workers is lobbied for on the part of companies in order to suppress wages. That is the only reason.
If you believe this you've missed my entire point. The labor market is supply and demand. If you think it suppresses wages you've missed the entire demand side of the equation. Immigrants increase demand more than they increase supply. Wages are not reduced. There is papers and papers worth of academic literature on this subject. The only demographic that sometimes looses out is low skilled workers who directly compete with low skilled immigrants. There is very little of this overlap as a lot of the poorest American's aren't willing to go pick produce or cut lawns. If more immigrants lowered wages the US would have the lowest wages in the world but it doesn't, not by a long shot. By your logic software engineers would be making poverty wages due to high levels of immigration, but they don't. They're some of the highest paid people in the country. More immigrants mean more economic growth which is good for everyone.
Yea but that's my point. In the US for a lot of industries such as agriculture you can allow immigrants to come to the US and pick them for cheap or its going to get outsourced. There isn't a scenario where you have highly paid strawberry pickers. The amount of people paying premium for local produce is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall market. American consumers overwhelming buy whatever the cheapest produce is. I think increasing the number of agricultural visas for Mexican & South/Central American workers to come the US is a good thing, otherwise those strawberries just get grown in Mexico. Even in the depths of the great recession Americans were not lining up to pick produce, it's just not a job Americans want to do or are there enough non-immigrant workers in places with lots of farms.
> There are always young engineers starting out desperate to get a job who would kill for the opportunity to work at a startup.
This is much more true in the US than Europe because we have way more startups that make it big. And we have way more startups that make it big because there are so many more engineers here. More skilled tech immigrants is good. It's a cycle.
> FANG serves a global market, and the notion that there's some sort of lack of software services that consumers want is ludicrous. In the first place these are quickly filled in by app creators capitalizing on opportunity, in the 2nd, people generally don't know what they want when it comes to as-of-yet-invented software, they're told what they want by large companies.
I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make tbqh, did I say there way a lack of software services? I'm arguing when more tech immigrants come to the US, they create more demand for services like cloud computing and other SaaS. That in turn increases the need to hire more engineers to fulfill the demand. The end result of letting more highly skilled immigrants come to the US is a fast growing and innovative tech sector more-so than other nations. Yes tech is global but a huge, outsized part of it is centralized in the US. The more people we allow to come here, the more startups can hire and grow. If you cut off immigration, lots of startups wouldn't be able to hire enough engineers to grow as they would get out competed by the big tech companies. Yes you can pay more, but if you have 20k job opening and 10k engineers then the companies that lose that bidding war just won't get started or grow.
> Americans get cheaper goods and services,
America is filled with lots of double income highly educated couples with children that rely on low skilled immigrants as nannies, landscapers, cab drivers and other domestic jobs that can't be exported but make their lives run. As long as there is no abuse and the immigrants want to be here and make enough to get by, I don't see this as a bad thing. They are willing to work incredibly hard to give their children the chance at a better life.
> Benefiting the rich overwhelmingly. If you're in the top 40% of America you're rich. Hacker News is filled with rich engineers due to the points I've outlined above. America is really good at creating more and more rich people because we're good at business. Back to my Uber example, how many millionaires has Uber created, and how many immigrants make some money and get the chance to support a family based on it. Now if they think the bargain isn't worth it, then they don't have to stay in the US. But the truth is lots of them do think its worth it because they and their children will be better off down the line.
> Notwithstanding skill, because immigration isn't just about low-skilled workers (Canada doesn't prioritize it for instance), high supply of workers is lobbied for on the part of companies in order to suppress wages. That is the only reason.
If you believe this you've missed my entire point. The labor market is supply and demand. If you think it suppresses wages you've missed the entire demand side of the equation. Immigrants increase demand more than they increase supply. Wages are not reduced. There is papers and papers worth of academic literature on this subject. The only demographic that sometimes looses out is low skilled workers who directly compete with low skilled immigrants. There is very little of this overlap as a lot of the poorest American's aren't willing to go pick produce or cut lawns. If more immigrants lowered wages the US would have the lowest wages in the world but it doesn't, not by a long shot. By your logic software engineers would be making poverty wages due to high levels of immigration, but they don't. They're some of the highest paid people in the country. More immigrants mean more economic growth which is good for everyone.
> In the US for a lot of industries such as agriculture you can allow immigrants to come to the US and pick them for cheap or its going to get outsourced.
For this particular US industry, it already is outsourced, the company profits from labor in Mexico.
> There isn't a scenario where you have highly paid strawberry pickers.
You're doubling down on this when I made it clear it's all relative. You don't need an engineer's payscale to entice more agricultural workers when they have zero education.
> I think increasing the number of agricultural visas for Mexican & South/Central American workers to come the US is a good thing, otherwise those strawberries just get grown in Mexico.
Yes, they already are. Check the packaging at your grocery store. The company just yields the profits.
> This is much more true in the US than Europe because we have way more startups that make it big. And we have way more startups that make it big because there are so many more engineers here. More skilled tech immigrants is good. It's a cycle.
This is too simplistic of a view. The valley has the capital, that's why startups can make it. There are more engineers because they're clamoring for potentially large salaries in very expensive cities. More engineers means more competition and consequently suppressed wages; it's not a given that they all make it to FANG, and it's not a given that the small company or startup they start with will get any consideration or funding. For a young engineer, a company's success doesn't matter so much in the beginning, they're desperate for experience in order to better compete if they've missed their first opening at a FANG. You can be a good developer and still never get hired there, in which case you'd eventually move out of the valley.
> did I say there way a lack of software services?
That is the exact implication when you suggest the demand for software services sufficiently outweights the supply of workers. It is a nonsensical statement. Demand being created basically reiterates what I said, but here again, it's not a given that your shiny new service will lead to substantial demand. The vast majority fail.
> If you cut off immigration
No one said anything about cutting off immigration. The counter to high, unfettered immigration isn't "no" immigration, it's a sensible rate that actually considers other factors like wages, unemployment status etc rather than only a corporation's desires.
Even Statistics Canada clearly lays out that increasing immigration over a certain rate suppresses wages: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-001-x/89-001-x2007001... . This is from the government itself.
> The end result of letting more highly skilled immigrants come to the US is a fast growing and innovative tech sector more-so than other nations.
The end result is a faster growing GDP, and as we have already established, a higher GDP does not reflect better prosperity for people in places of high inequality. It means the rich get richer, and the purchasing power of the middle class diminishes.
> nannies, landscapers, cab drivers and other domestic jobs that can't be exported but make their lives run.
Nothing reflects privilege like a nanny. Working class Americans don't have nannies. Landscaping can pay quite well and you can make a living driving cabs, it's not something only immigrants want.
> If you're in the top 40% of America you're rich.
The poverty rate is 10.5%. The average annual wage is $51,916.27 and the real median personal income in the US in 2019 is $35,977. Most workers are not rich, and wages have not been catching up with inflation let alone GDP. Wages are suppressed over decades.
> If you think it suppresses wages you've missed the entire demand side of the equation.
You have a distorted, naive view of the consequence of this increase of demand.
New bodies need a place to live (housing prices are skyrocketing), they need food (this increase does basically fuck all for the vast majority of Americans because it's so automated and controlled by very few rich families), they need transportation (the infrastructure is effectively just maintained at this point i.e. subways and buses, and vehicle manufacturing is going fully automated), and they want entertainment (so an elite cadre of Hollywood studios and video game producers can get slightly richer).
So far in these examples, the increase in demand does not demonstrate a need for new jobs. Housing would be one, except it's artificially restricted owing to zoning laws so the snail's pace is pegged. Basically everything else as demand goes can already be met with, in aggregate, very little need for new workers on the whole. With the grip of automation tightening, among other issues, this idea that demand will automatically lead to new jobs is unsubstantiable. The most generous view is that the ratio of new bodies to new jobs created is worsening.
We're on the cusp of serious popular consideration for UBI, with the implication that availability of jobs will diminish more rapidly than new ones are created. If this is further realized, then an increase in immigration makes zero sense.
> By your logic software engineers would be making poverty wages due to high levels of immigration, but they don't.
No. FANG is a top money-maker that dominates the stock exchange but represents a fraction of total occupancy by sector in the country, so they're interested in maintaining talent. Not every sector is like FANG, but then not every programmer works at one - wages won't be maintained everywhere, pretty much like the other sectors. Add to the fact, programming jobs available are projected to decline 9% in the next decade - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... . So it seems more bodies will not in fact directly translate to more available jobs even in IT. Consequently wages will fall if there is high competition, and a 9% difference sounds like it.
For this particular US industry, it already is outsourced, the company profits from labor in Mexico.
> There isn't a scenario where you have highly paid strawberry pickers.
You're doubling down on this when I made it clear it's all relative. You don't need an engineer's payscale to entice more agricultural workers when they have zero education.
> I think increasing the number of agricultural visas for Mexican & South/Central American workers to come the US is a good thing, otherwise those strawberries just get grown in Mexico.
Yes, they already are. Check the packaging at your grocery store. The company just yields the profits.
> This is much more true in the US than Europe because we have way more startups that make it big. And we have way more startups that make it big because there are so many more engineers here. More skilled tech immigrants is good. It's a cycle.
This is too simplistic of a view. The valley has the capital, that's why startups can make it. There are more engineers because they're clamoring for potentially large salaries in very expensive cities. More engineers means more competition and consequently suppressed wages; it's not a given that they all make it to FANG, and it's not a given that the small company or startup they start with will get any consideration or funding. For a young engineer, a company's success doesn't matter so much in the beginning, they're desperate for experience in order to better compete if they've missed their first opening at a FANG. You can be a good developer and still never get hired there, in which case you'd eventually move out of the valley.
> did I say there way a lack of software services?
That is the exact implication when you suggest the demand for software services sufficiently outweights the supply of workers. It is a nonsensical statement. Demand being created basically reiterates what I said, but here again, it's not a given that your shiny new service will lead to substantial demand. The vast majority fail.
> If you cut off immigration
No one said anything about cutting off immigration. The counter to high, unfettered immigration isn't "no" immigration, it's a sensible rate that actually considers other factors like wages, unemployment status etc rather than only a corporation's desires.
Even Statistics Canada clearly lays out that increasing immigration over a certain rate suppresses wages: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-001-x/89-001-x2007001... . This is from the government itself.
> The end result of letting more highly skilled immigrants come to the US is a fast growing and innovative tech sector more-so than other nations.
The end result is a faster growing GDP, and as we have already established, a higher GDP does not reflect better prosperity for people in places of high inequality. It means the rich get richer, and the purchasing power of the middle class diminishes.
> nannies, landscapers, cab drivers and other domestic jobs that can't be exported but make their lives run.
Nothing reflects privilege like a nanny. Working class Americans don't have nannies. Landscaping can pay quite well and you can make a living driving cabs, it's not something only immigrants want.
> If you're in the top 40% of America you're rich.
The poverty rate is 10.5%. The average annual wage is $51,916.27 and the real median personal income in the US in 2019 is $35,977. Most workers are not rich, and wages have not been catching up with inflation let alone GDP. Wages are suppressed over decades.
> If you think it suppresses wages you've missed the entire demand side of the equation.
You have a distorted, naive view of the consequence of this increase of demand.
New bodies need a place to live (housing prices are skyrocketing), they need food (this increase does basically fuck all for the vast majority of Americans because it's so automated and controlled by very few rich families), they need transportation (the infrastructure is effectively just maintained at this point i.e. subways and buses, and vehicle manufacturing is going fully automated), and they want entertainment (so an elite cadre of Hollywood studios and video game producers can get slightly richer).
So far in these examples, the increase in demand does not demonstrate a need for new jobs. Housing would be one, except it's artificially restricted owing to zoning laws so the snail's pace is pegged. Basically everything else as demand goes can already be met with, in aggregate, very little need for new workers on the whole. With the grip of automation tightening, among other issues, this idea that demand will automatically lead to new jobs is unsubstantiable. The most generous view is that the ratio of new bodies to new jobs created is worsening.
We're on the cusp of serious popular consideration for UBI, with the implication that availability of jobs will diminish more rapidly than new ones are created. If this is further realized, then an increase in immigration makes zero sense.
> By your logic software engineers would be making poverty wages due to high levels of immigration, but they don't.
No. FANG is a top money-maker that dominates the stock exchange but represents a fraction of total occupancy by sector in the country, so they're interested in maintaining talent. Not every sector is like FANG, but then not every programmer works at one - wages won't be maintained everywhere, pretty much like the other sectors. Add to the fact, programming jobs available are projected to decline 9% in the next decade - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/... . So it seems more bodies will not in fact directly translate to more available jobs even in IT. Consequently wages will fall if there is high competition, and a 9% difference sounds like it.
> Low skilled immigration is a win win win for the USA.
Mediocre, bad, unlucky or badly located, geographically, citizen workers lose out. And then they vote for Trump :-)
Mediocre, bad, unlucky or badly located, geographically, citizen workers lose out. And then they vote for Trump :-)
> It's only a shortage if buyers paying more wouldn't increase market clearing quantity, because of some constraint besides “you haven't offered enough money to convince more people to sell their labor”.
Yes, that constraint is immigration law.
Yes, that constraint is immigration law.
Pay more and the labor shortage will disappear. Every industry exploiting temporary visas or undocumented workers claims there's a shortage.
There is no labor shortage. When wages increase in all those areas those labor 'shortages' mysteriously end.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I hate this viewpoint. It makes it seem like retirees are a nefarious bunch who are taking advantage of youngsters.
In reality, age discrimination makes it nigh impossible to land a meaningful job once you're over the age of 60.
In reality, age discrimination makes it nigh impossible to land a meaningful job once you're over the age of 60.
Agree that age discrimination is a big, complicating factor. Saw this impact a very qualified family member who had to tap some connections in their network of past coworkers just to find a mediocre role. (They're massively over qualified.)
I think another reason for some negative feelings is the appearance that some generations have pulled up the ladder after their accent: in real estate, pensions, healthcare, etc.
I think another reason for some negative feelings is the appearance that some generations have pulled up the ladder after their accent: in real estate, pensions, healthcare, etc.
This is nihilistic and terribly misinformed. A LOT of foundational economic activity is what we derisively call "unskilled labor," performed by the very "semi-educated humans" you're talking about.
In the US alone, we literally import seasonal workers to prop up our agriculture industry. We pay them just enough to survive, give them few rights and little stability, and generally tread them as an underclass.
People like this undergird the whole of the modern global economy.
In the US alone, we literally import seasonal workers to prop up our agriculture industry. We pay them just enough to survive, give them few rights and little stability, and generally tread them as an underclass.
People like this undergird the whole of the modern global economy.
Every child born is a "bare illiterate human". Are you also making an argument against having children?
If you want to be really draconian about it, immigration can select for people with skills where the home populate will always have the same average of innate abilities.
If you want to be really draconian about it, immigration can select for people with skills where the home populate will always have the same average of innate abilities.
Children have a lifetime ahead to learn and grow, as opposed to illiterate adults who are handicapped at that since they are past their prime neurological and societal plasticity.
Except for the immigrants that created the Pfizer vaccine, right? Those two worked out.
Also, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109095162...
There's more than enough research that we don't need this, "prime neurological and societal plasticity" pseudoscience.
Also, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109095162...
There's more than enough research that we don't need this, "prime neurological and societal plasticity" pseudoscience.
The real world is not some dystopian SF ruled by cool kids wearing shiny armor. The world's economy is still run by people consuming goods and services, creating demands - declining population is not an insurmountable problem but it does pose a huge challenge for any nation's economy.
Fewer people -> fewer sales for Ioniq and Galaxy S -> less money made by these companies -> less money available for industrial research -> worse technology for your servers, drones, military satellites, submarines, whatever -> lose the war.
Fewer people -> fewer sales for Ioniq and Galaxy S -> less money made by these companies -> less money available for industrial research -> worse technology for your servers, drones, military satellites, submarines, whatever -> lose the war.
One of the most nihilistic takes I’ve seen in a long while.
With “worth”, “value”, “liability” you are only talking about the narrow, economic definitions of those words.
The problem is not everything valuable is captured in economic expression, not everything is readily marketable, which doesn’t mean they are not valuable. And I am not being romantic here; for the longest time we suffered for not measuring the value of childbirth, mothering a newborn and general domestic labor for example. (Surrogacy being new aside, also doesn’t make a reliable proxy because it doesn’t measure mothering in situ, contractual asymmetries get priced into the transaction.)
Hyperindividualistic western fantasy assumes even attachment and emotional needs can be marketed (eg therapy), but suicide rates show that traditional close-knit societies fare much better. Just because you can’t measure the dollar amount of small talk and care from your neighborhood grocer, doesn’t mean it is worthlessness.
People are worthless only if you waste them. You risk wasting them when you instrumentalize and objectify them excessively, when you interject the market into relationships you shouldn’t.
The waste theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy of neoliberalism. And I agree that we might be getting there if we don’t awaken from the normativity of market thinking.
With “worth”, “value”, “liability” you are only talking about the narrow, economic definitions of those words.
The problem is not everything valuable is captured in economic expression, not everything is readily marketable, which doesn’t mean they are not valuable. And I am not being romantic here; for the longest time we suffered for not measuring the value of childbirth, mothering a newborn and general domestic labor for example. (Surrogacy being new aside, also doesn’t make a reliable proxy because it doesn’t measure mothering in situ, contractual asymmetries get priced into the transaction.)
Hyperindividualistic western fantasy assumes even attachment and emotional needs can be marketed (eg therapy), but suicide rates show that traditional close-knit societies fare much better. Just because you can’t measure the dollar amount of small talk and care from your neighborhood grocer, doesn’t mean it is worthlessness.
People are worthless only if you waste them. You risk wasting them when you instrumentalize and objectify them excessively, when you interject the market into relationships you shouldn’t.
The waste theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy of neoliberalism. And I agree that we might be getting there if we don’t awaken from the normativity of market thinking.
Automation isn't at the point where you can get economic and productivity growth with a declining population. Maybe in the future this will be true, but it's not true now. Even highly automated economies will see contraction and tax base decreases. The current solution, ala the Bank of Japan, is to run huge deficits, and they are on the cutting edge of what an aging population looks like.
This is delusional. We're extremely far away from automating the entirety of society.
As people have less kids, age out of the workforce, and live longer, who's going to pick the crops? People far away in 3rd world nations? Who's going to be working the jobs to pay them? Do we expect the small amount of working-age people to support themselves + their kids + retired parents + grandparents? Who's going to be the nurses and the firefighters?
Japan and Germany both have aging populaces and low birth rates. Germany is taking the immigration route, and Japan is taking the automation route (as it's much more xenophobic). From a macroeconomic perspective, Germany's strategy seems to be winning.
And I don't know about you, but when I'm old, I'll take a human nurse over a robot nurse any day of the week.
As people have less kids, age out of the workforce, and live longer, who's going to pick the crops? People far away in 3rd world nations? Who's going to be working the jobs to pay them? Do we expect the small amount of working-age people to support themselves + their kids + retired parents + grandparents? Who's going to be the nurses and the firefighters?
Japan and Germany both have aging populaces and low birth rates. Germany is taking the immigration route, and Japan is taking the automation route (as it's much more xenophobic). From a macroeconomic perspective, Germany's strategy seems to be winning.
And I don't know about you, but when I'm old, I'll take a human nurse over a robot nurse any day of the week.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In 100 years, educated, intelligent people like us could easily be a "liability," as even budget AI far exceeds human intellect on every conceivable dimension. Through their robotic bodies, which they can produce themselves, they can exceed human physical limitations in every imaginable way.
It's going to happen. Ambitious, power-hungry humans are like moths to a flame.
So if you want to imply that you possess some level of intelligence, then take a small inductive step, and then, consider reevaluating your moral outlook on the value of human life.
It's going to happen. Ambitious, power-hungry humans are like moths to a flame.
So if you want to imply that you possess some level of intelligence, then take a small inductive step, and then, consider reevaluating your moral outlook on the value of human life.
If true it's a mistake. Education is a piss poor measure of people's ability to contribute.
cue amateur historian pontification
> going to be one of the grand challenges of the 50 years
I’m sceptical of this claim. Demand per capita grows unabated. Working lives are lengthening. A smaller population living well is economically indistinguishable, in the aggregate, from a large one living poorly. Maybe post-industrial civilisations settle into a lower-population steady state than ones requiring lots of unrefined labor.
Yes, dependency ratios will mean re-jiggering the skewed benefits almost every country provides its old at the expense of the young. But that, too, isn’t a bad thing, particularly if it encourages labor force participation.
(There is another comment arguing demographic the dividend’s inverse is a myth. I don’t go that far. I just think it’s a manageable problem versus a catastrophe.)
I’m sceptical of this claim. Demand per capita grows unabated. Working lives are lengthening. A smaller population living well is economically indistinguishable, in the aggregate, from a large one living poorly. Maybe post-industrial civilisations settle into a lower-population steady state than ones requiring lots of unrefined labor.
Yes, dependency ratios will mean re-jiggering the skewed benefits almost every country provides its old at the expense of the young. But that, too, isn’t a bad thing, particularly if it encourages labor force participation.
(There is another comment arguing demographic the dividend’s inverse is a myth. I don’t go that far. I just think it’s a manageable problem versus a catastrophe.)
> A smaller population living well is economically indistinguishable, in the aggregate, from a large one living poorly
I'm sceptical of this claim. Young people and old people are biologically different, in the aggregate. Obvious differences in physical capabilities aside, arguably even more impactful for the future of a given nation are their psychological differences; i.e. innovation and risk-taking invariably comes more from the younger generations.
Perhaps if you're only considering dollars being circulated in a domestic economy, an abundance of wealthy old folks can potentially offset the lack of youthful societal members. But the developmental direction such a demographic structure pushes its society is unlikely to be good for sustaining itself in the long run.
I'm sceptical of this claim. Young people and old people are biologically different, in the aggregate. Obvious differences in physical capabilities aside, arguably even more impactful for the future of a given nation are their psychological differences; i.e. innovation and risk-taking invariably comes more from the younger generations.
Perhaps if you're only considering dollars being circulated in a domestic economy, an abundance of wealthy old folks can potentially offset the lack of youthful societal members. But the developmental direction such a demographic structure pushes its society is unlikely to be good for sustaining itself in the long run.
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.
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.
> but when birth rate decline is discussed, the only solution on the table is open borders. I wonder why that could be?
Because people saying that are doing accounting with money, not productivity.
People need three things to live in retirement. Food, water, shelter[1], and some degree of medical care. We are not in a demographic collapse situation where society cannot be productive enough to fail to provide the first three to the retired. The latter is the only thing in danger of seeing some cuts.
[1] Housing isn't expensive because building four walls and a roof is expensive. Housing is expensive because there's no upward bound on the cost of a square foot of land in a city.
Because people saying that are doing accounting with money, not productivity.
People need three things to live in retirement. Food, water, shelter[1], and some degree of medical care. We are not in a demographic collapse situation where society cannot be productive enough to fail to provide the first three to the retired. The latter is the only thing in danger of seeing some cuts.
[1] Housing isn't expensive because building four walls and a roof is expensive. Housing is expensive because there's no upward bound on the cost of a square foot of land in a city.
There's complete cognitive dissonance and confusion at the moment over popular notions of national prosperity. On one hand people readily agree that the GDP is an inaccurate measure of prosperity, that wealth gained mostly goes to the top and it ought not be a prime focus, while at the same time suggest that high rates of immigration are crucial to prop up said GDP. Many countries with stagnant birthrates are rather enviable places to live, i.e. Iceland, Japan, SK. Besides a large aging population to support for a generation in some cases, I don't see the problem.
Well, in the cases of Japan and SK, there is the issue of elderly people beginning to commit crimes on a regular basis in recent years because prison is free and they can't afford a retirement home.
The American solution to this problem is just to charge people for the expense of being arrested and jailed: https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/2091-jail-fees
Unfortunately, low fertility rate is not a one-time problem of boomer generation followed by a stable plateau. It leads to a perpetual spiral of gerontocracy, high dependency ratios, under-investments and general vitality being sapped out of the populace. It's no coincidence that Italy and Japan, once vigorous and creative, are not exactly bursting with enthusiasm in the past ~20-30 years
I understand japan isn't as exciting as it used to be, but they still have a pretty dynamic and influential popular culture. I understand their working population is declining relative to retirees, but eventually those old people will start to die. Anyway, its not as if this will be some sort of old people zombie apocalypse.
Random idea:
What if the votes of each age group were weighted to account for the size of that group, e.g. making the votes of 18-20 have the same weight as the votes of 40-42, even if there may be more people in the 40-42 group.
This would prevent an aging population from giving too many benefits to older age groups, and would encourage policies that consider long term impacts more.
What if the votes of each age group were weighted to account for the size of that group, e.g. making the votes of 18-20 have the same weight as the votes of 40-42, even if there may be more people in the 40-42 group.
This would prevent an aging population from giving too many benefits to older age groups, and would encourage policies that consider long term impacts more.
> What if the votes of each age group were weighted
Because the principle of "one person, one vote" is widely (and correctly IMO) accepted.
Because the principle of "one person, one vote" is widely (and correctly IMO) accepted.
In many places and for certain purposes (the US and the EU for instance), geographical regions have one vote, regardless of their population size.
It’s unclear that an age-based distribution instead of geographic distribution would be worse. But it would probably be unrealistic to achieve without basically completely upending existing political structures.
It’s unclear that an age-based distribution instead of geographic distribution would be worse. But it would probably be unrealistic to achieve without basically completely upending existing political structures.
The EU isn't one country
The US is one country and disparate voting power between states(mainly in the Senate, to a lesser extent with the electoral college) is a real problem. I see little reason to make it worse. Although it's useful to rhetoric out how little sense the current system makes
The US is one country and disparate voting power between states(mainly in the Senate, to a lesser extent with the electoral college) is a real problem. I see little reason to make it worse. Although it's useful to rhetoric out how little sense the current system makes
The point of having both proportional and state-based voting is to incentivize both small and large states to stay in the union. The optimization is for political unity over perfectly representative democracy. It makes perfect sense when you consider the ideals and goals of its implementation -- that being a compromise in order to convince both small states and large states to cede large parts of their sovereignty to what at the time were effectively foreign nations.
This made sense back when the states were actually mostly self-governing polities, and there were relatively few pertinent issues on the federal level. But this is no longer the case today, and in practice, EC and Senate result in a "tyranny of the minority", where the minority can not only veto the majority's agenda, but actually push their own instead.
The small states who have excess control in the Senate cannot tyrannize the large states (except by maintaining the status quo), because the House of Representatives still exists. No new policy can get passed unless both a majority of states' representatives and a majority of the population's representatives agree -- if they disagree, the worst you get is gridlock, not "tyranny of the minority".
And this system wildly over-represents the landowning elites as a result
One person, one vote is proportional representation, which is not widely practiced.
What is actually practiced is 'One collection of zip codes, one vote.'
What is actually practiced is 'One collection of zip codes, one vote.'
You don't need to weight the groups, since everyone experiences all ages (not counting early death).
My proposal is: Multiply the number of house reps and senators by ten (for instance). Each representative now represents a district / state as well as a decade of life (for instance). When voting for an age-graded role, your vote only counts towards the decade of life that you're currently in. You can only run for a position that matches your age range.
This would have a number of advantages: Disrupt two-party dynamics. Increase granularity of representation. It's harder for older folks to take younger folks hostage. Younger folks will feel more enthusiastic about voting for someone who actually represents them.
Probably, you'd want to fiddle with the numbers based on age demographics. 7-year intervals is probably the right number, with a big bucket for people over a certain age. (So, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60, 67, 74+) might be right.
My proposal is: Multiply the number of house reps and senators by ten (for instance). Each representative now represents a district / state as well as a decade of life (for instance). When voting for an age-graded role, your vote only counts towards the decade of life that you're currently in. You can only run for a position that matches your age range.
This would have a number of advantages: Disrupt two-party dynamics. Increase granularity of representation. It's harder for older folks to take younger folks hostage. Younger folks will feel more enthusiastic about voting for someone who actually represents them.
Probably, you'd want to fiddle with the numbers based on age demographics. 7-year intervals is probably the right number, with a big bucket for people over a certain age. (So, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60, 67, 74+) might be right.
>Disrupt two-party dynamics
and that's why it'll never happen without a revolution
and that's why it'll never happen without a revolution
[deleted]
Shades of 3/5ths Compromise maybe? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
One factor that needs to be considered is that in Korea, as in many Asian regions, people are expected to look after their parents when they get old. Society and social security have been build around this assumption.
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 course, is a different question.
Whether those public funds and private options will be enough, of course, is a different question.
There is no magic in this world. When you make an investment into a company, you become dependent on the people that work at that company.
When you're investing in a private fund, or in real estate, you're still relying on your children. The material wealth you are consuming is still being produced by the generations that come after.
If your children's generation is poorer than your own and if there is less of them, then there is nothing you can do except rely on the children of people in other countries.
When you're investing in a private fund, or in real estate, you're still relying on your children. The material wealth you are consuming is still being produced by the generations that come after.
If your children's generation is poorer than your own and if there is less of them, then there is nothing you can do except rely on the children of people in other countries.
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.
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.
Whose building do they tear down and turn the value to $0? That makes no sense.
First they can update codes so that nothing can be rebuilt in a significant portion of the city. Then they can condemn buildings that aren't up-to code after a certain point. Then they can order the buildings torn down after a longer point. Then they can make people happy by turning abandoned buildings into parks.
Governments can always find ways to limit the supply of housing. They've been doing it fabulously in most of the West for the last 30 years.
Governments can always find ways to limit the supply of housing. They've been doing it fabulously in most of the West for the last 30 years.
I doubt that there will be a major, irrecoverable housing crash in South Korea within the lifetime of anyone who grew up believing that their children will support them later on. In the meantime, retirees who own nothing but an expensive apartment can reverse-mortgage their homes for a stable source of income. The bank, not their children, will inherit the property.
Two reasons why I don't think there will be a supply/demand mismatch:
1) Housing doesn't simply stay there once it has been built. Koreans seem very eager to tear down "old" buildings (anything more than 30 years old), so it's going to be fairly easy to control supply if demand goes down.
2) The number of people per household is steeply declining. Even if the population drops to half of the current level, if there are only half as many people per household, the total number of housing units needed will be largely the same. Smaller units will become more popular, though.
Two reasons why I don't think there will be a supply/demand mismatch:
1) Housing doesn't simply stay there once it has been built. Koreans seem very eager to tear down "old" buildings (anything more than 30 years old), so it's going to be fairly easy to control supply if demand goes down.
2) The number of people per household is steeply declining. Even if the population drops to half of the current level, if there are only half as many people per household, the total number of housing units needed will be largely the same. Smaller units will become more popular, though.
I hope you are right for the sake of both of us.
>> Demand per capita grows unabated.
I don't see that. Demand for what? Consumption? Increasing the flow of "stuff" from store/Amazon to the landfill? If we account for inflation, what's increasing?
I don't see that. Demand for what? Consumption? Increasing the flow of "stuff" from store/Amazon to the landfill? If we account for inflation, what's increasing?
>If we account for inflation, what's increasing?
GDP per capita growth is still growing a few percent (accounting for inflation).
GDP per capita growth is still growing a few percent (accounting for inflation).
Young people consume things that can be made at scale. The march of technology makes the things we buy cheaper, better, and more abundant. At the same time, it makes labor related to the production of that technology more valuable.
Old people consume 1:1 care. And as medical technology improves, elderly people survive increasingly complex conditions requiring increasingly labor-intensive management. At the same time, work with scalable impact is still getting more valuable, so 1:1 care positions have to pay more to win workers, so 1:1 care gets more expensive (cost disease).
Old people consume 1:1 care. And as medical technology improves, elderly people survive increasingly complex conditions requiring increasingly labor-intensive management. At the same time, work with scalable impact is still getting more valuable, so 1:1 care positions have to pay more to win workers, so 1:1 care gets more expensive (cost disease).
[deleted]
IMO Science and technology is a max() operator on the peoples ideas. Also, division of labour should go down in a smaller population, so I think this is far from linear in reality and a population collapse can be actually devastating
The value of any max() would depend on the distribution, though.
By adding new random variables to the max() its expected value should monotonically increase, no?
That's a dangerous bet.
If you're wrong, the consequences are dire.
If you're right, there's not much upside compared to being prepared for being wrong.
That's not a reasonable calculation.
If you're wrong, the consequences are dire.
If you're right, there's not much upside compared to being prepared for being wrong.
That's not a reasonable calculation.
it really is a great challenge, because for example america will have to rethink its habit of paying for today's excesses by harvesting the labor of future generations. it's a completely different inter-generational relation than we have now.
>...Working lives are lengthening. A smaller population living well...
Wait a sec - a population being economically forced to retire later (or not at all) is not one "living well". People are being squeezed.
Wait a sec - a population being economically forced to retire later (or not at all) is not one "living well". People are being squeezed.
> 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 demographic trend.
Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
OTOH, most of the arguments I’ve seen for it actually being important (in the near term) are the kind where you scratch the surface and underneath is pure racism, so I’m not all that concerned.
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 demographic trend.
Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
OTOH, most of the arguments I’ve seen for it actually being important (in the near term) are the kind where you scratch the surface and underneath is pure racism, so I’m not all that concerned.
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 and measures since 1992-1994 but UN reports and I quote: "Despite these efforts, Japan’s family policy so far appears to have been largely ineffective."
There are other news opinion articles from Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/04/editorials/u...
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 and measures since 1992-1994 but UN reports and I quote: "Despite these efforts, Japan’s family policy so far appears to have been largely ineffective."
There are other news opinion articles from Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/04/editorials/u...
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.
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.
> 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.
Where has this been shown to work?
By and large, the nations with more childcare support, more protections for pregnant women, etc have lower birthrates than those that don't.
For example, if we look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d..., then America seems to be the developed country with the highest birth rate despite having little of the social policies you mention.
In fact, based on that chart, it would seem the opposite is true. The less social safety net, the more kids. This makes intuitive sense since if government isn't taking care of you, you'll need children to.
Where has this been shown to work?
By and large, the nations with more childcare support, more protections for pregnant women, etc have lower birthrates than those that don't.
For example, if we look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d..., then America seems to be the developed country with the highest birth rate despite having little of the social policies you mention.
In fact, based on that chart, it would seem the opposite is true. The less social safety net, the more kids. This makes intuitive sense since if government isn't taking care of you, you'll need children to.
I think it mostly has to do with access to convenient birth control, like IUDs and birth control pills.
Give poor women education and access to those, and even poorer countries will see similar declines in birth rate.
I think humanity’s growth was dependent on women not having a say in the matter. All the situations I see where women have gained the ability to easily choose whether or not to have kids lead to lower birth rates.
Give poor women education and access to those, and even poorer countries will see similar declines in birth rate.
I think humanity’s growth was dependent on women not having a say in the matter. All the situations I see where women have gained the ability to easily choose whether or not to have kids lead to lower birth rates.
Agree.
One wrinkle is the gap between how many children women say they want when surveyed (about 2.5 in most western countries) and how many they end up having on average (fewer).
It could be that the surveys are asking the wrong questions, or that for some people they just never get the circumstances they want.
As far as I know that gap has never been conclusively explained. Hypotheses abound, of course.
One wrinkle is the gap between how many children women say they want when surveyed (about 2.5 in most western countries) and how many they end up having on average (fewer).
It could be that the surveys are asking the wrong questions, or that for some people they just never get the circumstances they want.
As far as I know that gap has never been conclusively explained. Hypotheses abound, of course.
I remember seeing a study which followed the spread of TV across Brazil and the decline in birth rate. It was the soaps wot dun it.
Seeing new role models who had interesting lives, and especially learning that it was possible to withstand pressure from grandparents to have children seemed to be more important than mere availability of contraceptives or education.
IIRC there was a similar effect in Bangladesh, but it was harder to track since TV rolled out more quickly there.
Seeing new role models who had interesting lives, and especially learning that it was possible to withstand pressure from grandparents to have children seemed to be more important than mere availability of contraceptives or education.
IIRC there was a similar effect in Bangladesh, but it was harder to track since TV rolled out more quickly there.
For anyone curious, this seems to be the study: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.4.4.1
Yes, that was it. Thanks! I recall reading about it on an economics blog, which mentioned Bangladesh also. That (Bangladesh) must have been a different study.
> By and large, the nations with more childcare support, more protections for pregnant women, etc have lower birthrates than those that don't.
That's because they also have more public poverty and old-age support; which reduce the incentive for large families as old age and disability “insurance”.
Which on its own is a good thing, but if you want to encourage births anyway, your public support for parenting has to offset the effect that has on incentives to have children, which is a very bif effect. Nations don't do that because they don't think its an important-enough public need to warrant that approach.
That's because they also have more public poverty and old-age support; which reduce the incentive for large families as old age and disability “insurance”.
Which on its own is a good thing, but if you want to encourage births anyway, your public support for parenting has to offset the effect that has on incentives to have children, which is a very bif effect. Nations don't do that because they don't think its an important-enough public need to warrant that approach.
Correct. More elderly welfare programs discourage family formation. Anytime I mention this, people think I'm nuts, but you seem to have come to the conclusion on your own.
I imagine I am not the only one who would rather suicide rather than becoming dependent on others. I certainly do not want my kids to spend their time looking after me if I am chronically unable to take care of myself.
And this gets to the core of the nihilistic social rot at the core of so much wrong in society today.
We hesitate at being dependent on others or having others help us. In the us, no matter your political side, the idea of finding meaning only through service to others is not only in short supply it's actively demonized.
We hesitate at being dependent on others or having others help us. In the us, no matter your political side, the idea of finding meaning only through service to others is not only in short supply it's actively demonized.
I think the real changes needed are also politically unpopular with a bunch of old people and other politically powerful classes. Making children more viable for the young will probably mean making real estate not a good investment for one example, making house spouse / the homer simpson lifestyle more viable, thus reducing the labor force and increasing the cost of labor and so on.
For now, it's easier to kick the can down the road.
For now, it's easier to kick the can down the road.
This is right too. Although on some level one suspects parts of this problem are self correcting over a longer timescale. If the predicted population implosions begin to manifest, there will also be a corresponding decrease in the demand for housing, and a corresponding increase in wages paid to labor as it becomes more scarce. These trends will make having children easier. I know it's hard to picture that world but many times it has come to pass that we have arrived after twenty years at a world that would have been hard to predict.
> 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., a paid family leave policy with low payments and lacking legal force, so many employers haven't actually implemented it.
This is a government making a pro forma show of “doing something” about a problem, not a serious policy effort.
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., a paid family leave policy with low payments and lacking legal force, so many employers haven't actually implemented it.
This is a government making a pro forma show of “doing something” about a problem, not a serious policy effort.
> 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?
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?
As far as I can tell, there has yet to exist a condition under which the political will to really tackle this problem has been present, so you would not expect to see an example of a country successfully addressing it. This is pretty normal for humans -- waiting until a problem becomes catastrophic to do anything about it -- as we have seen in other areas recently. We will see how things are going in another few decades.
ffwszgf(1)
The examples are older and from authoritarian countries, but china and iran had state sponsored baby booms. China was started by mao, iran was also started by the revolutionaries shortly after the revolution.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/06/why-does-iran-ha...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/06/why-does-iran-ha...
Thank you for sharing, it was interesting to read. However, the article is not at all clear about the actual effect of those state measures. Wikipedia says that the steadily high total fertility rate in that country plummeted after 1985.
Hungary. They started about ten years ago, and I believe they have managed to turn the trend.
[deleted]
> OTOH, most of the arguments I’ve seen for it actually being important (in the near term) are the kind where you scratch the surface and underneath is pure racism, so I’m not all that concerned.
Can you go into more detail on that? In some respects "demographic suicide" solved with immigration has many (but not all) of the characteristics of colonization, and I think it's a reasonable speculation that colonized and diminished cultures would be unhappy with more than just the coercive aspects of their colonization, and that a non-racist person could have reasonable anxieties about their culture becoming diminished and dying out in the future. Though I suppose racists probably see an opportunity to exploit those anxieties to spread their racist ideology.
Can you go into more detail on that? In some respects "demographic suicide" solved with immigration has many (but not all) of the characteristics of colonization, and I think it's a reasonable speculation that colonized and diminished cultures would be unhappy with more than just the coercive aspects of their colonization, and that a non-racist person could have reasonable anxieties about their culture becoming diminished and dying out in the future. Though I suppose racists probably see an opportunity to exploit those anxieties to spread their racist ideology.
> Can you go into more detail on that?
A typical example is a two-step argument equating race/biological heritage with culture and/or ethnic identity coupled with appeals to an imperative to preserve culture and/ot ethnic identity.
Something like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28051854
A typical example is a two-step argument equating race/biological heritage with culture and/or ethnic identity coupled with appeals to an imperative to preserve culture and/ot ethnic identity.
Something like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28051854
> Something like this:
Honestly that comment doesn't read "racist" to me. Maybe the disconnect is taking "culture" too literally, or using "culture" when one really means "people" (i.e. a combination of culture and ancestry/descent). Also even though an entire culture can technically be transmitted memetically, that's practically not the case except in cases of early childhood adoption. Immigrant populations may tend to take on certain cultural characteristics (e.g. economic and political ones) of the population they get socialized into, but those characteristics may not actually be the ones particular individual cares the most about preserving (e.g. culture in a narrower non-anthropological sense, like religion and and attachment to certain literature).
And even assuming a full memetic replication of a culture, I don't think the last member of a colonized people would be entirely happy that his people went extinct even if some of the colonizers fully took up his culture.
Honestly that comment doesn't read "racist" to me. Maybe the disconnect is taking "culture" too literally, or using "culture" when one really means "people" (i.e. a combination of culture and ancestry/descent). Also even though an entire culture can technically be transmitted memetically, that's practically not the case except in cases of early childhood adoption. Immigrant populations may tend to take on certain cultural characteristics (e.g. economic and political ones) of the population they get socialized into, but those characteristics may not actually be the ones particular individual cares the most about preserving (e.g. culture in a narrower non-anthropological sense, like religion and and attachment to certain literature).
And even assuming a full memetic replication of a culture, I don't think the last member of a colonized people would be entirely happy that his people went extinct even if some of the colonizers fully took up his culture.
> even though an entire culture can technically be transmitted memetically, that's practically not the case except in cases of early childhood adoption.
The excellent blog ACOUP has just had a five-part series, "The Queen's Latin", in part describing mass cultural transmission from Rome to various ethnic groups in Europe. TLDR: it helps to have a culture that readily accommodates different religions and other regional variations.
Cultures are not fixed for all time; they change all the time.
The excellent blog ACOUP has just had a five-part series, "The Queen's Latin", in part describing mass cultural transmission from Rome to various ethnic groups in Europe. TLDR: it helps to have a culture that readily accommodates different religions and other regional variations.
Cultures are not fixed for all time; they change all the time.
The thing is, many countries have cultures based on opposition. There's a reason most national days are celebrations of an independence war.
So for many of these countries you're asking for a lobotomy.
So for many of these countries you're asking for a lobotomy.
It's long overdue for humanity to ditch the dangerous baggage that is Romantic nationalism.
Good luck with that!
We're also not great at scaling trust.
We're also not great at scaling trust.
Well, it's a relatively recent invention, historically speaking, so I'm optimistic. And we already have some emerging polities that recognize its problems, e.g.:
"We the people of Rojava in Northern Syria: Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmens, Armenians, Chechens, Circassians, among them Muslims, Christians, Yazidis and various other creeds and sects, declare that the nationalist State has placed Kurdistan, Mesopotamia and Syria at the heart of the chaos that is afflicting the Middle East and has brought acute crises and suffering upon the people. ... The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria is founded on a geographical concept"
(https://www.scribd.com/document/441234886/Social-Contract-of...)
And yes, trust doesn't really scale well, which is why centralized governance in general is a big problem. But there are known techniques to decentralize it in ways that can still scale, e.g. council democracy.
"We the people of Rojava in Northern Syria: Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmens, Armenians, Chechens, Circassians, among them Muslims, Christians, Yazidis and various other creeds and sects, declare that the nationalist State has placed Kurdistan, Mesopotamia and Syria at the heart of the chaos that is afflicting the Middle East and has brought acute crises and suffering upon the people. ... The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria is founded on a geographical concept"
(https://www.scribd.com/document/441234886/Social-Contract-of...)
And yes, trust doesn't really scale well, which is why centralized governance in general is a big problem. But there are known techniques to decentralize it in ways that can still scale, e.g. council democracy.
> Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
Yes it is. The only first-world nation with replacement birth rates is Israel.
Caucescu famously tried to increase the birthrate and that backfired spectacularly. Sweden tried to do a lot of stuff, still doesn't work. Japan also tried.
Yes it is. The only first-world nation with replacement birth rates is Israel.
Caucescu famously tried to increase the birthrate and that backfired spectacularly. Sweden tried to do a lot of stuff, still doesn't work. Japan also tried.
Ceaușescu. And he did achieve it for quite a while, ergo "decrețeii":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
Got an example of a successful encouragement of more births? Plenty of countries have tried.
Got an example of a successful encouragement of more births? Plenty of countries have tried.
One core issue is housing. And the core issue with housing is that prices are an arms race where everyone always wants more. Most people would have two or three kids if they felt like they could afford it.
The second core issue is modern dating. That one I don't know how to fix, but the essential issue there is the dynamics of dating not requiring commitment coupled with financial security for women mean long term pair bonding happens at a lower rate and later in life.
The second core issue is modern dating. That one I don't know how to fix, but the essential issue there is the dynamics of dating not requiring commitment coupled with financial security for women mean long term pair bonding happens at a lower rate and later in life.
I don't know about South Korea, but looking at some other asian countries, there are a couple of things, I think the housing part falls into number 3 but is only a small part of the whole:
1. Having children without being married has a bunch of problems, and in some countries like singapore gets punished for it in lack of certain social services
2. Most of these societies expect women to work or have their husband take care of them. Maternity leave is in some aspects as bad as or worse than in the US.
3. Having children is expensive and the education stress that follows for over a decade after giving birth is even more straining. The subsidies people get in Asia hardly even make up for the cost of a c-section. Sure the same might be true for the USA, but we know it's not a good place to compare things to. But birth and housing are also a fraction of the long term pain of raising a child in those societies.
Other people have mentioned dating. I think modern societies in general have had a break down in social structures, where people used to get their partners from.
1. Having children without being married has a bunch of problems, and in some countries like singapore gets punished for it in lack of certain social services
2. Most of these societies expect women to work or have their husband take care of them. Maternity leave is in some aspects as bad as or worse than in the US.
3. Having children is expensive and the education stress that follows for over a decade after giving birth is even more straining. The subsidies people get in Asia hardly even make up for the cost of a c-section. Sure the same might be true for the USA, but we know it's not a good place to compare things to. But birth and housing are also a fraction of the long term pain of raising a child in those societies.
Other people have mentioned dating. I think modern societies in general have had a break down in social structures, where people used to get their partners from.
> Having children is expensive and the education stress that follows for over a decade after giving birth is even more straining.
This times 100. The US education system has a lot of flaws, but for the most part, school placement is usually based on geographical location (which comes with its own set of problems), the SAT and ACT are not terribly difficult, and more importantly those college exams can be retaken multiple times a year.
East Asian education is extremely competitive with competition for spots starting as early as pre-K (age 3). Japanese media often shows how students get their grades ranked and posted outside of the classroom. The college exams are more comprehensive than the American ones; the South Korean Suneung is scheduled to take 9 hours. The Suneung (and Chinese gaokao, Japanese Center Test, Singaporean GCE) are only held once a year, so if you want to retest you have to wait the whole year.
And then there is the problem of school bullying: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/metoo-style-reckoning-ove...
> “A lot of the people used to say bullying matters in school were merely immature scuffles between teenagers,” she said. “Some would even blame the victims, saying that it is their problem that they cannot fit in.”
> Two decades ago, her daughter was beaten by a dozen schoolmates and spent five days in a coma. Yet, when Jo attempted to hold the students accountable, the wider community viewed her as a troublemaker, and her family was forced to move to another area.
This times 100. The US education system has a lot of flaws, but for the most part, school placement is usually based on geographical location (which comes with its own set of problems), the SAT and ACT are not terribly difficult, and more importantly those college exams can be retaken multiple times a year.
East Asian education is extremely competitive with competition for spots starting as early as pre-K (age 3). Japanese media often shows how students get their grades ranked and posted outside of the classroom. The college exams are more comprehensive than the American ones; the South Korean Suneung is scheduled to take 9 hours. The Suneung (and Chinese gaokao, Japanese Center Test, Singaporean GCE) are only held once a year, so if you want to retest you have to wait the whole year.
And then there is the problem of school bullying: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/metoo-style-reckoning-ove...
> “A lot of the people used to say bullying matters in school were merely immature scuffles between teenagers,” she said. “Some would even blame the victims, saying that it is their problem that they cannot fit in.”
> Two decades ago, her daughter was beaten by a dozen schoolmates and spent five days in a coma. Yet, when Jo attempted to hold the students accountable, the wider community viewed her as a troublemaker, and her family was forced to move to another area.
The high tech/high income areas in the US are behaving a lot like this. There is a focus on getting into elite colleges and it propagates all the way down the system to preschool. As you alluded to, this makes it very expensive. People have maybe 2 and sometimes 1 kid… definitely below replacement level.
The one difference I have noticed is that some of those Asian countries are more extreme in that more people choose to not have kids and more people choose to have only one kid instead of two.
The one difference I have noticed is that some of those Asian countries are more extreme in that more people choose to not have kids and more people choose to have only one kid instead of two.
The nice thing is that at least having started out on this path in the US, it is fairly easy to opt out and have good incomes.
I didn't get into any of my Ivy first choices and ended up going to a mid-tier state school and still wound up living well, except without the massive private debt burdens of my peers.
This is different from South Korea or most of East Asia. South Korea's unemployment rate among graduates is pretty high and underemployment even higher, because the system is producing too many university graduates. From Wikipedia:
> As of 2007, 80% of college graduates were job seekers while only 30% of jobs demand highly educated workers.[7] With the recent overabundance of high school and college graduates,[8] the requirements of the labor market mismatch the skills provided by the education system.
I didn't get into any of my Ivy first choices and ended up going to a mid-tier state school and still wound up living well, except without the massive private debt burdens of my peers.
This is different from South Korea or most of East Asia. South Korea's unemployment rate among graduates is pretty high and underemployment even higher, because the system is producing too many university graduates. From Wikipedia:
> As of 2007, 80% of college graduates were job seekers while only 30% of jobs demand highly educated workers.[7] With the recent overabundance of high school and college graduates,[8] the requirements of the labor market mismatch the skills provided by the education system.
I wonder if we need UBI to stabilize the birthrate. Basically if people have some assurance that their kids can be supported and have decent prospects in life then perhaps they will have more kids.
Also, our big cities have evolved to serve adults vs children. We have a proliferation of services for adults: sit in restaurants, cafes, coffeehouses, etc… Just look at turnstiles to the subway and the stairs you need to ascend/descend. Good luck trying to push strollers or drag children around in our urban areas.
Also, our big cities have evolved to serve adults vs children. We have a proliferation of services for adults: sit in restaurants, cafes, coffeehouses, etc… Just look at turnstiles to the subway and the stairs you need to ascend/descend. Good luck trying to push strollers or drag children around in our urban areas.
For Korea it's not about UBI but about terrible working conditions and societal pressure.
Even with UBI you want your children to go to the best schools so they can get a job at one of the Chaebols.
Unfortunately I think "decent prospects" is more of a relative social status assessment than an absolute income level assessment.
>2. Most of these societies expect women to work or have their husband take care of them. Maternity leave is in some aspects as bad as or worse than in the US.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, looks like Korea has a year, just split into maternity and parental, and Japan has a year off for both mother and father, although the father seldom takes it. Which countries are comparable to the US?
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, looks like Korea has a year, just split into maternity and parental, and Japan has a year off for both mother and father, although the father seldom takes it. Which countries are comparable to the US?
Where did you get this number from ?
I see 90 days. 60 paid full and if its anything like other Asian countries there a pretty low limit for the partial paid part. Maybe you can take a year but you will almost certainly not keep your job afterwards. I guess 45 days after birth is much better than most US jurisdictions.
If the father does get it and doesn’t take it it will most certainly also be because of fear of punishment down the road.
And funny you should say Japan, because from what I hear most people wouldn’t dare take time off.
I see 90 days. 60 paid full and if its anything like other Asian countries there a pretty low limit for the partial paid part. Maybe you can take a year but you will almost certainly not keep your job afterwards. I guess 45 days after birth is much better than most US jurisdictions.
If the father does get it and doesn’t take it it will most certainly also be because of fear of punishment down the road.
And funny you should say Japan, because from what I hear most people wouldn’t dare take time off.
the 90 days is just maternity leave.
For parental leave you have a year, and by law you can't lose your job.
I hate the fact that you didn't even bother looking up your claims, because you don't really understand the law. And the fact that I had to just spent 15 minutes on correcting you.
Maternity leave is 90 days( Article 74 (Protection of Pregnant Women and Nursing Mothers [0]), paternity leave is actually 10 days( Article 18-2 Paternity Leave [1]).
What you're referring to is CHAPTER III-2 assistance for work-family balance. And it only applies "provided, That this shall not apply to cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is impossible to employ his or her substitute or where the normal operation of business is significantly impeded"[1]. The burden of proof like always is on the employee.
And while you can't get fired during(provided the presidential decree doesn't apply to you), the employee may still try to get rid of you after you did it. But this also needs explaining that people in South Korea oftentimes stay with their employer a lifetime, that 1 year maybe chosen across 8 years of the Childs birth, and it's unlikely that in Asian culture someone will dare taking it in the first year of their employment.
[0] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=25437&la...
[1] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq...
Maternity leave is 90 days( Article 74 (Protection of Pregnant Women and Nursing Mothers [0]), paternity leave is actually 10 days( Article 18-2 Paternity Leave [1]).
What you're referring to is CHAPTER III-2 assistance for work-family balance. And it only applies "provided, That this shall not apply to cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is impossible to employ his or her substitute or where the normal operation of business is significantly impeded"[1]. The burden of proof like always is on the employee.
And while you can't get fired during(provided the presidential decree doesn't apply to you), the employee may still try to get rid of you after you did it. But this also needs explaining that people in South Korea oftentimes stay with their employer a lifetime, that 1 year maybe chosen across 8 years of the Childs birth, and it's unlikely that in Asian culture someone will dare taking it in the first year of their employment.
[0] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=25437&la...
[1] https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq...
I'm not sure that dating "not requiring commitment" is the issue.
It's difficult to commit to dating when you are time-poor and struggling to even get close to the financial trajectory that your parents were on.
It's too easy to blame the kids or whatever, without considering that the kids had and have it harder in many ways than the old people did. Being a millennial in the '00s was pretty good, being a millennial after '08 has not been good (unless you happened to get a sweet high-paying tech job in the '10s).
It's difficult to commit to dating when you are time-poor and struggling to even get close to the financial trajectory that your parents were on.
It's too easy to blame the kids or whatever, without considering that the kids had and have it harder in many ways than the old people did. Being a millennial in the '00s was pretty good, being a millennial after '08 has not been good (unless you happened to get a sweet high-paying tech job in the '10s).
This is actually part of what I'm talking about. The sweet high-paying tech jobs went to a group of people that can comfortably afford to live without marrying off. They date around because they can. I know, because I got that sweet job in 2008 just at the start of the tech wave and I dated around quite a bit and the pressure to get married for financial reasons wasn't there and the social pressure to get married for its own sake wasn't either. This isn't how it looked like in the 1950s or earlier. Most people didn't date 100 different women or wait until they were 35 to start a home with someone. It's partially financial and partially societal.
At the other end of the spectrum the increasing gap between rich and poor pushed a lot of men completely out of the dating pool because they can no longer afford basic housing for themselves, so even if they would be willing to commit they don't have options.
At the other end of the spectrum the increasing gap between rich and poor pushed a lot of men completely out of the dating pool because they can no longer afford basic housing for themselves, so even if they would be willing to commit they don't have options.
There is a middle way here, which is to partner and commit early, but take some time to enjoy being young adults together before you become chained to a childcare routine. I have a sense that this leads to a more stable family in the long run, and it's what my own parents did.
It is pretty hard to find though. It seems people want either hot casual sex or a house in the suburbs within 6 months, not much in between.
It is pretty hard to find though. It seems people want either hot casual sex or a house in the suburbs within 6 months, not much in between.
This doesn’t jive with the idea that high paying, lower skilled jobs were plentiful in the 50’s and you only needed one income for a family let alone a single person.
I think one of the biggest issues facing modern dating is the collapse of various socialization activities outside of work. Religion is on a decline so people don't meet at church. Hobby groups are all online now.
Simultaneously movements like MeToo is growing. People tend to avoid relationships with coworker a bit.
Neither of these apply to Japan, especially Japan decades ago when their birthrate fell to around the current rate. So that’s a pretty strong data point against these theories being key factors.
What?
1. Yes, obviously Japan housing prices have fallen from their insane 90s peak, but housing is still very expensive in Japan, and especially in urban areas where most Japanese (especially younger Japanese) live, space is famously at a premium.
2. I can barely count the number of times I've read articles on the reasons Japanese women don't want to get married. Unlike some Western nations, there is still a cultural expectation in Japan that women do a ton of housework and childrearing with little help from men, to the point that famously elaborate childrens' bento boxes are a source of stress. Many Japanese women with careers easily see marriage as a net negative, obviously different than decades past.
1. Yes, obviously Japan housing prices have fallen from their insane 90s peak, but housing is still very expensive in Japan, and especially in urban areas where most Japanese (especially younger Japanese) live, space is famously at a premium.
2. I can barely count the number of times I've read articles on the reasons Japanese women don't want to get married. Unlike some Western nations, there is still a cultural expectation in Japan that women do a ton of housework and childrearing with little help from men, to the point that famously elaborate childrens' bento boxes are a source of stress. Many Japanese women with careers easily see marriage as a net negative, obviously different than decades past.
1. Space is limited, but always has been. Housing at the scale and quality expected in Japan is still very affordable and isn’t correlated with birthrate. This one is easy to disprove.
2. The reasons you listed are completely different from the one I responded to, and these are certainly potential factors. At least they’re often considered reasonable suspects in Japan.
2. The reasons you listed are completely different from the one I responded to, and these are certainly potential factors. At least they’re often considered reasonable suspects in Japan.
> urban areas where most Japanese (especially younger Japanese) live
Not "most" people live in where housing price is rising. Foreigners tend to see only metropolis. There are many people living non rural (some are urban? but having car is good) area but affordable housing price.
Not "most" people live in where housing price is rising. Foreigners tend to see only metropolis. There are many people living non rural (some are urban? but having car is good) area but affordable housing price.
How does childcare look in SK? I believe that in much of the Western world, families living further apart is a problem for having children. Having grand parents nearby can make having children so much easier. In the US I think you either need family nearby or have a lot of money to avoid having children becoming totally overwhelming and very negatively impact all other aspects of your life.
> The second core issue is modern dating. That one I don't know how to fix, but the essential issue there is the dynamics of dating not requiring commitment coupled with financial security for women mean long term pair bonding happens at a lower rate and later in life.
One way to fix it is the government deciding to highly encourage 'old-fashioned' social norms.
For example, we could have single-sex spaces, which help the sexes develop unique cultures that they then have to rely on each other for.
Or we could encourage single-income-earning, realizing more men are going to take advantage of this, and encourage more stay-at-home parenting, realizing that more women will take advantage of this (but by no means should the sex of either role be forced).
Or, we could change sex-ed curricula to focus more broadly on family formation and its importance.
Encourage church membership, since that used to constitute a large portion of the dating pool, and makes it easier for people to find others like them.
Idolize the roles of mothers and fathers and how it's a national duty.
There's lots of ways to fix it. The willpower simply isn't there. Of course, many people are in complete denial as to the root causes too. The truth is sexual attraction is fundamentally based on sexual difference. Save for a slim minority of the population, this is true across the board (yes, even in homosexual relationships). The reason why dating sucks and people can't find partners is because we've attempted to eradicate all sexual difference, but every once in a while human nature overpowers even this, and we see phenomena which our current culture cannot explain but is easily explainable in the larger context of the human condition (for example, the popularity of 50 shades of grey amongst women, or the popularity of 'seduction culture' and the manosphere amongst men).
One way to fix it is the government deciding to highly encourage 'old-fashioned' social norms.
For example, we could have single-sex spaces, which help the sexes develop unique cultures that they then have to rely on each other for.
Or we could encourage single-income-earning, realizing more men are going to take advantage of this, and encourage more stay-at-home parenting, realizing that more women will take advantage of this (but by no means should the sex of either role be forced).
Or, we could change sex-ed curricula to focus more broadly on family formation and its importance.
Encourage church membership, since that used to constitute a large portion of the dating pool, and makes it easier for people to find others like them.
Idolize the roles of mothers and fathers and how it's a national duty.
There's lots of ways to fix it. The willpower simply isn't there. Of course, many people are in complete denial as to the root causes too. The truth is sexual attraction is fundamentally based on sexual difference. Save for a slim minority of the population, this is true across the board (yes, even in homosexual relationships). The reason why dating sucks and people can't find partners is because we've attempted to eradicate all sexual difference, but every once in a while human nature overpowers even this, and we see phenomena which our current culture cannot explain but is easily explainable in the larger context of the human condition (for example, the popularity of 50 shades of grey amongst women, or the popularity of 'seduction culture' and the manosphere amongst men).
Honestly this sounds like a dystopian nightmare. It sounds like you're saying we all need to go back to everyone being a Good Christian who knows Their Place In Society and that will solve everything. Yikes! Maybe I'm reading too much into it, or do you actually want a Handmaid's Tale future?
How can you honestly compare what I wrote to the handmaid's tale, in which women are forced to breed with men who are not even their husbands? There is no overlap between the two visions. Stop the strawmanning. There is literally nothing 'Christian' (your word, not mine) about men married to infertile women having mistresses. That's literally antithetical to the whole thing.
You talk about 'knowing your place in society' as if that's a bad thing. A lot of social problems today descend from the fact that large portions of the population have no place in society.
You talk about 'knowing your place in society' as if that's a bad thing. A lot of social problems today descend from the fact that large portions of the population have no place in society.
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....
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.
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.
There are many cities that seem more child friendly than others although. Like berlin, or even new york compared to SF.
Agreed. SF can afford to drive away families as long as it can continue to attract far more net population growth than the housing stock can support.
From a purely financial standpoint, skimming motivated young talent from around the world and then discouraging them from having kids or encouraging them to leave if they do seems like it would be a cheaper approach than raising a native population.
From a purely financial standpoint, skimming motivated young talent from around the world and then discouraging them from having kids or encouraging them to leave if they do seems like it would be a cheaper approach than raising a native population.
I am not a professional in this field at all, but my personal experience suggests that we need more smaller cities, more densely connected, or perhaps more and smaller "downtown" areas within a single city. Then people could have a bit more personal space (less geographic concentration reduces demand and price pressure in specific areas), while keeping density and interconnectedness high to support mass transit, walking/cycling, and socially connected communities.
I think this would make cities a bit more "pro-child" than they are currently.
I think this would make cities a bit more "pro-child" than they are currently.
You are describing Seoul and Tokyo perfectly.
Despite having tens of millions of people and average densities much higher than most cities, they’re both among the most livable cities in the world.
Both of them inherited pre-war street layouts (in Tokyo’s case, despite being bombed, the layouts stayed the same). So neighbourhoods have narrow streets which makes them safer to walk (due to cars needing to drive slowly) and more interesting. And most neighbourhoods have older 2-4 storey or newer 10-20 storey apartments that provide the density to enable local shops and amazing public transit.
So much easier to raise children when you have everything you need within walking distance in the same neighbourhood, including child care.
Despite having tens of millions of people and average densities much higher than most cities, they’re both among the most livable cities in the world.
Both of them inherited pre-war street layouts (in Tokyo’s case, despite being bombed, the layouts stayed the same). So neighbourhoods have narrow streets which makes them safer to walk (due to cars needing to drive slowly) and more interesting. And most neighbourhoods have older 2-4 storey or newer 10-20 storey apartments that provide the density to enable local shops and amazing public transit.
So much easier to raise children when you have everything you need within walking distance in the same neighbourhood, including child care.
I dont find them particularly livable.Yeah maybe when you are in your 20-later 30s then they are livable but they are absolutely dreadful when it comes to having a family.
All that convenience that you see is there because of that fast paced life style people have.
Source: Married to korean and lived in Korea.
All that convenience that you see is there because of that fast paced life style people have.
Source: Married to korean and lived in Korea.
I lived in Korea for years and have visited Japan as well.
Having lived in Toronto, South Korea (Ulsan), and now SF (Sunset), I can’t imagine a better place for a family to live than many neighbourhoods in Korea.
Now that I’ve got a wife, dog, and newborn baby, we needed to purchase a car to get them around (since SF public transit isn’t good enough for this). At least in Toronto we were within a few hundred metres of doctor/dentist/pharmacy, but lacked a walkable grocery store despite being in the city.
There are reasonably nice walkable streets, but in both Toronto and SF the neighbourhood streets are too wide, which results in traffic going way too fast along them. I’ve seen some traffic-calmed streets with artificial barriers and curves but there’s not much.
When I lived in Korea, both neighbourhoods I lived in contained everything I needed, and would have needed if I had a family at the time. And walking around (even with no sidewalks) was a pleasure because cars took the main roads. (Only the delivery scooters were a menace, which I’m sure you were familiar with ).
Of course, this excludes societal pressures, personal finances, etc that affect local Korean and Japanese people.
This is anecdotal, but I've been casually studying urban planning for years to help quantify why I found daily living in Korea to feel so much nicer than anywhere else.
Having lived in Toronto, South Korea (Ulsan), and now SF (Sunset), I can’t imagine a better place for a family to live than many neighbourhoods in Korea.
Now that I’ve got a wife, dog, and newborn baby, we needed to purchase a car to get them around (since SF public transit isn’t good enough for this). At least in Toronto we were within a few hundred metres of doctor/dentist/pharmacy, but lacked a walkable grocery store despite being in the city.
There are reasonably nice walkable streets, but in both Toronto and SF the neighbourhood streets are too wide, which results in traffic going way too fast along them. I’ve seen some traffic-calmed streets with artificial barriers and curves but there’s not much.
When I lived in Korea, both neighbourhoods I lived in contained everything I needed, and would have needed if I had a family at the time. And walking around (even with no sidewalks) was a pleasure because cars took the main roads. (Only the delivery scooters were a menace, which I’m sure you were familiar with ).
Of course, this excludes societal pressures, personal finances, etc that affect local Korean and Japanese people.
This is anecdotal, but I've been casually studying urban planning for years to help quantify why I found daily living in Korea to feel so much nicer than anywhere else.
My take on living in Korea vs Europe (I have no idea about cities in North America)
1. Noisy apartments and noisy streets typical for asian megalopolises.If you can afford to live in one of the more quality condos it's better though.
2. Commuting by subway for an 1h with 1-2 stops to change lines is dreadful during peak hours.It's worse than commuting by car from a suburb here in Europe.Michael Wolf's video captures this very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxZLq3IpYAU
Living in Korea is convenient but not comfortable.
1. Noisy apartments and noisy streets typical for asian megalopolises.If you can afford to live in one of the more quality condos it's better though.
2. Commuting by subway for an 1h with 1-2 stops to change lines is dreadful during peak hours.It's worse than commuting by car from a suburb here in Europe.Michael Wolf's video captures this very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxZLq3IpYAU
Living in Korea is convenient but not comfortable.
1. I can see noise being an issue in Tokyo and Seoul because build quality isn't great and there's not much noise insulation. So you're heavily dependent on neighbours keeping quiet, and I was fortunate to have good ones. Funny enough, I've had far worse experiences with neighbours in both Toronto and SF despite better sound insulation.
2. I didn't mention commuting because I was referring to living locally within a neighbourhood where you don't have to leave. I didn't commute far (walked to work), and I couldn't imagine commuting with multiple line changes in either Seoul or Tokyo. It was bad enough in Toronto with just a 30 minute commute. (I won't commute ever again due to remote work so it's no longer a consideration for me.)
You're lucky to live in Europe, where the suburbs/non-downtown is much more livable and walkable than North America. In many ways, many European cities have the best of both worlds.
2. I didn't mention commuting because I was referring to living locally within a neighbourhood where you don't have to leave. I didn't commute far (walked to work), and I couldn't imagine commuting with multiple line changes in either Seoul or Tokyo. It was bad enough in Toronto with just a 30 minute commute. (I won't commute ever again due to remote work so it's no longer a consideration for me.)
You're lucky to live in Europe, where the suburbs/non-downtown is much more livable and walkable than North America. In many ways, many European cities have the best of both worlds.
You’re basically describing suburbs (not exurbs). Despite having everything you wish for suburbs are apparently the greatest threat to civilization since the trinity test.
Only a "threat" because they don't have the tax base to support the infrastructure that is needed so it requires massive federal subsides and they are massively inefficient.
For the entire recorded human history, people have lived in cities just fine.
The problems today are entirely self created and imposed by governments and culture of people.
Take housing, the easiest way to solve the housing crisis in Canada and the US is to build more supply and a variety of housing (boarding homes, multi-family homes, 12-unit condos, mixed housing, giant apartment complexes, studios, micro studios). That would likely alleviate a multitude of problems cities have and probably solve a few others unexpectedly (increasing the tax base, the variety of people that live there, etc).
But walk into any public development meeting you will see a few dozen people force the process to a crawling halt because of a myriad of reasons. The needs of the few now outweigh the good of many.
For the entire recorded human history, people have lived in cities just fine.
The problems today are entirely self created and imposed by governments and culture of people.
Take housing, the easiest way to solve the housing crisis in Canada and the US is to build more supply and a variety of housing (boarding homes, multi-family homes, 12-unit condos, mixed housing, giant apartment complexes, studios, micro studios). That would likely alleviate a multitude of problems cities have and probably solve a few others unexpectedly (increasing the tax base, the variety of people that live there, etc).
But walk into any public development meeting you will see a few dozen people force the process to a crawling halt because of a myriad of reasons. The needs of the few now outweigh the good of many.
Suburbia in the US is a very different beast. One of the most difficult Problems is how completely the US infrastructure basically assumes it only exists for cars.
> So urban cities are anti-child? Thus we will see cites change or depopulate?
Or, people now value cities more than they value having more children, leading to depopulation due to replacement rate reduction, rather than people leaving to have more children.
Or, people now value cities more than they value having more children, leading to depopulation due to replacement rate reduction, rather than people leaving to have more children.
Exepnsive cities are tied to low birth rate not just cities. Lagos is a megalopolis but with good birthrate.
It will if it is embraced. I also hope countries take the opportunity to build new remote-first cities conducive to family life.
Otherwise, maybe the ‘modern city’ is where cultures go to die.
Otherwise, maybe the ‘modern city’ is where cultures go to die.
Probably true. However, on the past or even in rural India people fit parents and a number of children in small abodes. So, it’s possible. People have done it and lived, people do it and live in some places. Some people just don’t want to and don’t have to either.
This is very true as a Korean living outside of the country, It's happening slowly but the cultural resistance and all kind of shitstorm related low-birthrate/immigration is about to happen.
It's pretty ugly situation inside right now it seems like. Koreans still have the idea that it is a homogenous country and majority of korean is pretty extremely conservative about this new policy obviously, you could easily imagine it's like ticking bomb.
It's pretty ugly situation inside right now it seems like. Koreans still have the idea that it is a homogenous country and majority of korean is pretty extremely conservative about this new policy obviously, you could easily imagine it's like ticking bomb.
My wife is from Busan and her parents don't speak English nor are they educated, and I would consider them extremely "Korea Conservative", nevertheless, they're aware of the issue and it is discussed openly, how to continue to emerge Korea, and I think it is this issue that primarily made them comfortable with their daughter marrying a foreigner, of the options, marry a foreigner or destroy the country, I suspect Koreans will take the latter. If I had to guess, your countrymen will fair a lot better than expected, likely through policy of controlled "acceptable foreigners", strong demand of cultural adoption of said "acceptable foreigners", and through Automation/Robotics/AI. I was very surprised to see a lot of conversation among the young people in Korea about the future of the society surrounding the themes of what a hybrid socialist/capitalist robotics AI utopia would look like, if I was to bet on anyone getting there, it would be SK.
As far as I can see the only problem is with how the pension systems are structured. A falling birth rate by itself doesn’t really mean that much. In fact there might be benefits for employment, like there was after the black death. But as it is our current economic system is based on growth and having more young people supporting the elderly. So it seems like if the trend continues we will have to restructure retirement benefits.
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 domestically employ.
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 domestically employ.
You cant just easily immigrate to CJK countries.You will not become a part of the society.That's just impossible.Not even those of us that married koreans,speak the language and know the customs are that accepted in the society.We are tolerated and easily live and work there but you will never become korean or japanese or chinese.
You will always be the "foreigner".
You will always be the "foreigner".
To give you another perspective, I would say that many East Asians living in the West don't feel like they actually belong there either. I moved to west coast America when I was a child. I still remember vividly the first thing I heard and understood in class. It was another kid telling me that I'm a "stupid Asian." The barrier is there. We feel it. And let's not pretend Europe is better about this.
There are Japanese-only establishments in Japan. Ever seen those in the west?
I was hoping people would find it in themselves to try to rid the world of these invisible barriers instead of pointing out how "they do it worse than we do."
I don't know man, I beg to differ. I am a non-ethnic, naturalized Korean who immigrated to Korea fairly young. I am fully assimilated (note that I am not saying integrated, but assimilated; this is critical) and part of society, I feel I have an equal opportunity at doing anything a "native" Korean would do. I could run for politics if I wanted to (which I am considering), my relationship with people are as normal as they could be. I don't feel "tolerated" nor "accepted", nor have I ever felt the need to. People basically treat me the same as they would treat any other Korean.
Sure, there is some minor "friction" because of my different ethnicity (basically I look white), such as random people first assuming that I am a foreigner, which is completely understandable for historical reasons. I do that myself, whenever I see a white or black person, my first reflex isn't to assume that they are Korean too, there is a 99% chance that they are foreigners. But all it takes is a 10mn conversation for them to know that I am "one of them". I sometimes get puzzled looks from people who have never met someone like me, but that's mainly because most of the population don't even know you _could_ naturalize and become Korean. At the airport, the staff speaks in English to me at first, but as soon as they see my passport they profusely apologize and switch back to "Korean" mode. That's about it.
I do however understand and sympathize with the fact that many foreigners, even long-term residents, might feel the way you described. I am just disputing your claim that it's "impossible" to become Korean.
I personally think because Korean society functions in a very binary way: either you accept everything and take it in as a whole and then can become a member of society, or you just do a few things (such as marrying a Korean person, speaking Korean to a certain level, etc.) and you don't. There are valid reasons to act like that, there is this instinct of jealously preserving Korean culture out of fear that it will be taken over by other giants: China, Japan, the US, etc. And Koreans would rather keep the bad aspects of their culture than risk losing it all. It's just part of the deal, and I think many foreigners have a hard time understanding/accepting this fact.
Sure, there is some minor "friction" because of my different ethnicity (basically I look white), such as random people first assuming that I am a foreigner, which is completely understandable for historical reasons. I do that myself, whenever I see a white or black person, my first reflex isn't to assume that they are Korean too, there is a 99% chance that they are foreigners. But all it takes is a 10mn conversation for them to know that I am "one of them". I sometimes get puzzled looks from people who have never met someone like me, but that's mainly because most of the population don't even know you _could_ naturalize and become Korean. At the airport, the staff speaks in English to me at first, but as soon as they see my passport they profusely apologize and switch back to "Korean" mode. That's about it.
I do however understand and sympathize with the fact that many foreigners, even long-term residents, might feel the way you described. I am just disputing your claim that it's "impossible" to become Korean.
I personally think because Korean society functions in a very binary way: either you accept everything and take it in as a whole and then can become a member of society, or you just do a few things (such as marrying a Korean person, speaking Korean to a certain level, etc.) and you don't. There are valid reasons to act like that, there is this instinct of jealously preserving Korean culture out of fear that it will be taken over by other giants: China, Japan, the US, etc. And Koreans would rather keep the bad aspects of their culture than risk losing it all. It's just part of the deal, and I think many foreigners have a hard time understanding/accepting this fact.
Your life sounds really interesting. If you've written more about it somewhere, I'd love to read it.
China is slightly more culturally inclusive having less homogeneity but the immigration laws are basically "Don't come (unless you're ethnically Chinese)", not that there are any real demand..
That's normal. If you move to Poland from wherever, don't expect you'll ever become Polish. Not really. Even if you are slavic as f. You have a better chance if you speak flawless Polish with flawless neutral polish accent (and look slavic as f). But as long as people know you came from other country and didn't have any polish ancestors you'd still be foreigner. But we will respect you for doing well to blend in.
Only America is a country where you can call yourself American after living there for few years.
Only America is a country where you can call yourself American after living there for few years.
Difference on appearance will always be there unless the gene is mixed till the degree you can't tell the race. As in exact opposite position of yours, I think it's just a thing that can't be addressed in our life time, though I might be wrong.
Studies mostly show that, in the long run, family-based immigration policies lead to more economic growth than the "best and brightest". Basically, forming immigrant communities is useful—they provide support to new entrants, and lead to better outcomes for everyone. Importing a few educated doctors, rather than families or broader populations, leads to less long-term benefit.
Interesting. Would love a source.
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".
To butcher an unrelated saying: "We can't all get immigrants from each other".
Perhaps we need to find another way to fuel the economy than the never ending pyramid scheme called population growth. At 8 billion (causing massive environmental damage) a drop in population would certainly not be a bad thing.
My hot take is that we need to find a new system that doesn't depend on perpetual economic growth. With both China and India rapidly developing (that's what, 3 billion people with money to spend), climate change will only accelerate until and unless we find an alternate model.
Iran scheduled to peak in 2060: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/iran-population
According to China, one solution is to kill after school for-profit education, which is crippling families due to unbounded competition.
Isn't the Chinese solution just to convert these for-profit education companies to non-profit education companies? That only hurts these companies and their shareholders. Parents who want their children to be competitive will continue to enroll their children in these after-school classes; now that they are non-profit perhaps they will be cheaper and parents can afford more classes!
In addition to what you said, this policy is supposed to alleviate a complementary problem for kids in the top 1-20% socioeconomic class. There, the biggest issue is that there is excessive competition to no good end. This policy is supposed to alleviate that and bring more room for fostering creativity
SK doesn't have a large amount of land to grow into which means real estate is expensive which in turn limits population growth (people have less kids when real estate is expensive). SK has one of the highest population densities in the world [1] Having a stable population with that kind of constraint on land seems like a good thing.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-popu...
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-popu...
Why is immigration the answer? All you need is workers, not immigrants. SK will probably do what the gulf states do. They will bring in foreign labor but with a clear separation between expat workers and potential "immigrants". These people will work finite contracts and then be literally sent home once the contract is over, mooting any concept of naturalization. Gulf states have done this relatively successfully for decades.
Japan already do that, with some bad reputation. https://www.jitco.or.jp/en/skill/
With complete degeneration of nearly everything else
Demographic decline is only a bad thing from a fairly singular, industrialist, globalist perspective.
While it definitely means some reduction and prestige and power, and in some areas scale does provide advantage - in most ways, it's not decline in anything but the 'major shareholders of the economy'.
It's a 'Investor Problem' for the most part.
Japan never needed 180M people to maintain their standard living, so from the average person's perspective it looks different.
Otherwise, it's a little bit of an economic Ponzi scheme.
Of course, 'permanently fewer children' to the point where population goes to 0 - well that's a problem, but hopefully they will mitigate that and find a happy equilibrium.
While it definitely means some reduction and prestige and power, and in some areas scale does provide advantage - in most ways, it's not decline in anything but the 'major shareholders of the economy'.
It's a 'Investor Problem' for the most part.
Japan never needed 180M people to maintain their standard living, so from the average person's perspective it looks different.
Otherwise, it's a little bit of an economic Ponzi scheme.
Of course, 'permanently fewer children' to the point where population goes to 0 - well that's a problem, but hopefully they will mitigate that and find a happy equilibrium.
There’s no problem with low birth rates, this is a meme that is told by a few economists and yet a very slight depopulation is not only survivable but has upsides as well and so far both South Korea and Japan (for going on three decades) have maintained incredibly competitive across nearly all metrics, certainly far better off than the US in so many ways. I got in an extensive debate over this with statistics a few months back on HN and have yet to see convincing evidence: lots of news articles that are inconclusive, and charts that show them doing as well or better than any European country or most any country in the world.
There is no problem with low birth rates in the long term. There are, however, massive problems during the many decades when the population pyramid is inverted and there are 4 or 5 retirees for every child, a ratio which Japan is about to hit and where South Korea will be in a couple of decades as well.
As for why this is a problem, Japan's pension system is already insolvent and the country is starting to experience massive manpower shortages in sectors like nursing, agriculture and construction. Sometime last year Japan passed the point where the amount of money & effort needed to maintain existing infrastructure exceeded the country's capability to build it, and the depopulation and dilapidation of Japan's second/third tier cities and the countryside is already striking and poised to accelerate rapidly as villages, towns and cities can no longer fund their basic obligations.
As for why this is a problem, Japan's pension system is already insolvent and the country is starting to experience massive manpower shortages in sectors like nursing, agriculture and construction. Sometime last year Japan passed the point where the amount of money & effort needed to maintain existing infrastructure exceeded the country's capability to build it, and the depopulation and dilapidation of Japan's second/third tier cities and the countryside is already striking and poised to accelerate rapidly as villages, towns and cities can no longer fund their basic obligations.
> Sometime last year Japan passed the point where the amount of money & effort needed to maintain existing infrastructure exceeded the country's capability to build it
Can you share where you found that? I'd like to read more about it
> and the depopulation and dilapidation of Japan's second/third tier cities and the countryside is already striking and poised to accelerate rapidly as villages, towns and cities can no longer fund their basic obligations.
Isn't that a worldwide phenomenon though? Podunk towns can't keep their young people around because there is nothing for them to do and within in a generation or two they fade away. It's sad, but is there even a reason to save those towns?
Can you share where you found that? I'd like to read more about it
> and the depopulation and dilapidation of Japan's second/third tier cities and the countryside is already striking and poised to accelerate rapidly as villages, towns and cities can no longer fund their basic obligations.
Isn't that a worldwide phenomenon though? Podunk towns can't keep their young people around because there is nothing for them to do and within in a generation or two they fade away. It's sad, but is there even a reason to save those towns?
I mean, you could almost make the same argument for Canada & the US.
It's mostly due to political gridlock here, but look at all the crumbling bridges and dams -- the transit that never got built, and the feeling that somehow we are wealthy yet we never have any money for important issues.
Japan's GDP per capita still keeps growing. And the average Japanese still has an excellent quality of life.
Japan also has so many pointless infrastructure projects; things like laying concrete into river beds to control their flows, or retention systems to stop mudslides that only started because they clear-cut forests and replaced them with sugi as a make-work project... The workers are there, if they got rid of the make-work projects.
It's mostly due to political gridlock here, but look at all the crumbling bridges and dams -- the transit that never got built, and the feeling that somehow we are wealthy yet we never have any money for important issues.
Japan's GDP per capita still keeps growing. And the average Japanese still has an excellent quality of life.
Japan also has so many pointless infrastructure projects; things like laying concrete into river beds to control their flows, or retention systems to stop mudslides that only started because they clear-cut forests and replaced them with sugi as a make-work project... The workers are there, if they got rid of the make-work projects.
[deleted]
It's another offshoot of the "growth at all costs!" mentality you see in Wall Street and governments.
What do you think pays for your healthcare, public pensions, infrastructure as your population ages out of the workforce?
The Grenadier Guards?
The Grenadier Guards?
We've seen an immense growth of productivity since the 1970s in the US, with stagnant wages. Perhaps it's time some of that goes into the issues you mentioned instead of wealthy pockets?
As long as gov spending per capita is not near or above income (ie, responsible fiscal policy) and you don't over-inflate, there's no reason you can't support all this with declining population.
Yes it is possible to manage ... when you have almost no government run retirement system.
In country where the workforce pay for the retired, like France and a lot of European country, having your workforce shrink is a huge issue.
This is correct. There is no logical reason or empirical evidence that opening country to mass immigration will help fixing native birth rates. Problems such as housing will just increase as there's more competition for a 5 square meter flat.
Let's take that at face value.
If shrinking populations are okay, what is the desired population level? Right now no country seems to be able to stop this decrease in the modern/developed world. We are just currently shrinking.
If shrinking populations are okay, what is the desired population level? Right now no country seems to be able to stop this decrease in the modern/developed world. We are just currently shrinking.
> If shrinking populations are okay, what is the desired population level?
The answer might simply be "we don't know" here.
> Right now no country seems to be able to stop this decrease in the modern/developed world. We are just currently shrinking.
Why is that being treated as inherently bad, though?
The answer might simply be "we don't know" here.
> Right now no country seems to be able to stop this decrease in the modern/developed world. We are just currently shrinking.
Why is that being treated as inherently bad, though?
> Why is that being treated as inherently bad, though?
We are not making this decision completely willingly, it is more just happening and it is out of the governments control. To me this means it is risky, and can we pull out of it? How do we pull out of this shrinkage?
I guess the good thing is that the developed world is all in this together, rather than only parts of it. That reduces the chance of massive disparities as a result of the changes it causes.
If would feel much more comfortable that we completely understood it, and how to control it.
There will be a lot of changes that will occur. For example conservatives are less effected by population shrinkage than liberals in the US -- probably just because conservatives are less likely to be city dwellers? Or maybe it is conservatives have different values... or a combination of values that effect whether they live in the cities.
Atheists have lower reproduction rates than those who are religious as well. (which probably correlates with liberalism/conservatism as well.)
I wonder if there are any genetic contributions to conservatism/religiousness? If so this may be a period of rapid genetic evolution...
We are not making this decision completely willingly, it is more just happening and it is out of the governments control. To me this means it is risky, and can we pull out of it? How do we pull out of this shrinkage?
I guess the good thing is that the developed world is all in this together, rather than only parts of it. That reduces the chance of massive disparities as a result of the changes it causes.
If would feel much more comfortable that we completely understood it, and how to control it.
There will be a lot of changes that will occur. For example conservatives are less effected by population shrinkage than liberals in the US -- probably just because conservatives are less likely to be city dwellers? Or maybe it is conservatives have different values... or a combination of values that effect whether they live in the cities.
Atheists have lower reproduction rates than those who are religious as well. (which probably correlates with liberalism/conservatism as well.)
I wonder if there are any genetic contributions to conservatism/religiousness? If so this may be a period of rapid genetic evolution...
> We are not making this decision completely willingly, it is more just happening and it is out of the governments control. To me this means it is risky, and can we pull out of it? How do we pull out of this shrinkage?
Isn't all this equally true of population growth as well as shrinkage?
Isn't all this equally true of population growth as well as shrinkage?
No. Major population growth has been happening since the times of the new world migration.
The only major time i can think of where there were major depopulation events are in the times of the Fertile Crescent civilizations and perhaps in Asia in Angkor Wat. In both of the scenarios this massive depopulation led to the extinction of those civilizations.
The only major time i can think of where there were major depopulation events are in the times of the Fertile Crescent civilizations and perhaps in Asia in Angkor Wat. In both of the scenarios this massive depopulation led to the extinction of those civilizations.
> No. Major population growth has been happening since the times of the new world migration.
Nah, at least not of this magnitude. The world's population only hit a billion at about 1800, two billion around WWII. We're now at nearly eight. The idea that we understand all the consequences of that is silly; we're only just recently starting to understand the climate change aspect of it.
Nah, at least not of this magnitude. The world's population only hit a billion at about 1800, two billion around WWII. We're now at nearly eight. The idea that we understand all the consequences of that is silly; we're only just recently starting to understand the climate change aspect of it.
I’m not sure with the numbers but but bc were dealing with populations/exponential growth it’s possible the rate of pop growth (doubling time) hasn’t changed much for a longer time period.
However the childhood mortality rates have gone down so raw # of children per household could be lower and still have a higher growth rate.
However the childhood mortality rates have gone down so raw # of children per household could be lower and still have a higher growth rate.
Should there necessarily be one? If you have fewer people, you also have fewer needs to satisfy. I suppose at some point it breaks down just because you need that many people to run some industries... but, given all the small countries out there doing fine, we're talking about several orders of magnitude here.
Very interesting. I would like to listen more to this side of the debate. Everywhere I read is "demographic bomb" or "chaos", which seems to be a bubble. Would you be able to point some references for different arguments?
Can you link to your previous thread?
I’m just curious if you considered military concerns since war is a young man’s game as they say.
I’m just curious if you considered military concerns since war is a young man’s game as they say.
I think robotized war changes the equation a bit here. At least with regards to non-adjacent conflicts. But for adjacent conflicts between non-superpowers, if one area is depopulated, it may be much easier to walk in and keep that territory.
I'm no military strategist I just play one on the internet aka I'm about to talk some shit haha so take it with a grain of salt.
Robotic war is interesting and specifically drone warefare in my mind is similar to the role carriers played in World War 2 which is having a great cost benefit ratio along with great flexibility on damaging enemy ships and allowing longer range bombing runs. I agree that killer robots would definitely alter the battlefield equation but over the long run I think youth should still get the edge.
Having said all of that based on WW2 technological advantages eventually get countered or erode in a war of attrition with the largest industrial base eventually winning by simple over production and/or reducing the enemy's industrial capacity through strategic bombing of factories / input resources.
Either way in a total war scenario where attrition crowns the eventual winner devising counter measures and other cognitive work in general is easier when workers are <50 since there's measurable cognitive decline after that at least productivity wise. The average age of the Manhattan project scientists was ~24-25.
Additionally, a country needs to be able to simply replace it's productive experienced workers with new workers after it's factories get bombed and having a fatter more numerous population pyramid would definitely help. It's also entirely possible that robotic workers / automated factories get degraded over time due to missing parts when the enemy blows up supply chains or other resources required to get the to full robo productivity.
To sum up my entire argument/assumption youth + more population is robust to the chaos of war.
Robotic war is interesting and specifically drone warefare in my mind is similar to the role carriers played in World War 2 which is having a great cost benefit ratio along with great flexibility on damaging enemy ships and allowing longer range bombing runs. I agree that killer robots would definitely alter the battlefield equation but over the long run I think youth should still get the edge.
Having said all of that based on WW2 technological advantages eventually get countered or erode in a war of attrition with the largest industrial base eventually winning by simple over production and/or reducing the enemy's industrial capacity through strategic bombing of factories / input resources.
Either way in a total war scenario where attrition crowns the eventual winner devising counter measures and other cognitive work in general is easier when workers are <50 since there's measurable cognitive decline after that at least productivity wise. The average age of the Manhattan project scientists was ~24-25.
Additionally, a country needs to be able to simply replace it's productive experienced workers with new workers after it's factories get bombed and having a fatter more numerous population pyramid would definitely help. It's also entirely possible that robotic workers / automated factories get degraded over time due to missing parts when the enemy blows up supply chains or other resources required to get the to full robo productivity.
To sum up my entire argument/assumption youth + more population is robust to the chaos of war.
Pay people to be stay at home parents so they don't face an enormous opportunity cost / survival threat to having a kid.
They do that in France, and birth rates are actually higher than most Western nations
I could not find anything on this. I see that they have payments to support households with kids but do they specifically pay people to be stay at home parents?
> How does the developed world pull out of this type of tailspin?
Make childcare easier. Traditionally people lived in the same town as their parents and in-laws. Now days it is thousands of dollars a month in day care.
Want your kids to go to college? In 18 years that is expected to cost well over 100k for a state school.
Raising kids has gotten more stressful and more expensive, of course people aren't having kids! And those who do stop after one.
Not that I have any good idea for childcare. Real estate prices in cities are so high that opening a day care is not the wisest financial decision. Home day cares are a solution, but licensing and compliance issues abound that can also destroy their ability to stay in business.
Heck in America if I want a care that seats more than 4 (I'm ignoring the "5th" middle seat) I am stuck buying a bloody SUV or minivan. Can't even get a 3 row compact people mover because CAFE rules quite literally ban their existence. So 2 kids is basically has a "get a giant vehicle" tax attached to it. Live in a city? Have fun parking that SUV!
And how about schools? In my city, a house that is zoned to good schools has a 200-300k price premium! Want to move to an area with really good schools? That can become a 500k premium.
Japan has separate issues, if fathers are working 10-12 hours a day and are never home, and women are expected to just stop their careers after having kids, well of course women aren't jumping at the chance to start a family. Raise a kid with an absentee husband? No wonder that isn't going over well.
tl;dr life is too expensive. We've created a society that does not promote having children or having a family. Everything down to our underlying infrastructure is anti-family.
Make childcare easier. Traditionally people lived in the same town as their parents and in-laws. Now days it is thousands of dollars a month in day care.
Want your kids to go to college? In 18 years that is expected to cost well over 100k for a state school.
Raising kids has gotten more stressful and more expensive, of course people aren't having kids! And those who do stop after one.
Not that I have any good idea for childcare. Real estate prices in cities are so high that opening a day care is not the wisest financial decision. Home day cares are a solution, but licensing and compliance issues abound that can also destroy their ability to stay in business.
Heck in America if I want a care that seats more than 4 (I'm ignoring the "5th" middle seat) I am stuck buying a bloody SUV or minivan. Can't even get a 3 row compact people mover because CAFE rules quite literally ban their existence. So 2 kids is basically has a "get a giant vehicle" tax attached to it. Live in a city? Have fun parking that SUV!
And how about schools? In my city, a house that is zoned to good schools has a 200-300k price premium! Want to move to an area with really good schools? That can become a 500k premium.
Japan has separate issues, if fathers are working 10-12 hours a day and are never home, and women are expected to just stop their careers after having kids, well of course women aren't jumping at the chance to start a family. Raise a kid with an absentee husband? No wonder that isn't going over well.
tl;dr life is too expensive. We've created a society that does not promote having children or having a family. Everything down to our underlying infrastructure is anti-family.
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
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
Hungary and Poland are making serious efforts to boost their birth rates.
Hungary gives life time tax exemption to mothers of 4 children, and may lower that to 3.
It's too early to tell if it's working.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/baby-bonuses-f...
Hungary gives life time tax exemption to mothers of 4 children, and may lower that to 3.
It's too early to tell if it's working.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/baby-bonuses-f...
Hungary and Poland also have incredibly interventionist governments who are happy to not only ecourage family formation through economic policy but also cultural policy. The former is fairly easy and many other developed countries are going down that road. The latter is the part that some countries in Western Europe and the USA do not want to touch with a ten foot pole, but it is the more important metric.
You want more families? You need to unashamedly celebrate your nation and culture.
You want more families? You need to unashamedly celebrate your nation and culture.
No offense, but this seems like a very weak, and virtually un-falsifiable, theory. Is there rigorous data that suggests culture is a major factor in driving population growth? Economic policy, housing and family-planning policy, education and labor policy, are the only true factors that undeniably and reliably drive population growth.
These countries must invest in ectogenesis. I really don't understand why this is never talked about when the low fertility rate in the developed world is discussed.
South Korea has invested billions in trying to have its fertility rate increase by giving incentives to couples, it has only worsen.
We must get to the idea that it will be almost impossible in the developed world to get back to a fertility rate above 2.
Ectogenesis can be one of the solution.
South Korea has invested billions in trying to have its fertility rate increase by giving incentives to couples, it has only worsen.
We must get to the idea that it will be almost impossible in the developed world to get back to a fertility rate above 2.
Ectogenesis can be one of the solution.
You'd have to know the fundamental reason why people in SK (or anywhere) aren't having kids. Maybe it's women not wanting to be pregnant or give birth but maybe it's not - if it's for example, people aren't up for the investment that kids require then ectogenesis will get you nowhere.
> How does the developed world pull out of this type of tailspin?
1. Find a young woman
2. Make her happy, and confident in you
3. ?
4. Pull your family for the next 30-40 years
With all respects, I always seen a family as a man's responsibility, and a failure at creating/maintaining one to coming from man's deficiencies first.
In virtually every human culture in the world, even matriarchal societies, it is by default that a man needs to put more effort than a woman to score a marriage. It is very deeply ingrained into human culture.
A man can always always find another woman if one does not want a family with him up until mid-thirties. A lot of time.
And yes, I really want to have a family, and I really want to work hard to have one.
It really sucks for bachelors. Unmarried people in most of Asia effectively lost 2 years of their reproductive life, and probably will lose at least 1 more year.
It's completely incorrect to think that China had any much of normal life after quarantine succeeded. Last 12 months was a life in constant paranoia, extreme social unease, and daily life disruptions from periodic Covid breakthroughs.
1. Find a young woman
2. Make her happy, and confident in you
3. ?
4. Pull your family for the next 30-40 years
With all respects, I always seen a family as a man's responsibility, and a failure at creating/maintaining one to coming from man's deficiencies first.
In virtually every human culture in the world, even matriarchal societies, it is by default that a man needs to put more effort than a woman to score a marriage. It is very deeply ingrained into human culture.
A man can always always find another woman if one does not want a family with him up until mid-thirties. A lot of time.
And yes, I really want to have a family, and I really want to work hard to have one.
It really sucks for bachelors. Unmarried people in most of Asia effectively lost 2 years of their reproductive life, and probably will lose at least 1 more year.
It's completely incorrect to think that China had any much of normal life after quarantine succeeded. Last 12 months was a life in constant paranoia, extreme social unease, and daily life disruptions from periodic Covid breakthroughs.
You should not be downvoted. Historically, this was the view. A traditional 'family' was mainly seen as a man's responsibility. The word 'husband' itself literally means a man bound to a house (i.e., a family or a lineage).
Best of luck in your search for a wife. As a married man with kids, starting a family is the most wonderful thing. I feel terrible for young men and women during COVID, it's just a terrible human tragedy created by the government. IMO, dating should have been considered an essential activity. It would have been good for restaurants and the economy and young people. Tell the married people with kids to stay home while the young people can all go dance it up and get hitched. It's foundational to society.
Best of luck in your search for a wife. As a married man with kids, starting a family is the most wonderful thing. I feel terrible for young men and women during COVID, it's just a terrible human tragedy created by the government. IMO, dating should have been considered an essential activity. It would have been good for restaurants and the economy and young people. Tell the married people with kids to stay home while the young people can all go dance it up and get hitched. It's foundational to society.
A man can always always find another woman if one does not want a family with him up until mid-thirties. A lot of time.
If you filter out the overweight, tattoo-covered ones, having kids by another man etc. you are left with just a few percent though.
If you filter out the overweight, tattoo-covered ones, having kids by another man etc. you are left with just a few percent though.
In comparison to Russia, or China, America is a paradise for late marriage.
The higher up you are on the social ladder, the quicker are the spouses taken from the marriage market.
I was fortunate to go into somewhat prestigious highschool back in Russia. The last 3 bachelors from my class are all the people who managed to get it abroad.
Everybody else was gone by mid-twenties, anybody with higher education by 23 at most.
Seeing an unmarried woman with PhD level education, job, own roof over her head, and no skeletons in the closet over 30 in Russia is likely a hallucination. In Canada, I met new such almost monthly, and I grew rather rather complacent.
The higher up you are on the social ladder, the quicker are the spouses taken from the marriage market.
I was fortunate to go into somewhat prestigious highschool back in Russia. The last 3 bachelors from my class are all the people who managed to get it abroad.
Everybody else was gone by mid-twenties, anybody with higher education by 23 at most.
Seeing an unmarried woman with PhD level education, job, own roof over her head, and no skeletons in the closet over 30 in Russia is likely a hallucination. In Canada, I met new such almost monthly, and I grew rather rather complacent.
I recently had this thought and I'm wondering if any experts in biology/genetics can chime in and help me. Yes it seems to me that this will be a problem faced by the developed world for the short-medium term future. But does evolution also play a role here as well? By creating a shrinking population, does that not sort of "select" for people with a natural inclination to have more children? How strongly is the desire to have more children tied to genetics?
I can imagine this problem solving itself on some timeline if that is the case e.g. people with a strong desire to have children have more kids, their genes are more prevalent while people inclined to have fewer kids sort of select themselves out of the gene pool by having 1 or 0 kids. This seems to me entirely possible, as I know genes can code for basically any arbitrary behavior, but I'm not an expert.
I can imagine this problem solving itself on some timeline if that is the case e.g. people with a strong desire to have children have more kids, their genes are more prevalent while people inclined to have fewer kids sort of select themselves out of the gene pool by having 1 or 0 kids. This seems to me entirely possible, as I know genes can code for basically any arbitrary behavior, but I'm not an expert.
Conservatives and the more religious tend to have more kids. Non-religious, liberals have the least kids.
If there is any genetic contributions, then this will be under intense selection pressure.
Maybe this is why religion has survived so long? It tends to our reproduce the non-religious?
If there is any genetic contributions, then this will be under intense selection pressure.
Maybe this is why religion has survived so long? It tends to our reproduce the non-religious?
[deleted]
> 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.
They'll have to unite with North Korea eventually. Make of that what you will.
They'll have to unite with North Korea eventually. Make of that what you will.
> They'll have to unite with North Korea eventually. Make of that what you will.
I don't know. United Germany was still within living memory when reunification happened, and it cost a huge amount to integrate East Germany, even though they had a functional society and industry. For example, Zeiss Jena (East German) camera lenses were competitive with those from the west. That would be like North Korea making good phones in the modern day.
I don't know. United Germany was still within living memory when reunification happened, and it cost a huge amount to integrate East Germany, even though they had a functional society and industry. For example, Zeiss Jena (East German) camera lenses were competitive with those from the west. That would be like North Korea making good phones in the modern day.
I think consumers are more valuable for GDP than industry today.
Also, there are non-economic factors at play, too. For example, South Korea could grandfather in North Korea's nuclear arms.
Also, there are non-economic factors at play, too. For example, South Korea could grandfather in North Korea's nuclear arms.
We have lots of people on earth, they just need to be able to move to where they want to go. Low birthrate issue is nonsense. Let a couple million people from the Philippines in to Korea problem solved.
> The core issue is that in most of the developed world, people do not have enough children
The carrying capacity of the planet earth would like to have a talk with you.
Continuing exponential population growth is obviously not a sustainable path forward. At some point, The world's economies are going to have to realign to a flat population and will have to adapt to the demographics there of. And if humanity does not choose not to do so, at some point in the future, the choice will be made for us.
The carrying capacity of the planet earth would like to have a talk with you.
Continuing exponential population growth is obviously not a sustainable path forward. At some point, The world's economies are going to have to realign to a flat population and will have to adapt to the demographics there of. And if humanity does not choose not to do so, at some point in the future, the choice will be made for us.
declining isn't flat.
Automation? You don't necessarily need infinite population growth, Japan and other nations with low immigration and population growth may be able to make things better than it seems. Look at corporate tax bases and number of employees in major companies. You could totally run a high income economy with fewer people and better outcomes.
Population growth is not a requirement for economic growth, it is just one of the laziest ways to move the dial up.
Population growth is not a requirement for economic growth, it is just one of the laziest ways to move the dial up.
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.
Yes, by 2100, the population might be all the way down to where it was in 1980.
Also, at some point, South Korea and North Korea may settle up, much as West Germany and East Germany did, and for much the same reasons.
Yes, by 2100, the population might be all the way down to where it was in 1980.
Also, at some point, South Korea and North Korea may settle up, much as West Germany and East Germany did, and for much the same reasons.
[deleted]
Why is the issue low birthrates and not an economic system that relies on perpetual growth? Is there a more sustainable system?
You’re assuming a lot here and utilizing an outdated view. Population growth is not necessary when you’re primarily an export-focused country such as South Korea. And more specifically when your biggest trading partner is none other than China.
One simple alternative to "massive immigration": Reunification with North Korea.
Simple is doing a lot of legwork in this sentence I think.
I'm continually amazed how this isn't #1 topic on governments' agenda across the developed world. We're looking at South Korea losing 95% of its generational cohort size in 100-year timeframe. 80% for Japan or Italy, 70% for Germany, etc. Climate change is on everyone's mind - but what's the point of solving climate change if there's barely anyone left to inherit the planet?
Black Death, Mongols, world wars, not even intentional genocides managed to inflict this level of population loss. And it's met with yawns and shrugs, as if it's unavoidable like gravity.
And no - people's desire to have children hasn't dropped all that much:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility...
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-c...
Black Death, Mongols, world wars, not even intentional genocides managed to inflict this level of population loss. And it's met with yawns and shrugs, as if it's unavoidable like gravity.
And no - people's desire to have children hasn't dropped all that much:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility...
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-c...
Barely anyone left? Africa alone is projected to have a population of 3 billion by 2100.
https://qz.com/africa/1881468/how-fast-is-africas-population...
https://qz.com/africa/1881468/how-fast-is-africas-population...
Extrapolating current trends to infinity always predicts some kind of disaster.
But current trends never continue forever. In large part because we like to avoid disasters.
But current trends never continue forever. In large part because we like to avoid disasters.
[deleted]
Why is it a tailspin? People do not have children because of over-population, except instead of this being controlled by Malthus, it is now controlled by Adam Smith's invisible hand. The market is signaling resource constraints and desires fewer humans and more robots.
I think the solution lies not in more people but in more sustainability and shift away from competitive capitalism as an economic model. I genuinely think that it's inevitable. The great challenge of the next century will climate. We're on the fence right now between a climate-induced nightmare world and a post-scarcity economy where resource competition no longer drives global conflict.
There is no reason to believe that 'immigration' can fix the native birth rates of South Koreans. This is an implicit assumption dreamt by the utterly deranged.
No, but if the problem is "we don't have enough carers to care for our elderly people" then importing carers via immigration is a quick fix.
Invent/make artificial womb. It's already feasible I think. Probably tons of money to be made. Why it's not a thing yet?
Women have many options/entertainment now and don't want to go through pregnancy especially multiple times. This coupled with fact that you have only 10 years for childbearing (before 40) and you drastically cut carrier advancement when it just started explains a lot IMO. Requiring two people to support family in XXI century feels like a scam and race to the bottom. It's mostly due to scarcity of land that you have to bid on housing (that owned by too rich people in many cases, so they literaly can manipulate market to extract rent) and all profitable activity moved to cities so you also want bw there.
Make housing cheaper => I think will happen with decentralisation of energy sources and cheaper transport (tesla). Also some family friendly social policies (china?).
I think remote work made a lot of people choose to live in houses instead and this might lead to some positive change in demography.
But the cheapest way IMO is to just make families trendy via Hollywood (instead of this homo propaganda on Netflix)
Women have many options/entertainment now and don't want to go through pregnancy especially multiple times. This coupled with fact that you have only 10 years for childbearing (before 40) and you drastically cut carrier advancement when it just started explains a lot IMO. Requiring two people to support family in XXI century feels like a scam and race to the bottom. It's mostly due to scarcity of land that you have to bid on housing (that owned by too rich people in many cases, so they literaly can manipulate market to extract rent) and all profitable activity moved to cities so you also want bw there.
Make housing cheaper => I think will happen with decentralisation of energy sources and cheaper transport (tesla). Also some family friendly social policies (china?).
I think remote work made a lot of people choose to live in houses instead and this might lead to some positive change in demography.
But the cheapest way IMO is to just make families trendy via Hollywood (instead of this homo propaganda on Netflix)
Who benefits from the artificial womb? The bearing of the child is much less of a disincentive than other factors like money, space and the ultra competitive school system we have in many Asian regions.
Women would benefit the most from artificial womb, given how strenuous bearing actually is, and all the health risks associated with it.
Lois Bujold explored this subject - and, specifically, the socioeconomic and cultural implications - thoroughly in her Vorkosigan series, although it is referred to as "uterine replicator" there. And she is a married woman with children, so it's not exactly an abstract subject matter for her.
Lois Bujold explored this subject - and, specifically, the socioeconomic and cultural implications - thoroughly in her Vorkosigan series, although it is referred to as "uterine replicator" there. And she is a married woman with children, so it's not exactly an abstract subject matter for her.
My wife is South Korean so I'm biased. But I've been to Japan and South Korea and if you're looking for one of the most modern nations in the world, I strongly recommend you go to Korea. The only comparable country I've been to is the Netherlands or maybe Denmark.
In contrast, the US and Japan seem to be somewhat falling apart with a peak in infrastructure and buildings a few decades ago. It's not that bad of course but relative to countries like South Korea and the Netherlands I think you'll agree.
Also, in my experience Korea was way more ready to handle English speakers than Japan was. I was surprised how I felt so lost in Japan not being able to read or speak Japanese. (Of course I don't expect to go to another country and be catered to. It's just that I was spoiled by Korea. And I wanted to address any reasonable concern that Japan might be friendlier for tourists than Korea.) In contrast in Korea there was a lot already in English and all the service workers I met spoke English well.
In contrast, the US and Japan seem to be somewhat falling apart with a peak in infrastructure and buildings a few decades ago. It's not that bad of course but relative to countries like South Korea and the Netherlands I think you'll agree.
Also, in my experience Korea was way more ready to handle English speakers than Japan was. I was surprised how I felt so lost in Japan not being able to read or speak Japanese. (Of course I don't expect to go to another country and be catered to. It's just that I was spoiled by Korea. And I wanted to address any reasonable concern that Japan might be friendlier for tourists than Korea.) In contrast in Korea there was a lot already in English and all the service workers I met spoke English well.
I'm sorta surprised by your statement. I've lived in Seoul, Tokyo, and NYC for various periods of my life and I'd definitely say Tokyo feels the most "modern" when you scratch beneath the surface.
For example, I'd say the basic subway system between Seoul and Tokyo are pretty similar but you also have the advantage of a vastly superior rail network that serves Greater Tokyo and the rest of Japan. KTX and SRT in Korea are improving every year but don't really compare yet. Additionally, the new subway stations in Seoul are quite nice (Line #9) but you also have really old lines (Line #1) where many of the stations are so badly maintained they feel inferior to their counterparts in Tokyo (Ginza, Hibiya).
I can't really speak to the english speaking issues in South Korea, but in Tokyo I never really had any issues even though I don't speak Japanese. Most places in Tokyo will have english menus because it's a tourist centric city. Neighborhood family owned dives probably don't speak english very well but they wouldn't in Seoul either.
The thing that makes Seoul fall short for me is the standard of building maintenance. Although things are changing, it was generally the case that for several generations of building maintenance they just expected to tear them down and rebuild. Tokyo has a similar problem, necessitated by constant building damage and updated building codes from earthquakes, but the biggest difference is that a lot of these buildings in Seoul are 10+ stories tall. Most of Tokyo's building stock is <10 stories. It's become cost prohibitive in Seoul to actually tear these buildings down and rebuild them.
One of the worst things for me is how car centric Seoul is. It's rare in Tokyo to have 3+ lane roads that aren't toll road/expressways. They're all over Seoul and the side roads are packed full of "valet" parking for restaurants that don't actually have parking lots. The entire car culture feels way more chaotic there than Tokyo. In Tokyo, you can't buy a car unless you prove you have a registered parking spot. In Seoul, you just double park your neighbor and put your phone number in case you need to move your car.
Lastly the air quality in Seoul is way worse than Tokyo. Feels like you constantly have to stay indoors for weeks during the bad "yellow dust" season.
For example, I'd say the basic subway system between Seoul and Tokyo are pretty similar but you also have the advantage of a vastly superior rail network that serves Greater Tokyo and the rest of Japan. KTX and SRT in Korea are improving every year but don't really compare yet. Additionally, the new subway stations in Seoul are quite nice (Line #9) but you also have really old lines (Line #1) where many of the stations are so badly maintained they feel inferior to their counterparts in Tokyo (Ginza, Hibiya).
I can't really speak to the english speaking issues in South Korea, but in Tokyo I never really had any issues even though I don't speak Japanese. Most places in Tokyo will have english menus because it's a tourist centric city. Neighborhood family owned dives probably don't speak english very well but they wouldn't in Seoul either.
The thing that makes Seoul fall short for me is the standard of building maintenance. Although things are changing, it was generally the case that for several generations of building maintenance they just expected to tear them down and rebuild. Tokyo has a similar problem, necessitated by constant building damage and updated building codes from earthquakes, but the biggest difference is that a lot of these buildings in Seoul are 10+ stories tall. Most of Tokyo's building stock is <10 stories. It's become cost prohibitive in Seoul to actually tear these buildings down and rebuild them.
One of the worst things for me is how car centric Seoul is. It's rare in Tokyo to have 3+ lane roads that aren't toll road/expressways. They're all over Seoul and the side roads are packed full of "valet" parking for restaurants that don't actually have parking lots. The entire car culture feels way more chaotic there than Tokyo. In Tokyo, you can't buy a car unless you prove you have a registered parking spot. In Seoul, you just double park your neighbor and put your phone number in case you need to move your car.
Lastly the air quality in Seoul is way worse than Tokyo. Feels like you constantly have to stay indoors for weeks during the bad "yellow dust" season.
Upvoted for the opposing observations.
I have taken KTX but I have not taken (non-subway) rail in Japan. The KTX train I took was similar in quality to German inter-city rail or American regional rail lines. That is to say, it wasn't that special.
The air quality issues are a huge pain for sure.
I have taken KTX but I have not taken (non-subway) rail in Japan. The KTX train I took was similar in quality to German inter-city rail or American regional rail lines. That is to say, it wasn't that special.
The air quality issues are a huge pain for sure.
I think there are pros/cons of car culture and systems in both countries.
Japan's car-ownership experience is rather hostile. Expensive tolls, Shaken inspection, and higher price tags than SK. In a way, this benefits tourists because streets are cleaner, cars are newer, and people tend to drive less.
In Korea, it's flipped. It's great place for car ownership. But from tourists POV, it's chaos.
As much as I love Japan, I'd prefer to live in Korea while visit Japan as tourist. Seoul isn't so bad once you go outside from central Seoul to new cities. Everything is more spread out, cleaner, and very modern.
Japan's car-ownership experience is rather hostile. Expensive tolls, Shaken inspection, and higher price tags than SK. In a way, this benefits tourists because streets are cleaner, cars are newer, and people tend to drive less.
In Korea, it's flipped. It's great place for car ownership. But from tourists POV, it's chaos.
As much as I love Japan, I'd prefer to live in Korea while visit Japan as tourist. Seoul isn't so bad once you go outside from central Seoul to new cities. Everything is more spread out, cleaner, and very modern.
Almost everywhere in Japan is accessible without a car. Car-ownership doesn't make sense for most people.
Within metro areas? I agree. Go outside a bit? Cars are mighty convenient.
And Japan's urbanization rate is 92%, so car ownership in Japan doesn't make sense for most people.
I've been to tons of tourist spots and onsens in Miyagi by train/shuttle bus with no issue.
In Korea, because of the high car penetration rate for young people and new families, many attractions are inaccessible without a car.
I've been to tons of tourist spots and onsens in Miyagi by train/shuttle bus with no issue.
In Korea, because of the high car penetration rate for young people and new families, many attractions are inaccessible without a car.
"Urban area" doesn't mean people don't need car for living. Maybe threshold of "urban" is too low than we think.
You're just a tourist so you may can't see everything, but didn't you saw many small/family cars run on Miyagi at trip? Sendai city in Miyagi, maybe ranked TOP 10 city for great public transport in Japan, 75% of family still buy at least a one car. Rest of the place is far worse than Miyagi for transport. Of course they buy cars becaues it makes sense.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1027885/japan-share-car-...
https://www.eidaihouse.com/support/column/334/
You're just a tourist so you may can't see everything, but didn't you saw many small/family cars run on Miyagi at trip? Sendai city in Miyagi, maybe ranked TOP 10 city for great public transport in Japan, 75% of family still buy at least a one car. Rest of the place is far worse than Miyagi for transport. Of course they buy cars becaues it makes sense.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1027885/japan-share-car-...
https://www.eidaihouse.com/support/column/334/
I lived in sendai for 3 years, and I have lived in Seoul currently for 5 years. Sendai Station has a giant underground bicycle parking, the likes of which I've never seen in Korea.
There are cars in Japan, of course. Families own one because it's convenient, of course. Also there are more cars in Japan than Korea, mostly because more people can afford it. But I'm quite sure that, at comparable income levels, Koreans own more cars per capita.
Korea has a very car-centric infrastructure, and people own massive cars, and drive recklessly, because the roads allow you to and people are used to it. Children are taught to never cross the road if they see a car, no matter if they have the right to cross or not.
I'm not saying Japan is a car-free country, of course. But car culture and car safety is a lot more reasonable.
There are cars in Japan, of course. Families own one because it's convenient, of course. Also there are more cars in Japan than Korea, mostly because more people can afford it. But I'm quite sure that, at comparable income levels, Koreans own more cars per capita.
Korea has a very car-centric infrastructure, and people own massive cars, and drive recklessly, because the roads allow you to and people are used to it. Children are taught to never cross the road if they see a car, no matter if they have the right to cross or not.
I'm not saying Japan is a car-free country, of course. But car culture and car safety is a lot more reasonable.
Totally agreed for sendai.
The yellow dust is commonly thought to come from China. It’s not good but isn’t an issue South Korea can address alone.
South Korea, Taiwan, and China all developed their infrastructure relatively recently, so it makes sense that their skyscrapers and subway systems are gleaming.
Fast forward 50 years (once the demographic collapse has fully hit Asia and Europe), and we'll see if their infrastructure continues to be so modern.
Fast forward 50 years (once the demographic collapse has fully hit Asia and Europe), and we'll see if their infrastructure continues to be so modern.
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.
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 generally unreliable. Tokyo's are always on time, very clean, pretty silent, have incredible coverage of the entire metro area especially in combination with the bus networks (which also are efficient, clean, and don't hold lower-class stigma), and are super fast.
The lines that aren't underground in NYC tend to be depressing under the tracks and pretty unlivable around them, leading to tons of urban blight; the over-ground lines in Tokyo, thanks to their thoughtful design and reasonable noise level, are often full of shops, restaurants, bars, and walking paths that people actually use, positively contributing to their neighborhoods.
The main thing that feels "old" about Tokyo's trains is just that they look like they were decorated a long time ago or are kinda plain; but from a functional perspective they outclass practically any system on the planet, especially when taking into account the integration into the broader Shinkansen network. They have the best safety record of any rail system anywhere and are economically sustaining. The only major complaint I have is that it's relatively expensive fare-wise, especially considering transfers between different rail companies' lines/buses.
Also, it's worth checking out the pre-Olympics revamp of some lines - for instance Ginza Line (Shibuya station especially) and Odakyu Line (Setagaya Daita-Shimokitazawa in particular) got a lot of station and neighborhood renovations that give them that sparkly new shine.
Aside, I've also lived in Shanghai before - the rail network in China is something to watch, their high speed rail stations and urban networks are very nice as of late, although they need more express lines within city limits (Shanghai/Beijing are enormous so crossing the city by rail takes a long time).
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 generally unreliable. Tokyo's are always on time, very clean, pretty silent, have incredible coverage of the entire metro area especially in combination with the bus networks (which also are efficient, clean, and don't hold lower-class stigma), and are super fast.
The lines that aren't underground in NYC tend to be depressing under the tracks and pretty unlivable around them, leading to tons of urban blight; the over-ground lines in Tokyo, thanks to their thoughtful design and reasonable noise level, are often full of shops, restaurants, bars, and walking paths that people actually use, positively contributing to their neighborhoods.
The main thing that feels "old" about Tokyo's trains is just that they look like they were decorated a long time ago or are kinda plain; but from a functional perspective they outclass practically any system on the planet, especially when taking into account the integration into the broader Shinkansen network. They have the best safety record of any rail system anywhere and are economically sustaining. The only major complaint I have is that it's relatively expensive fare-wise, especially considering transfers between different rail companies' lines/buses.
Also, it's worth checking out the pre-Olympics revamp of some lines - for instance Ginza Line (Shibuya station especially) and Odakyu Line (Setagaya Daita-Shimokitazawa in particular) got a lot of station and neighborhood renovations that give them that sparkly new shine.
Aside, I've also lived in Shanghai before - the rail network in China is something to watch, their high speed rail stations and urban networks are very nice as of late, although they need more express lines within city limits (Shanghai/Beijing are enormous so crossing the city by rail takes a long time).
I actually love the rugged but high quality stainless steel look of Japanese trains. I think Starship might bring this look back into fashion. Functional and extremely durable. Airstream caravans are another example of it and they’re beloved too.
I have not been to Japan, but I have read several fairly detailed accounts coming from multiple travel bloggers.
One thing they all pointed out is that Japan is full of what by our standards would be considered semi-antique technology like trolleys from the 1950s and computers and fax machines from the 1990s, that are all still being used, and maintained in really good condition.
Living in Tokyo, do you notice this as well? I assume this sort of commitment to maintenance / "orderliness" must be cultural?
What do the really bad parts of Tokyo look like?
One thing they all pointed out is that Japan is full of what by our standards would be considered semi-antique technology like trolleys from the 1950s and computers and fax machines from the 1990s, that are all still being used, and maintained in really good condition.
Living in Tokyo, do you notice this as well? I assume this sort of commitment to maintenance / "orderliness" must be cultural?
What do the really bad parts of Tokyo look like?
Old technologies do stay in use for a long time, and while it’s annoying to need to send a fax occasionally, they’ve made it brilliantly easy to do by providing fax services for < $0.50 in any convenience store in the city (there are like 50,000+ of those). Generally don’t need to though and for the most part I’m using more advanced technology than in the USA (like the transit payment cards, which with Japan’s recent cashless push are accepted in most stores).
Ikebukuro is the nearest place to where I live that has a reputation for being “dangerous”, with a homeless population and a large yakuza-dominated nightlife district, but by that I mean there’s like 20 harmless old drunk men around in the plaza sitting around, and a high concentration of sex shops - not dangerous at all though by foreign standards (small women can still feel safe walking around at 3am if they felt like it).
Ikebukuro is the nearest place to where I live that has a reputation for being “dangerous”, with a homeless population and a large yakuza-dominated nightlife district, but by that I mean there’s like 20 harmless old drunk men around in the plaza sitting around, and a high concentration of sex shops - not dangerous at all though by foreign standards (small women can still feel safe walking around at 3am if they felt like it).
There are no really bad parts of Tokyo. One of most economically deprived areas, Minami-Senju/Minowa, is popular with backpackers and doesn't really look much different from anywhere else in suburban Tokyo to the untrained eye. (The trained eye will spot quite a few aging day laborers drowning their sorrows in cheap sake and a lot of down-market brothels though.)
[deleted]
> But Tokyo infrastructure felt basically as old as NYC infrastructure to me
In part because it is, most of Tokyo's major subway lines were built in the 1960s to 1970s. Ginza line was built before WW1 and was the first subway in Asia.
The highways were all built soon after the war too.
Thus part of the issue is age. Japan stabilized much sooner than Korea and built up faster.
A bigger component though is Japan's preference to build new then let sit. Maintenance for visual reasons is rare. Thus combined with the high humidity stuff rusts and molds. You can see rust on iron beams waiting at the JR platform in Shibuya! Literal rust on one of the most high traffic stations in the world with gleaming skyscrappers as your backdrop.
In part Japan feels like a retired country. All the heavy lifting has been done. The mortgage paid. I joke with friends we are young people in an old country. Everything around us is going into the night, and we are just now waking up.
I like it, but I can see why others would prefer a newer country.
In part because it is, most of Tokyo's major subway lines were built in the 1960s to 1970s. Ginza line was built before WW1 and was the first subway in Asia.
The highways were all built soon after the war too.
Thus part of the issue is age. Japan stabilized much sooner than Korea and built up faster.
A bigger component though is Japan's preference to build new then let sit. Maintenance for visual reasons is rare. Thus combined with the high humidity stuff rusts and molds. You can see rust on iron beams waiting at the JR platform in Shibuya! Literal rust on one of the most high traffic stations in the world with gleaming skyscrappers as your backdrop.
In part Japan feels like a retired country. All the heavy lifting has been done. The mortgage paid. I joke with friends we are young people in an old country. Everything around us is going into the night, and we are just now waking up.
I like it, but I can see why others would prefer a newer country.
Thanks for the perspective! I also don't mean to say one is better or worse. I think Tokyo, Seoul, and NYC are awesome. I've lived in NYC for the past 5 years and it's by far my favorite city in the US.
> All of Asia started from scratch after WW2 and Korea was only 10 years behind Japan due to their war.
The Seoul subway [1] opened its first line in the mid-1970s (8km of line 1). Most of their subway growth opened in 1995 and later, a huge amount post-2000.
The first Tokyo subway line [2][3] opened in 1927, with only 3 new lines since the late 1970s (and barely even any line extensions in the 2000s)
It feels newer in SK because it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Metropolitan_Subway
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toei_Subway
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro
The Seoul subway [1] opened its first line in the mid-1970s (8km of line 1). Most of their subway growth opened in 1995 and later, a huge amount post-2000.
The first Tokyo subway line [2][3] opened in 1927, with only 3 new lines since the late 1970s (and barely even any line extensions in the 2000s)
It feels newer in SK because it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Metropolitan_Subway
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toei_Subway
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metro
> Also, in my experience Korea was way more ready to handle English speakers than Japan was.
One of the key problems is that Japan has a huge domestic market and does not 'need' English to survive. Korea, on the other hand, is a lot more dependent on its external connections and a push for better English proficiency makes a lot of sense.
One of the key problems is that Japan has a huge domestic market and does not 'need' English to survive. Korea, on the other hand, is a lot more dependent on its external connections and a push for better English proficiency makes a lot of sense.
Having visited all the countries mentioned within the last few years - definitely agree. Seoul is an incredible, modern city, unlike any other. Tokyo largely feels like it was frozen in time.
Parts of Amsterdam have that sort of feel, but it’s definitely more mixed. Not crumbling, but old and making do since it’s fine.
Parts of Amsterdam have that sort of feel, but it’s definitely more mixed. Not crumbling, but old and making do since it’s fine.
> Tokyo largely feels like it was frozen in time.
Economically, Japan has been in stagnation since the late 80s.
Economically, Japan has been in stagnation since the late 80s.
Economically, Japan's GDP per capita (measured in 2010 US$) was 39,240 in 1991 and grew to 49,000 in 2019, a 25% increase. Yes, it's slower growth than before, but slow growth is still growth, not stagnation. For comparison, New Zealand was at 38,345 in 2019: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2020... (also threw in the graph for South Korea)
During that time the USD has suffered around 88% inflation measures by CPI, so in real terms that implies they're going backwards.
When my parents went to Japan in the eighties they were shocked that coffee in Tokyo was 4 times as expensive as in Germany. When I visited in 2016 I was similarly shocked that a vending machine Coca Cola costs half of what it costs in Germany. Japan's deflation has led the country to be very affordable.
That's inflation in US prices. It may not be transferrable to another country, where various things cost more/less, and rise/fall differently through the years.
> stagnating
That's a nice way to put it, it's been actually decreasing clearly over time since 1989, with ups and downs on the way: https://mebfaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/japan.jpg
That's a nice way to put it, it's been actually decreasing clearly over time since 1989, with ups and downs on the way: https://mebfaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/japan.jpg
What is the y axis?
That chart is a crude snapshot of the Nikkei 225 from 1990 to 2009. Since then it's rebounded by quite a bit although it's still quite a bit under its Dec 1989 peak. But of course a stock market index isn't the full economy, so I would disagree that this chart by itself constitutes proof that Japan is stagnating.
Chart source: https://mebfaber.com/2009/12/20/japan-the-us-and-the-lost-de...
Chart source: https://mebfaber.com/2009/12/20/japan-the-us-and-the-lost-de...
It has been in stagnation since the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades_(Japan)
I don't think Amsterdam is what is meant by the Netherlands.
Amsterdam is basically a super old village built in a swamp that it interesting for its history, architecture, culture, and so on. Or for the red light district and weed shops, if you prefer that. It's not a display of infrastructure.
The Netherlands has some of the best developed infrastructure nation-wide: roads, railways, and most famously its massive water management systems, as half the country is below sea level.
It is also very well developed economically (punching far above its tiny weight), technically, and socially (hybrid welfare system).
By comparison, many parts of the US feel like a 3rd world country.
Amsterdam is basically a super old village built in a swamp that it interesting for its history, architecture, culture, and so on. Or for the red light district and weed shops, if you prefer that. It's not a display of infrastructure.
The Netherlands has some of the best developed infrastructure nation-wide: roads, railways, and most famously its massive water management systems, as half the country is below sea level.
It is also very well developed economically (punching far above its tiny weight), technically, and socially (hybrid welfare system).
By comparison, many parts of the US feel like a 3rd world country.
"well developed economically (punching far above its tiny weight)"
I am being a nitpicker here, but I think there is no correlation between country size and level of economic development. Many of the richest polities in the world are quite small. Places like Singapore & HK come to mind.
I think bigger countries, even if they are "1st world," can sometimes look rather rough, because there is a lot of variation between different regions / municipalities / neighborhoods. It can be surreal sometimes, but it is what it is.
I am being a nitpicker here, but I think there is no correlation between country size and level of economic development. Many of the richest polities in the world are quite small. Places like Singapore & HK come to mind.
I think bigger countries, even if they are "1st world," can sometimes look rather rough, because there is a lot of variation between different regions / municipalities / neighborhoods. It can be surreal sometimes, but it is what it is.
I should perhaps clarify that it's not just the level of economic development, rather specifically it's scale.
For example, would you expect the Netherlands, smaller than a typical US state, to be the world's #2 food exporter? From a tiny country that is also extremely densely populated?
To produce a number of mega corporations like Unilever, Shell (partly dutch), Philips, Heineken, the like...and this doesn't even begin to describe lesser known companies in extremely heavy transport, water management, mega scale infrastructure.
Combined with the extremely favorable location of being a distribution hub (Rotterdam), indeed similar to Singapore.
So I basically agree, it doesn't require a large country to produce a lot of economic output. Yet I'd still say the food export fact is a crazy one, as you would expect that to very much be surface-related.
For example, would you expect the Netherlands, smaller than a typical US state, to be the world's #2 food exporter? From a tiny country that is also extremely densely populated?
To produce a number of mega corporations like Unilever, Shell (partly dutch), Philips, Heineken, the like...and this doesn't even begin to describe lesser known companies in extremely heavy transport, water management, mega scale infrastructure.
Combined with the extremely favorable location of being a distribution hub (Rotterdam), indeed similar to Singapore.
So I basically agree, it doesn't require a large country to produce a lot of economic output. Yet I'd still say the food export fact is a crazy one, as you would expect that to very much be surface-related.
> Yet I'd still say the food export fact is a crazy one, as you would expect that to very much be surface-related.
I would expect food production to be area-related. Rotterdam is Europe's busiest seaport, and one of the busiest seaports in the world, so I'm not the least bit surprised that the Netherlands is one of the world's top food exporters.
I would expect food production to be area-related. Rotterdam is Europe's busiest seaport, and one of the busiest seaports in the world, so I'm not the least bit surprised that the Netherlands is one of the world's top food exporters.
Perhaps you mean to imply that the bulk of this export is just throughput or transport. A lot of it is real produce, coming from the country itself:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/holland-...
Which of course is surface-related, so the remarkable/surprising fact is the intensity of it, and the stunning yields.
"Feeding the world" from a very small surface and with very little human labor is quite a marvel. I think any farmer, from any other country in the world, will have their minds blown when they see it with their own eyes.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/holland-...
Which of course is surface-related, so the remarkable/surprising fact is the intensity of it, and the stunning yields.
"Feeding the world" from a very small surface and with very little human labor is quite a marvel. I think any farmer, from any other country in the world, will have their minds blown when they see it with their own eyes.
> By comparison, many parts of the US feel like a 3rd world country.
That's because you're comparing small nations to a nation that is better compared to the EU in size and diversity. The EU has dozens of third-world ghetto zones and the bottom 10% of the EU is exceptionally poor by first world standards.
The poorest areas of France also look like and function like the third-world, the quasi ghettos on the outskirts of eg Paris. It's more rare for large nations to not suffer from such poverty problems, and few accomplish that (Germany and Japan get close).
The largest population nations: Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, China, India, US, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico
Do I need to point out the condition of the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 in most of those nations?
Ever read up on how the bottom quarter in Russia - Europe's largest nation by population - are faring the past decade (it's beyond dire, to put it politely)?
It's a small miracle the US isn't far worse off than it is.
That's because you're comparing small nations to a nation that is better compared to the EU in size and diversity. The EU has dozens of third-world ghetto zones and the bottom 10% of the EU is exceptionally poor by first world standards.
The poorest areas of France also look like and function like the third-world, the quasi ghettos on the outskirts of eg Paris. It's more rare for large nations to not suffer from such poverty problems, and few accomplish that (Germany and Japan get close).
The largest population nations: Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, China, India, US, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico
Do I need to point out the condition of the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 in most of those nations?
Ever read up on how the bottom quarter in Russia - Europe's largest nation by population - are faring the past decade (it's beyond dire, to put it politely)?
It's a small miracle the US isn't far worse off than it is.
The topic was "most modern" or advanced nations, not some super vague all-round comparison like you're suggesting.
> Also, in my experience Korea was way more ready to handle English speakers than Japan was.
In Seoul yes, but not necessarily other places, in my experience. I had really confusing experience trying to sleep over in a spa in Busan. The only English phrase we got out of them was "Robot steal your phone". Admittedly this is not a place tourists would generally go though. We got recommended doing it by Korean friends and our hostel host in Seoul helped us find the place.
In Japan I experienced a few times that a Japanese person that could speak english would come over to help me if I was staring at something (map, ATM machine) in confusion for a while. Didn't experience that in South Korea even though I stayed there longer.
I agree that South Korea feels extremely modern.. but not much less than Japan. I wonder if it has something to do with how recently the infrastructure was built. Maybe South Korea is just at that perfect stage now where nothing is too old, and yet they've managed to improve/refurbish almost everything. I've noticed Taiwan is a mixed bag. Some places feels insanely modern, while there's still big areas with a lot of old construction. But then those areas tends to be the ones with the most charm and the best night markets.
In Seoul yes, but not necessarily other places, in my experience. I had really confusing experience trying to sleep over in a spa in Busan. The only English phrase we got out of them was "Robot steal your phone". Admittedly this is not a place tourists would generally go though. We got recommended doing it by Korean friends and our hostel host in Seoul helped us find the place.
In Japan I experienced a few times that a Japanese person that could speak english would come over to help me if I was staring at something (map, ATM machine) in confusion for a while. Didn't experience that in South Korea even though I stayed there longer.
I agree that South Korea feels extremely modern.. but not much less than Japan. I wonder if it has something to do with how recently the infrastructure was built. Maybe South Korea is just at that perfect stage now where nothing is too old, and yet they've managed to improve/refurbish almost everything. I've noticed Taiwan is a mixed bag. Some places feels insanely modern, while there's still big areas with a lot of old construction. But then those areas tends to be the ones with the most charm and the best night markets.
China and Taiwan had been compared a lot. China's cities look much newer than Taiwan cities. But people's general way of carrying themselves differs a lot. Technological advances also varies.
If your "modern country" means "modern buildings", then I can agree. But if you're saying people, culture, art, technology of South Korea is more "modern" than other countries, I would disagree.
If your "modern country" means "modern buildings", then I can agree. But if you're saying people, culture, art, technology of South Korea is more "modern" than other countries, I would disagree.
> My wife is South Korean so I'm biased. But I've been to Japan and South Korea and if you're looking for one of the most modern nations in the world, I strongly recommend you go to Korea. The only comparable country I've been to is the Netherlands or maybe Denmark.
Have you been to Singapore?
Have you been to Singapore?
Singapore has 1/10th the population of South Korea, and 1/20th the population of Japan.
Singapore has less than 1% of South Korea's land mass, which is 25% of Japan.
It's not a fair comparison on the scale of the infrastructure.
Singapore has less than 1% of South Korea's land mass, which is 25% of Japan.
It's not a fair comparison on the scale of the infrastructure.
No I have not but I agree this would probably make the list. Maybe some of the Gulf city-states too but I haven't explored them very much.
I felt the same way about Japan when I first visited it in the late 1990s. Japan has stagnated badly since then, and due to the demographic crunch, it's essentially certain that Seoul in 2040 will look like Tokyo in 2020. (Unless North Korea transforms it into a smoking crater in the ground, that is, since the entire city is within artillery range of the border.)
Also, in my experience, Koreans speak even less English than the Japanese do. Seoul is still OK, maybe Busan, but out in the sticks there's zero signage and very few speakers.
Also, in my experience, Koreans speak even less English than the Japanese do. Seoul is still OK, maybe Busan, but out in the sticks there's zero signage and very few speakers.
Not to discount your experience at all, but I have been outside of Seoul too and I still didn't feel too overwhelmed. Specifically I spent a bit of time in Bundang (a suburb of Seoul), Busan and Jeju.
One more massive advantage Korean has over Japanese is that Korean has a fairly simple alphabet so you can read and pronounce words after only a little practice.
In contrast, it takes quite a while to be able to read Japanese with their three writing systems and Kanji in particular.
One more massive advantage Korean has over Japanese is that Korean has a fairly simple alphabet so you can read and pronounce words after only a little practice.
In contrast, it takes quite a while to be able to read Japanese with their three writing systems and Kanji in particular.
> In contrast, it takes quite a while to be able to read Japanese with their three writing systems and Kanji in particular.
On the other hand, if you can read Chinese.. then reading signage in Japan is like having half Chinese half weird squiggly stuff but the Chinese half would still mostly make out most of the sense.
On the other hand, if you can read Chinese.. then reading signage in Japan is like having half Chinese half weird squiggly stuff but the Chinese half would still mostly make out most of the sense.
Most modern how?
Is everything just recently built or actually designed with modern principles in mind that will still feel relevant a decade down the road?
I’m no researcher of any thing but the casual impression I’ve gotten from reading here and there over the years is that South Korea has plenty of problems, social and otherwise, and some of them pretty archaic and morbid (like idols collapsing on stage but nobody helping them)
Is everything just recently built or actually designed with modern principles in mind that will still feel relevant a decade down the road?
I’m no researcher of any thing but the casual impression I’ve gotten from reading here and there over the years is that South Korea has plenty of problems, social and otherwise, and some of them pretty archaic and morbid (like idols collapsing on stage but nobody helping them)
The trains running in the subways are much newer, cleaner, and wider than the ones in NYC or Tokyo or Paris or London (based on my own observation).
They also continually build out entirely new rapid lines like the Bundang express line which takes you from a suburb of Seoul to the center of Gangnam (a major district) in 15 minutes.
Their buildings are also mostly new. It seems like every decade or two Koreans demolish older buildings and replace them with new ones. Whereas the US and Japan seem more often to keep old buildings around for much longer (and don't clean them).
The cars on the street in Seoul were also newer than the ones I saw in Japan (although similar in age to NYC). For example the taxis in Japan look like 80s BMWs. They look very cool for that reason but also seem pretty old.
Finally in Japan there's a lot still done by cash and weird single-purpose ticket machines. It would be a hardware hackers dream because of the variety and number of ticketing machines everywhere.
But in contrast Korea has gone almost totally cashless everywhere or so it seems. You just "tap" with your phone. The US is getting there, and maybe Japan is now too since it's been a few years since I was last there.
I wrote a bit more about this a while ago (and included pics) here: https://notes.eatonphil.com/on-nyc-tokyo-and-seoul.html.
They also continually build out entirely new rapid lines like the Bundang express line which takes you from a suburb of Seoul to the center of Gangnam (a major district) in 15 minutes.
Their buildings are also mostly new. It seems like every decade or two Koreans demolish older buildings and replace them with new ones. Whereas the US and Japan seem more often to keep old buildings around for much longer (and don't clean them).
The cars on the street in Seoul were also newer than the ones I saw in Japan (although similar in age to NYC). For example the taxis in Japan look like 80s BMWs. They look very cool for that reason but also seem pretty old.
Finally in Japan there's a lot still done by cash and weird single-purpose ticket machines. It would be a hardware hackers dream because of the variety and number of ticketing machines everywhere.
But in contrast Korea has gone almost totally cashless everywhere or so it seems. You just "tap" with your phone. The US is getting there, and maybe Japan is now too since it's been a few years since I was last there.
I wrote a bit more about this a while ago (and included pics) here: https://notes.eatonphil.com/on-nyc-tokyo-and-seoul.html.
Japan has Apple Pay Suica that worked on my US iPhone, Korea required me to keep a physical T-money card at all times.
This may change like next year but Japan has had a 5 year head start. https://www.imore.com/apple-pay-coming-korea-part-k-new-deal...
Japan has updated their taxis since 2017 - roll out has been slow but I've rode in them multiple times as a tourist since then. https://global.toyota/en/jpntaxi/
I love Seoul for it's nightlife/cheaper restaurants, but I can't help but notice that it once tried to be an urban sprawling American city. It's just not as pedestrian friendly as Japanese cities, and I find myself taking more cabs than I would in Tokyo despite the Seoul metro being world class.
The cheonggyecheong stream used to be a disgusting urban highway and I'm sure there are plenty more. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/cheon...
This may change like next year but Japan has had a 5 year head start. https://www.imore.com/apple-pay-coming-korea-part-k-new-deal...
Japan has updated their taxis since 2017 - roll out has been slow but I've rode in them multiple times as a tourist since then. https://global.toyota/en/jpntaxi/
I love Seoul for it's nightlife/cheaper restaurants, but I can't help but notice that it once tried to be an urban sprawling American city. It's just not as pedestrian friendly as Japanese cities, and I find myself taking more cabs than I would in Tokyo despite the Seoul metro being world class.
The cheonggyecheong stream used to be a disgusting urban highway and I'm sure there are plenty more. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/cheon...
I moved to Norway, been living here for about a month now. I haven't see Norwegian money even once. I think I've seen one ATM. Granted a month is not a lot of time, but it's startlingly cashless.
The only annoying thing so far is that my US based Visa card just can't be processed in some places even if Visa is advertised. When I called Chase to see if it was a security thing, they said they didn't even see the charge attempted, and said there are 2 different kinds of credit processing in Europe? I haven't done any research into that yet, though. Overall, I just bring my phone and pay for everything with my iPhone.
The only annoying thing so far is that my US based Visa card just can't be processed in some places even if Visa is advertised. When I called Chase to see if it was a security thing, they said they didn't even see the charge attempted, and said there are 2 different kinds of credit processing in Europe? I haven't done any research into that yet, though. Overall, I just bring my phone and pay for everything with my iPhone.
Norway is definitely not cashless and there are plenty of ATMs around. That said, stores have been requesting people not use cash during covid, so that plays a big role. You can't miss the cash registers in stores, though.
If your card is a debit card, you might have to talk to the cashier about specifically setting the reader for a credit card transaction. Debit cards do run through a separate process, and your US card would fail. But keep in mind that the same thing happens with Norwegian cards in the US - debit cards need to be run as credit otherwise they'll fail.
If your card is a debit card, you might have to talk to the cashier about specifically setting the reader for a credit card transaction. Debit cards do run through a separate process, and your US card would fail. But keep in mind that the same thing happens with Norwegian cards in the US - debit cards need to be run as credit otherwise they'll fail.
It's a Chase credit card, not a debit card. I'm sure it's different everywhere, but in the Stavanger area there aren't many ATMs, and I still don't know what cash looks like!
EDIT: To be more clear, this is coming from the US.
EDIT: To be more clear, this is coming from the US.
> The trains running in the subways are much newer, cleaner, and wider than the ones in NYC or Tokyo or Paris or London (based on my own observation).
One of the complaints I had from my SK friend is that other subway platforms don't have safety walls
> Finally in Japan there's a lot still done by cash and weird single-purpose ticket machines. It would be a hardware hackers dream because of the variety and number of ticketing machines everywhere.
Are they connected to the internet?
One of the complaints I had from my SK friend is that other subway platforms don't have safety walls
> Finally in Japan there's a lot still done by cash and weird single-purpose ticket machines. It would be a hardware hackers dream because of the variety and number of ticketing machines everywhere.
Are they connected to the internet?
I think Tokyo has this too but I agree. It seems insane to go on every other subway in the world that doesn't have this.
For NYC I've read that it's complicated: https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/mta-says-subway-shove-preventi....
For NYC I've read that it's complicated: https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/mta-says-subway-shove-preventi....
> I think Tokyo has this too but I agree.
Yes, but it's not common. I live here. Maybe in certain wards that have more international residents, such as Minato.
Yes, but it's not common. I live here. Maybe in certain wards that have more international residents, such as Minato.
> Are they connected to the internet?
Sorry I didn't mean that in the sense of "cracking" but just that people who are into hardware would find it awesome that there's so much use of electronic hardware in Japan.
Sorry I didn't mean that in the sense of "cracking" but just that people who are into hardware would find it awesome that there's so much use of electronic hardware in Japan.
So most of those things amount to being “mostly new” and made recently, an advantage which will be lost until they keep replacing and rebuilding them.
Au contraire, it's the _ability_ to make changes and build new things in an existing society that is so impressive. The US (let's say NYC specifically) cannot build a lot of new core infrastructure like fast subways because it's expensive and difficult to get the home owners and community on board.
Seoul the city and metro area are both more populous than NYC. And yet you see them rapidly pivoting to fast new lines like this Bundang line. You see them demolishing old buildings and building new ones. You see them switching their entire payment system to digital-first.
On reflection I think this is mostly enabled because 50M is still a small-ish population and the country is fairly culturally homogenous. Combine that with a desire to compete with their bigger neighbors (Japan, China, the US, etc.).
I think Korea (like smaller countries in Europe) has a pretty unique ability to pivot existing society into new technology.
Seoul the city and metro area are both more populous than NYC. And yet you see them rapidly pivoting to fast new lines like this Bundang line. You see them demolishing old buildings and building new ones. You see them switching their entire payment system to digital-first.
On reflection I think this is mostly enabled because 50M is still a small-ish population and the country is fairly culturally homogenous. Combine that with a desire to compete with their bigger neighbors (Japan, China, the US, etc.).
I think Korea (like smaller countries in Europe) has a pretty unique ability to pivot existing society into new technology.
"South Korea has plenty of problems, social and otherwise"
So does the US, and Japan, and ... basically every country. Each country is going to have pros and cons. Talking with my Korean friends, their perspective is that the US also has plenty of problems, social and otherwise. Are they wrong? And we've had discussions around e.g. why US cops are going around killing US citizens, etc.
The pros for Korea for me include hospitable people, great food, universal healthcare, and fantastic public transportation (you can get around basically the entire country via bus/metro/trains with a unified T-Money card). I also felt a sense of unity that I don't often feel in the US.
Some cons would include a work culture around working insane hours and compulsory drinking. Those are changing with the current generation though. Schooling is extremely competitive since everyone is trying to get into a handful of colleges in order to have career prospects with the large conglomerations. And having to worry about the air quality index is annoying from my US perspective.
So does the US, and Japan, and ... basically every country. Each country is going to have pros and cons. Talking with my Korean friends, their perspective is that the US also has plenty of problems, social and otherwise. Are they wrong? And we've had discussions around e.g. why US cops are going around killing US citizens, etc.
The pros for Korea for me include hospitable people, great food, universal healthcare, and fantastic public transportation (you can get around basically the entire country via bus/metro/trains with a unified T-Money card). I also felt a sense of unity that I don't often feel in the US.
Some cons would include a work culture around working insane hours and compulsory drinking. Those are changing with the current generation though. Schooling is extremely competitive since everyone is trying to get into a handful of colleges in order to have career prospects with the large conglomerations. And having to worry about the air quality index is annoying from my US perspective.
> South Korea has plenty of problems, social
Social problems to what cultural viewpoint?
Social problems to what cultural viewpoint?
"Hell Joseon" is one I can think of. The idea is that it's too expensive and competitive to have kids and a successful career/life anymore. It seems (from my totally naive outsider view) that a lot of young Koreans feel very depressed about their options.
"Indeed, South Korea is the only country that successfully made its transition from a former colony to an advanced economy."
This is not right. Each of the following meet the same criteria, including the author's caveats - Taiwan (also Japan), Greece (Ottoman), Finland (Swedes), Ireland (British), numerous Central European nations (Soviet Union). Some others that are debatable - Cyprus, Malta, Israel, Singapore, Chile. At the time of their handovers, Hong Kong and Macau would each have met the definition.
This is not right. Each of the following meet the same criteria, including the author's caveats - Taiwan (also Japan), Greece (Ottoman), Finland (Swedes), Ireland (British), numerous Central European nations (Soviet Union). Some others that are debatable - Cyprus, Malta, Israel, Singapore, Chile. At the time of their handovers, Hong Kong and Macau would each have met the definition.
> One could say that Australia or Canada, along with the United States, used to be a colony. Nonetheless, what is distinct about South Korea is the fact that it was colonized by former imperial Japan by coercion
They say this and then move on. The distinct thing is that it was Imperial Japan rather than Imperial England? I’m not saying those empires were similar, but it seems to me that they made the distinction just so they could ignore the aforementioned countries.
They say this and then move on. The distinct thing is that it was Imperial Japan rather than Imperial England? I’m not saying those empires were similar, but it seems to me that they made the distinction just so they could ignore the aforementioned countries.
And Taiwan is ignored because the UN doesn't even consider it a country.
> South Korea’s rise to a middle power status comes without much historical baggage
The kingdom of Joseon was annexed entirely by Japan in 1905. Modern Korea (nevermind the North/South prefix) would not exist had the US not enter WWII. The 35-years under Japan is a major flashpoint in Japan-Korea relation, it's a joke that the thing that unites North and South is their common hatred of Japan. I'm surprised there's not a more nationalistic jingoistic attitude from South Korea, given their economic state today. Historians agree that the costly outcome of the Russo-Japanese war led to the rise of militaristic Japan and their entry into WWII.
The kingdom of Joseon was annexed entirely by Japan in 1905. Modern Korea (nevermind the North/South prefix) would not exist had the US not enter WWII. The 35-years under Japan is a major flashpoint in Japan-Korea relation, it's a joke that the thing that unites North and South is their common hatred of Japan. I'm surprised there's not a more nationalistic jingoistic attitude from South Korea, given their economic state today. Historians agree that the costly outcome of the Russo-Japanese war led to the rise of militaristic Japan and their entry into WWII.
The article seems to be saying that since Korea never conquered and/or colonized other states, there's less EMOTIONAL baggage, allowing Korean culture to spread more easily.
I’m sure the US military presence and support plays a big part in keeping the lid on major conflict between South Korea and Japan. There is significant historical baggage from Japan colonizing Korea.
> Historians agree that the costly outcome of the Russo-Japanese war led to the rise of militaristic Japan and their entry into WWII.
There was an awful lot going on in Japan during the Taishou era tho.
There was an awful lot going on in Japan during the Taishou era tho.
There are many news between Korea and Japan makes nationalism battle. Latest one makes Japanese rage is this. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/skorea-team-scr...
Their "screening" performing is unscientific (use air dosimeter for food, completely nonsense) so they are blamed because it seems to racism.
Their "screening" performing is unscientific (use air dosimeter for food, completely nonsense) so they are blamed because it seems to racism.
The thing is ... complicated.
America defeated Japan in WW2, leading to the liberation of Korea, but it was immediately followed by the US and the Soviet dividing the country in half. To make matters more complicated, the US backed a right-wing former independence fighter, who turned out to be a corrupt asshole who rolled in the same bed with national traitors (those who had worked for Japan under occupation). Because America now needed a strong military presence to fight the cold war, it also pushed Korea to be more friendly with Japan.
The end result is that, in Korea, the "right wing" is friendlier toward the US and Japan, while the "left wing" tends to be more nationalistic (i.e., wanting a unified Korea) and hostile toward Japan. (Of course, even this is a gross simplification ...)
America defeated Japan in WW2, leading to the liberation of Korea, but it was immediately followed by the US and the Soviet dividing the country in half. To make matters more complicated, the US backed a right-wing former independence fighter, who turned out to be a corrupt asshole who rolled in the same bed with national traitors (those who had worked for Japan under occupation). Because America now needed a strong military presence to fight the cold war, it also pushed Korea to be more friendly with Japan.
The end result is that, in Korea, the "right wing" is friendlier toward the US and Japan, while the "left wing" tends to be more nationalistic (i.e., wanting a unified Korea) and hostile toward Japan. (Of course, even this is a gross simplification ...)
The thing is super complicated! The US under SecDef William Howard Taft backed the Japanese annexation of Korea (tacitly, as it didn't do anything in protest) in return for Japan not raising a row over the US acquiring The Phillipines, during the Spanish-American war. Everybody is retconning history. Anyhow, the point is, it's a reach to say Korea's history has little historical baggage. Why is it not a poor, angry, belligerent nation state whose chief export is "freedom fighters" with massive chip on shoulder, as opposed to the technical, democratic state it is right now.
Err... I don't think your second point necessarily follows the first point. For a country to become "angry an belligerent, with massive chip on shoulder," it needs (1) angry, desperate people, and (2) someone who would gain politically by fanning the hatred (often in a self-reinforcing cycle).
I think the anti-Japanese sentiment didn't really took off because, once you start looking into the matter, you'd rapidly realize that half of the country's ruling class was national traitors, at which point the question will become strictly verboten. By the time the country became democratic enough so that people could actually raise these questions, there was no point in becoming a "freedom fighter." Sure, everybody loves to hate Japan (especially when there's a soccer match), but nobody with half a brain would want to, say, visit Tokyo and blow up stuff ... it makes zero sense!
I think the anti-Japanese sentiment didn't really took off because, once you start looking into the matter, you'd rapidly realize that half of the country's ruling class was national traitors, at which point the question will become strictly verboten. By the time the country became democratic enough so that people could actually raise these questions, there was no point in becoming a "freedom fighter." Sure, everybody loves to hate Japan (especially when there's a soccer match), but nobody with half a brain would want to, say, visit Tokyo and blow up stuff ... it makes zero sense!
You're right, thanks for the nuanced view. I guess my impression here is that modern Korea, with its own cultural identity: dress, food, language, literature, history ... would not have been if the US hadn't entered WWII. I don't mean to create indebtors, it's an observation on how a country+culture could survive or disappear on a turn. And given what tenuous a beginning it had, it's amazing that South Korea is the entity it is now.
Well, it's fun to speculate about "what if" - East Asia would look very different if the US had never entered the war, but I don't think the Korean culture would have just disappeared (not sure if that's what you mean).
Do you know Korean has more speakers than Italian? It's very hard to eliminate the identity of dozens of millions of people, and Japan was definitely not planning to kill off Koreans even at the height of its madness. We enjoyed the dubious honor of being the "secondary citizen", close enough to be "civilized" (= assimilated) into the Japanese culture, unlike those other, savage Asians. "内鮮一体", as the Japanese Empire said: "The inland (Japan) and Chosen (Korea) are one body."
I think the "worst case" result would have been something like Brittany or Scotland, having a shared identity but largely becoming a part of a bigger, dominant culture.
Do you know Korean has more speakers than Italian? It's very hard to eliminate the identity of dozens of millions of people, and Japan was definitely not planning to kill off Koreans even at the height of its madness. We enjoyed the dubious honor of being the "secondary citizen", close enough to be "civilized" (= assimilated) into the Japanese culture, unlike those other, savage Asians. "内鮮一体", as the Japanese Empire said: "The inland (Japan) and Chosen (Korea) are one body."
I think the "worst case" result would have been something like Brittany or Scotland, having a shared identity but largely becoming a part of a bigger, dominant culture.
Korea is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon but the thing is koreans carry the spirit of Hell Joseon wherever they go and work with other koreans.
We (my wife is a korean) live in Europe and the same things that stressed my wife (and our korean friends) exist whenever you have to work with other koreans and their companies.It's not as bad as in Korea but it's still something that I can easily notice.
We (my wife is a korean) live in Europe and the same things that stressed my wife (and our korean friends) exist whenever you have to work with other koreans and their companies.It's not as bad as in Korea but it's still something that I can easily notice.
I'd be curious to see a Slate Star Codex piece on this. One of his classic pieces was "Meditations on Moloch" https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ ( and related: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage... )
It seems like the similar thing here - literally everyone sees how agonizing, exhausting, detrimental, and counterproductive the current system is. No one likes it. But yet, despite that, there's some gradient it goes against that prevents clearly better alternatives from emerging. I wonder what that case is in Korea, the subject OP, Japan, Taiwan, and other countries.
It seems like the similar thing here - literally everyone sees how agonizing, exhausting, detrimental, and counterproductive the current system is. No one likes it. But yet, despite that, there's some gradient it goes against that prevents clearly better alternatives from emerging. I wonder what that case is in Korea, the subject OP, Japan, Taiwan, and other countries.
It's very simple actually.Koreans hate the working culture and long working hours but at the same time require convenience that can only be achieved by maintaining this hellish working culture.
With all due respect, this analysis is grossly reductive and only touching the surface of a complex phenomenon. Long working hours can be found in many East Asian countries not limited to just Korea. Sure, love of convenience is partly to blame, but let's not ignore the history and cultural elements behind it. It goes without saying, but without the long working hours, Korea would not have become the "middle power" that it is today either. The "hell joseon" article you linked is an interesting phenomenon especially because no other East Asian country is so critical of its own culture and conditions. S. Korea is unique in that its people are almost always looking to criticize and change their ways to compete on the world stage.
at the same time require convenience that can only be achieved by maintaining this hellish working culture.
That's a core problem for every industrialized country. We've become addicted to the cheap goods that NAFTA has allowed us. And it may end up eating societies alive.
That's a core problem for every industrialized country. We've become addicted to the cheap goods that NAFTA has allowed us. And it may end up eating societies alive.
Funny how the article doesn’t mention that Korea is a divided country technically still at war.
Besides the development of modern South Korea out of a brutal military dictatorship is largely parallel to that of other Asian countries: Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and China.
Besides the development of modern South Korea out of a brutal military dictatorship is largely parallel to that of other Asian countries: Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and China.
The article title explicitly calls out South Korea.
The country is also recognized as sovereign nation by more than 188 countries, having a seat in the United Nations as well.
Territorial disputes are common even in Europe, as well as developments out of brutal dictatorship. I honestly do not get your point :)
The country is also recognized as sovereign nation by more than 188 countries, having a seat in the United Nations as well.
Territorial disputes are common even in Europe, as well as developments out of brutal dictatorship. I honestly do not get your point :)
OP was explicitly referring to South Korea too. If you are not aware of their extremely brutal past, here are few links to get you started (these articles just skim the surface, much deeper study is needed if you really want to get into the details).
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/05/south-korea-park-chung-he...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-korea-owns-up-to-brutal-p...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/the-forgotten-history-of-sou...
https://archive.is/fBa5L
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/05/south-korea-park-chung-he...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-korea-owns-up-to-brutal-p...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/the-forgotten-history-of-sou...
https://archive.is/fBa5L
The brutal past exists in Europe as well. Portugal had a colonial war up to 1974 with records of mass executions in Africa. Franco's Spain had it's own dark history with mass graves still being uncovered. Franco' regime ended even later and the country still has staunch Franco supporters.
Do you not consider Salazar or Franco's regime up to par to South Korea? If not what is the criteria?
Also to answer the other comment, Russia has repeatedly toyed with the idea of a nuclear bombing to Warsaw as well as invading the baltic. The baltic states are more than within range for a ground invasion. Poland has a border with the Kaliningrad enclave as well. Now you might say, that Russia would not dare... Well ask any baltic state how scared shitless they were with how easy Russia imposed itself on Ukraine. I honestly do not see how Korea is in a much different scenario.
Also to answer the other comment, Russia has repeatedly toyed with the idea of a nuclear bombing to Warsaw as well as invading the baltic. The baltic states are more than within range for a ground invasion. Poland has a border with the Kaliningrad enclave as well. Now you might say, that Russia would not dare... Well ask any baltic state how scared shitless they were with how easy Russia imposed itself on Ukraine. I honestly do not see how Korea is in a much different scenario.
There are no territorial disputes in Europe that involve nuclear powers threatening total annihilation on neighbors. Seoul is within easy artillery range of the North, and the badly misnamed DMZ (or, rather, both sides outside the zone itself) is among the most militarized places on the planet.
You must have somehow missed the ongoing war in East Ukraine.
On a tangent, I moved to Korea in 2016 when I was 23 to take advantage of the government's push for global startups.
I wrote a post about it here https://www.jacobjacquet.com/blog/building-a-global-startup-...
Anything related to Korea's startup ecosystem, feel free to ask
I wrote a post about it here https://www.jacobjacquet.com/blog/building-a-global-startup-...
Anything related to Korea's startup ecosystem, feel free to ask
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 raised by professional caregivers with educations in pedagogy, surely an in-aggregate higher quality of childcare than that given by stressed out, first-time parents. Mine did a terrible job of raising me. I think if Denmark or South Korea wants a higher birthrate they should offer to step in.
I've been around my friends' kids, it's not pleasant. There's a very "big ego thing" going on and sudden tantrums that threaten to topple the softest evening.
Just my 2 cents but I have a hard time understanding why none of these governments have proposed such a system. I'm sure there'd be a big uptake. Open to being schooled here but please be nice.
[1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/a-little-bit-of-knowled...
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 raised by professional caregivers with educations in pedagogy, surely an in-aggregate higher quality of childcare than that given by stressed out, first-time parents. Mine did a terrible job of raising me. I think if Denmark or South Korea wants a higher birthrate they should offer to step in.
I've been around my friends' kids, it's not pleasant. There's a very "big ego thing" going on and sudden tantrums that threaten to topple the softest evening.
Just my 2 cents but I have a hard time understanding why none of these governments have proposed such a system. I'm sure there'd be a big uptake. Open to being schooled here but please be nice.
[1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/a-little-bit-of-knowled...
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 why you think that would boost the birth rate. Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born?
I suppose the closest example I can think of to something like that would be joining a commune or kibbutz and avoiding the childcare chores, but I understand that most of those groups have a whole other set of demographic/retention issues.
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 why you think that would boost the birth rate. Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born?
I suppose the closest example I can think of to something like that would be joining a commune or kibbutz and avoiding the childcare chores, but I understand that most of those groups have a whole other set of demographic/retention issues.
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.
> 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.
> I'd give them all the babies in the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born
Assuming you have not already done so, perhaps becoming a surrogate or donating sperm would be an option for you? While it's not exactly handing a baby to the state, there are many couples who would be interested in raising children but are not biologically capable.
At least of the parents I know, I am skeptical that simply offering to take additional children off their hands would incentivize them to continue giving birth to more children.
> a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term
In the US the market has determined that sum to be $25,000 on average.[1] I don't know whether you would consider that hefty, but it's at least an order of magnitude lower than what it would take to incentivize me to bear a child.
[1] https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-...
Assuming you have not already done so, perhaps becoming a surrogate or donating sperm would be an option for you? While it's not exactly handing a baby to the state, there are many couples who would be interested in raising children but are not biologically capable.
At least of the parents I know, I am skeptical that simply offering to take additional children off their hands would incentivize them to continue giving birth to more children.
> a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term
In the US the market has determined that sum to be $25,000 on average.[1] I don't know whether you would consider that hefty, but it's at least an order of magnitude lower than what it would take to incentivize me to bear a child.
[1] https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-...
> why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children?
But they do. You'd be surprised how many crucial skills are taught in kindergarten.
But there's also the question of scale - for certain things infants and children need their caregivers' undivided attention. Otherwise you end up with something akin to an orphanage, and there are plenty of data points suggesting that going in this direction is a very bad idea.
Overall some things are already being done, other don't scale, so it's up to the parents to do that and the government's role to make it as easy as possible.
But they do. You'd be surprised how many crucial skills are taught in kindergarten.
But there's also the question of scale - for certain things infants and children need their caregivers' undivided attention. Otherwise you end up with something akin to an orphanage, and there are plenty of data points suggesting that going in this direction is a very bad idea.
Overall some things are already being done, other don't scale, so it's up to the parents to do that and the government's role to make it as easy as possible.
I love my kids, it’s everyone else’s I can’t stand. :)
German unification was unthinkable until the soviet union collapsed. Maybe in 25 years, the 2 Koreas will be reunited, making Korea an even bigger power on the global stage.
The DDR had about half the income per capita as West Germany. South Korea is currently at about 24x the per capita income of the north.
It would be a huge challenge to unify those two economies and it would surely take decades. South Korea developed itself from the 1960s onwards, so I would guess that unification would take that kind of time frame (50-60 years - if they could pull off another such miracle).
It would be a huge challenge to unify those two economies and it would surely take decades. South Korea developed itself from the 1960s onwards, so I would guess that unification would take that kind of time frame (50-60 years - if they could pull off another such miracle).
Ok the other hand, it would give the south a ready source of young labor, which they absolutely will need going forward. Managed properly, it could be a huge boon.
A nice sentiment but seems less likely every year that goes by. The South doesn’t even really want the North because it would be an economic burden. Or so I’ve read.
German 'Reunification' happened before Soviet Union collapsed. Also UK, France etc were against German Reunification as well before it happened.
Also Austria is still not unified with modern Germany.
Also Austria is still not unified with modern Germany.
Austria was never part of Germany. It was part of the Holy Roman Empire and after that the German Confederation, with the latter being dissolved in 1866. The first actual united German state was founded in 1871 as the German Empire, without Austria (Kleindeutsche Lösung).
I don't know that it will actually happen any time soon. I don't think South Korea wants the burden of modernizing the North and despite what most coverage indicates, I don't think Kim Jong-un is crazy enough to actually start a war. As long as Kim doesn't die or get killed, I think North Korea will sadly remain as it is for a long time.
What is special for South Korea is this. Possibly they can grow more but I wonder is it possible.
Among other things, the fact that South Korea is referred to by name a total of seven times in just the first paragraph makes this look less like a “real” article and more like M.L.-generated SEO keyword stuffing.
"Indeed, South Korea is the only country that successfully made its transition from a former colony to an advanced economy. One could say that Australia or Canada, along with the United States, used to be a colony."
One could say that Australia, the US, and Canada used to be colonies because they were colonies. Like what? Do you not know basic world history?
One could say that Australia, the US, and Canada used to be colonies because they were colonies. Like what? Do you not know basic world history?
Worth mentioning is that this article is written by a native Korean. A bit heavy on the boosterism.
Wait. Korea was just updated to a developed country last month ?!?!
> South Korea’s rise to a middle power status comes without much historical baggage
In terms of technological, industrial and infrastructural innovation, SK has less 'tech debt' than Japan and the US.
> South Korea’s rise to a middle power status comes without much historical baggage
In terms of technological, industrial and infrastructural innovation, SK has less 'tech debt' than Japan and the US.
Upgraded by some specific UN agency. They don't have a monopoly on labeling countries developed and probably lag years behind
This article is wildly off-base and totally misrepresents South Korea, both factually and in tone. There are many ways that South Korea is a great country but this article misses the mark. Source: I've been married to a South Korean for 10 years.
> South Korea was able to make these achievements without a citywide nor a nationwide lockdown.
A large part of the country is literally in Level 4 lockdowns now (no gatherings >5, beaches closed, pubs closed, daycares closed, etc). [1]
South Korea has mandatory military service for all men. They're required be in the military for nearly two years. [2]
Korean society is high patriarchal. Domestic violence is persistent. Families are not complete until they have a son. Multiple daughters are considered a burden. Gender roles are consistently enforced.
Sex crimes are a major issue [3]. Nearly every woman has been assaulted in a serious and unusual way (men outside windows, breaking into their apartment, flashing, etc). By law cellphone manufacturers have to program their phones to produce a shutter sound when a photo is taken. This was an attempt to curb upskirt and other voyeur photos. Female-only train cars are common due to rampant groping on public transit.
People absolutely do not trust their government. In 2016 the president was impeached in one of the most bizarre political scandals of the last decade. [4] There was a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the ferry boat that killed 294 people (mostly highschool students) [5].
The country's economy is dominated by a small group of super-corporations (chaebols) like Samsung. A massive percentage of the population is employed with just a few firms and nearly all products are produced by them. The amount of influence these groups have is something out of dystopian sci-fi. [6]
South Koreans frequently believe in superstitions, fortune tellers, urban legends, etc., and generally struggle with critical thinking or questioning established ideas.
[1] https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/505386/south-kore...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_South_Korea
[3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/06/16/my-life-not-your-porn/...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Korean_political_sc...
[5] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0723/Why-S...
[6] https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/03/24/chaebol-reforms-are...
> South Korea was able to make these achievements without a citywide nor a nationwide lockdown.
A large part of the country is literally in Level 4 lockdowns now (no gatherings >5, beaches closed, pubs closed, daycares closed, etc). [1]
South Korea has mandatory military service for all men. They're required be in the military for nearly two years. [2]
Korean society is high patriarchal. Domestic violence is persistent. Families are not complete until they have a son. Multiple daughters are considered a burden. Gender roles are consistently enforced.
Sex crimes are a major issue [3]. Nearly every woman has been assaulted in a serious and unusual way (men outside windows, breaking into their apartment, flashing, etc). By law cellphone manufacturers have to program their phones to produce a shutter sound when a photo is taken. This was an attempt to curb upskirt and other voyeur photos. Female-only train cars are common due to rampant groping on public transit.
People absolutely do not trust their government. In 2016 the president was impeached in one of the most bizarre political scandals of the last decade. [4] There was a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the ferry boat that killed 294 people (mostly highschool students) [5].
The country's economy is dominated by a small group of super-corporations (chaebols) like Samsung. A massive percentage of the population is employed with just a few firms and nearly all products are produced by them. The amount of influence these groups have is something out of dystopian sci-fi. [6]
South Koreans frequently believe in superstitions, fortune tellers, urban legends, etc., and generally struggle with critical thinking or questioning established ideas.
[1] https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/505386/south-kore...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_South_Korea
[3] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/06/16/my-life-not-your-porn/...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Korean_political_sc...
[5] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0723/Why-S...
[6] https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/03/24/chaebol-reforms-are...
Agree with your overall sentiment even if I don't agree with every point. Article is just Korean boosterism from a Korean writer, without much reflection or critical thought.
> South Koreans frequently believe in superstitions, fortune tellers, urban legends, etc., and generally struggle with critical thinking or questioning established ideas.
You provide references for the other points, but not this. I can see it being true for older people, but is it really true in general? (I actually had this question before since I'm seeing a lot of shamans in the kdramas and it puzzles me since there is little of this in the west.)
You provide references for the other points, but not this. I can see it being true for older people, but is it really true in general? (I actually had this question before since I'm seeing a lot of shamans in the kdramas and it puzzles me since there is little of this in the west.)
In my experience, there is a lot of little urban legends and superstitions that young people still take part in / talk about, but it's unclear how many do it for fun and how many partially believe it. Anecdotally, I've met plenty of young people (20s) who believe the whole bloodtype/personality thing.
Some of what you wrote is rather questionable interpretation, and some others make me wonder if your spouse left the country in 1980s and never visited Korea since.
> Korean society is high patriarchal. Domestic violence is persistent. Families are not complete until they have a son. Multiple daughters are considered a burden. Gender roles are consistently enforced.
Korea does have gender equality issues, but this is outdated info. Decades ago, it was illegal for a doctor to tell the sex of a fetus, because some people would want a son and selectively abort girls, resulting in huge sex imbalance. These days, very few people under 70 would think "a complete family needs a son" - if you say anything like that you'll be publicly ridiculed.
Telling fetus sex was made legal in 2010, because nobody gave a damn about "having a son" any more.
> Korean society is high patriarchal. Domestic violence is persistent. Families are not complete until they have a son. Multiple daughters are considered a burden. Gender roles are consistently enforced.
Korea does have gender equality issues, but this is outdated info. Decades ago, it was illegal for a doctor to tell the sex of a fetus, because some people would want a son and selectively abort girls, resulting in huge sex imbalance. These days, very few people under 70 would think "a complete family needs a son" - if you say anything like that you'll be publicly ridiculed.
Telling fetus sex was made legal in 2010, because nobody gave a damn about "having a son" any more.
This is quite true, I could say that as a korean. It's a mixture bag of canary version of modernity and archaic sentiment.
But after watching 'Parasite' amd 'Host', it does seem a Country with rampant inequalities.
Is it really that different from Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, (what was) HK, even Malaysia...lots of Western democracy+asian culture+high tech industry countries.
South Korea is one of the leaders in technology and other fields. Also, they are one of the fastest internet providers in the whole world. The problem is that the country can truly unleash its untapped potential if the North and the South decided to unify under the leadership of the South.
Being a fast internet provider is all relative. If you only had to maintain the landmass equivalent to the state of Indiana, you can quickly upgrade everyone's infrastructure. The government also initially started the telecommunications projects, now they're all transitioned to the private sector.
North and South Korea are complementary in economic capability. Some even go as far at to conclude that the reunification efforts between North and South Korea may be hindered because of this fact.
North and South Korea are complementary in economic capability. Some even go as far at to conclude that the reunification efforts between North and South Korea may be hindered because of this fact.
I don't think the land size argument really holds water. You can provide good internet in the top 10 major economic metros, and in aggregate that is a small landmass. And the USA has a very good bandwidth capacity at the data center level, so that is not a bottleneck either. It's purely political in the USA.
What' the average internet speed in Indiana?
pretty poor, as a percentage of land mass.
not too bad, as a percentage of population.
Most of Indiana by land is (very) rural, and in probably half of counties the fastest internet available will be sub 10Mbps.
In the major metro areas, Verizon/Frontier, Comcast, and AT&T "compete" and provide 1Gbps, with Frontier at least offering FTTH. I pay $60/month for 400/400 fiber.
source: i worked for a (rural) ISP in Indiana.
not too bad, as a percentage of population.
Most of Indiana by land is (very) rural, and in probably half of counties the fastest internet available will be sub 10Mbps.
In the major metro areas, Verizon/Frontier, Comcast, and AT&T "compete" and provide 1Gbps, with Frontier at least offering FTTH. I pay $60/month for 400/400 fiber.
source: i worked for a (rural) ISP in Indiana.
dotcommand(2)
Dead comment in this thread with apt observation:
>Firstly, you can't be a "power" if you are occupied. You are a vassal, nothing more.
SK (also JP and TW), as nominal American satraps, with their political existence underpinned by American security commitments, will have problems exporting synthesized east/west liberal models because others in the region without suchy commitments are driven by desire for security first and foremost. Usually that means suppressing liberal values / sources of foreign influence. A nation who can't defend itself is going to have hardtime being a role model, it's like a trust fund kid lecturing to others about bootstraps. The author’s affiliation in specific SK ministries and submission from nationalinterest also should give readers pause.
That said, SK is making some interesting pivots into military industrial complex. There's sufficient technological expertise and heavy industry that I can see them being a credible middle power model if they took lead on self-defense and distance appearance of being a US "vassal". Sending forces to Hormuz to secure oil route after Iran drama is also a good start.
>Firstly, you can't be a "power" if you are occupied. You are a vassal, nothing more.
SK (also JP and TW), as nominal American satraps, with their political existence underpinned by American security commitments, will have problems exporting synthesized east/west liberal models because others in the region without suchy commitments are driven by desire for security first and foremost. Usually that means suppressing liberal values / sources of foreign influence. A nation who can't defend itself is going to have hardtime being a role model, it's like a trust fund kid lecturing to others about bootstraps. The author’s affiliation in specific SK ministries and submission from nationalinterest also should give readers pause.
That said, SK is making some interesting pivots into military industrial complex. There's sufficient technological expertise and heavy industry that I can see them being a credible middle power model if they took lead on self-defense and distance appearance of being a US "vassal". Sending forces to Hormuz to secure oil route after Iran drama is also a good start.
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 type of tailspin? Japan and other nations are also facing this exact same issue and we seem to be not paying attention to it.
The core issue is that in most of the developed world, people do not have enough children. And even immigrants in their second generation and beyond also do not have enough children, as such it appears to be a cultural/way of life/society norms problem. It is as if the developed modern world is currently designed as a population sink.
This is going to be one of the grand challenges of the 50 years.