Read more about how 'Asia's Baby Shortage Cries Out for a Gender Equality Solution' on Bloomberg: www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-11-01/birth-rates-drop-has-governments-in-east-asia-scrambling-for-a-fix?sref=zU1fOhDr
I’m always surprised by how countries direct response to declining birth rates is to strongly promote marriage and higher birth rates, rather than addressing the deeper, underlying causes of the decline. This reminds me of a high school near San Francisco that I once read about. Known for its reputation and top-achieving, straight-A students, it imposed intense academic and social pressures on their students. These demands tragically led to a high rate of suicides. So in response, the school hired someone to monitor a nearby train track often used in these suicides, in hope that he would stop them in their act.. instead of actually addressing the issue
The hyper-competitive nature of Korean society is making me reconsider having children. I'm concerned about the pressures and challenges they might face.
In India, there is a town called Kota which is the hub of coaching centres for IIT JEE examination, arguably the most prestigious and the most tough engineering examination in India. One of the coaching centres had successive episodes of suicides by hanging and they responded by removing the fans from the rooms of the children living in hostels/dorms.
Yes there needs to be a government initiative for affordable child care and laws protecting pregnant women and mothers. This will help women bare the load of raising the next generation.
Yep. Solution would be to not educate women but in cloister schools only like my grandma, tax singles and give incentives for families, abolish no-fault divorce, prosecute people who spread certain diseases as if they had physically attacked someone, the whole nine yards. In essence: Go back to a society that worked, pre LBJ's "great society"-scam.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 you are living in a dream world. Because people are ignorant and don't care about politics. Young people are struggling to survive and they don't go into politics. And most people are not rich enough/ no connection to go into politics and be successful. It is the same everywhere around the world.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 just because we have democracy, does it mean that everything is fair and just and clean? What about corruption? What about capitalism? Rich and powerful connections passed onto their own children only? I don't know where you are from, but i am sure it is the same in most of other countries.
The title of this video is highly misleading. There was no “radical solution” offered here whatsoever. It even admitted these methods were deemed 90% ineffective by South Koreans.
A lot of other countries have dealt with it for decades, by encouraging immigration. But their ethnic identity and cultural heritage is really himportant to people in East Asian countries, so they're less willing to accept such "blending" of populations. But imo, the main reason why young people are less willing to start families, is because it's too expensive to live their own lives for many people, in these modern times where quality of life is higher than ever for average people. So people who are just barely able to balance their own lives and interests when it comes to their finances, would therefore be forced to reduce not only the quantity, but more importantly the quality of what they consume if they start their own families. It's a given to reduce the quantity when doing it, but the reduction in quality due to lack of spare finances for themselves after taking care of their mortgage, childcare and so on, is larger than ever before. The problems they talk about in the video has been blamed for decades for this phenomenon, but they have always been the same for centuries. Women were working on their farms with their spouse even back when the only available consumerism was drinking, reading and playing board games. Families always took care of their elderly back then too. The only difference now is that the quality of life is so high for average people, and the cost of it is also higher than ever. But nobody talks about that as a possible reason for the demographic crises. Yet they see third world countries booming with population growth, where everything in their lives is much, much harder, while the stuff to consume is also much, much lower in quality there. And there, families also take care of their elderly.
True. I was thinking this video would present that S. Korea was considering mass immigration. But the homogenous Asian cultures have never accepted that, at least mass immigration.
@@billyhill434 we need to keep posting "pension, maternity+paternity 1 year paid leave, nanny for 2 years paid, lower housing ownership cost" in all such videos for the old boomer politicians to get it.
If workaholic culture was the cause then Europe would be booming with kids. Its largely irrelevant as a factor. What is relevant is people believing their lives are better off without kids, that kids are a matter of choice.
@@Carthodon Korean workaholic culture is on another level, they work 9amto9pm and drinks or attend work dinner and talk work again. some folks working more than 12 hours a day - no time for date or family
@@ytn00b3 Instead of having multiple explanations for why every country with a welfare system that is wealthy is going extinct, it makes sense to find that one explanation even if it doesn't massage people's egos by saying them not having kids is not their fault. In every society which is dying out the obvious answer is a belief that kids are a choice. In Europe this is done because people are hedonistic, and see children as a drag on their fun. In East Asia it is because social status is determined by their career and people really want that social status. In both cases it is selfish, and this is allowed because no one worries about starving to death when they're too old to work because of the generous welfare systems. Instead of remaking the entire economy to theoretically help selfish people which has never been shown to actually work, taking away pensions has been shown to work. Once people realize they need others in order to survive, they will find the motivation in themselves to sacrifice a few decades to raise them well so those same people can take care of them when they're old. Bringing back religion could also work though I don't know how a government can actually make that happen without becoming an international pariah.
4:38 Notice the decline from 2023 to 2024. Coincidentally, in 2023, the S. Korean government considered raising the cap on weekly work hours from 52 to 69. The measure was defeated but the message was loud and clear--the government cares more about the chaebols and corporations than it does S. Korean families. 😥
This had nothing to do with that value btw. I don't think you understand both the choices towards having a kid OR the governments raise on weekly work hours. There's nothing wrong with allowing higher work hours to be statistically valid.
@@Gizziiusa c'mon. quit the cartoonish conspiratorial nonsense. "protocols" "forcing" "the human population" right, and for sure tied to climate. yeah right... you should learn how boring the WEF really is...* and how little any organization can do to influence large scale social trends... case in point, aggressive, focused campaigns to encourage fertility have very little effect. the world is not a comic book. it's a ridiculously complicated network of networks of networks of complicated systems of systems... nobody understands it, let alone can pull the strings. * as in, actually do some reading and learning about it. real sources, not filtered, curated political pablum
They need to do something about the chaebol. Just the top few control half of South Korea's economy and make it challenging to make any difference for the employees.
If high wages and reduced working hours caused higher birth rates we wouldn’t see this phenomenon in the most developed countries. It is the least developed countries with the lowest wages and worst working conditions which have the highest birth rates. I’m not saying the solution is to make wages and working conditions worse, but they’re clearly not the real cause.
@charlieread2097 it's absolutely the opposite, and it's not just SK experiencing this. Even in the US (and especially in Japan), we are seeing lower birthrates due to wages not keeping up. Are parents supposed to pay bills with magic?
These countries will do anything but de-monopolize and de-rig the economy and make children affordable to the honest hardworking young generations. Wonder why?
200 years ago get married and have a kids was a question of survival as an individual, now don't get married and don't have kids is a question of survival as an individual
you are close to the truth. At least you are on the right track. It is about evolution of self-centeredness and the de-evolution of family-community identity. People today are self-centered. Having children is the opposite of self-centered so that's why ppl don't want to have children, not because they can't. Anyone can have lots of children if they want. They just love themselves too much.
It's still your need to do that, you are creating someone that didn't choose to be here, to love. The only altruistic way to do that is to give that love to someone that already exists... Adoption
South Korea is suffering now because they're working just as hard as they did when they came out of the Korean war. We're talking minimum 52 hour workweeks and last year they were trying to raise it to 69. Add that to their rent market that requires a deposit like you own a house and the general high cost of housing.. Koreans cannot afford kids both in money and in time.
I disagree. You are only ascribing to the office working career. Nobody else has to work more than 40 hours a week. It's not expensive at all. Korea is very cheap to live in. The problem is culture mindset. People have become superficial and materialistic and self-centered. Nobody cares about sacrifice and suffering. They only care about their own selfish lives, comforts, and pleasures. It's not that they can't have children...it's that they don't want to. Huge difference. Koreans and most developed nations peoples are highly superficial and have no desire to live a life of sacrifice like our parents and grandparents did. This has nothing to do with work, expense, or even school/job stress/competition.
Meanwhile, in France, we have a 35 hour work week, parental leave, arguably better daycare, it's not perfect, but we have a higher fertility rate, just sayin'
.it not about ideologies of women or men. in marriage ( specially when child born) both women and men do some sacrifices in there life and thing about there family but individually ideologies now become a core of east Asian or western society due this people still think about their own life but not there family or children specifically for women(new gen) they grow adult but they not know how expensive this society for living but majority of men ready to sacrifice their own preferences for family and children ( i say according to my experience) and specifically western media try to make this ideologies that if a women is house wife then this is some kind a oppression of women done by men but if your mother is housewife and father is money maker of family, then ask to your mother if she feel some kind oppression by your dad and this is biggest unrespect of my mother if anyone say that your mother doing a maid work for my family because my mother do every think according her wish and no one force her and it called care for children and love for husband not some kind a oppression.
The younger generation isn't getting married or having children because the older generation got all the power and resources, and refuses to give it up. It's the same story in the U.S. and other developed countries with declining birth rates.
it's not about a generational wealth gap driving the alienation, but how the very rich "1%" have impoverished the bottom 90%. In every industrial consumer society. That is the result of Neoliberal capitalism, ie let the "markets" (1%) RULE. There are way more impoverished retirees than there are comfortable ones.
@@qarljohnson4971 Nope, not the markets. The distortion of markets by those elites for their own gain, eg the use of the Fed to "rescue" friendly banks and let banks owned by people they don't like fail.
@@qarljohnson4971 The thing is, even if you are in the top 90% in S.Korea(I mean above the bottom 10%), you aren't impoverished. However you may feel you are because, just like a normal person would feel bad about themselves if they were looking at Instagram models all day, people want too much. There was this saying going around in lower elementary school grades last year, "vacation begger." It's what kids called other kids whose families did not take a overseas vacation. KIDS are ranking their happiness according to where their families spent their time. (Paris > London=Rome > New York = LA = Hawaii etc. > Bali or any SE. Asian resort > domestic) "Wait, you've never been to Europe or the US? Is your family POOR?" Yes, the whole society is spoiled and that blame does not go to the older generation. (or maybe a little bit but not totally at least.)
I was also waiting hah there were just suggestions and that's it, no actual practice because the issue is deep-rooted in their society and culture that is trying so hard to be individualistic by taking only the negative parts of individualism
this is false. Koreans in the past had to work 24 hours a day no sleep and still had 10 babies each with no money. So it's just an excuse and lie that they work too much or it's too expensive. That's not what it's about at all. It's all about selfishness.
@@breakaway2x koreans male or koreans both males and females were working 24 hours? Then the mothers took care of the kids. Now when both are working who do you expect to take care of the kids if they both are working probably 18 out of 24 hours?
It is sad that a lot of people have a child, go back to work and then pay someone else essentially all of their hard-earned money to look after their child.
So True. Whats the point of being a parent if you don't even raise your child? This used to be a problem with men who wouldn't participate but now even women are choosing their careers over their kids as well. The younger generation has decided to not have kids at all. Looks like we will be studying korean and japanese people in history books within a 100 years like some ancient civilization.
money isn't going to fix anything. they need to fix their society. they are too fixated on vanity, status, and appearances. its deplorable and depressing to live in korea
Least judgmental and generalizing foreigner. Is that why the birth rate is dropping even in happier and """less vain""" countries? Pretty vain of you to judge like that btw
Extremely lazy journalism at its worst. It's like Bloomberg sent 1 person to Korea for 5 minutes and interviewed only their friends, touching on only the most trendy, fashionable issues. The woman who said "marriage is sacrificing oneself" clued you in to the real issue at hand, but you just ignored that completely.
"The thought of raising a child in such a cutthroat society is overwhelming. I'm afraid they won't be able to cope with the constant pressure to succeed."
Simple. We humans are seen as cogs in the wheel to keep the system going. Bringing a child into this world should be the mother and fathers choice and the enjoyment of raising a child should be their priority. The policymakers instead overlook the expensive nature and pressure of society and just worry about making babies to keep the system going. That in and of itself takes away the pleasure of having and raising children.
Not only that. South Korea as a society grew materialistic, became obsessed with appearances (plastic surgery capital), vanity, status. Their problem is selfishness.
@@vervetech9395 having children is being selfish. Human beings are selfish. South Korea top 1 percent population controlling their GDP, government and market is being greedy and morally corrupt
This is just some out of touch American journalist who went to vacation in Seoul and asked a couple AI level questions to her friends to churn out this trash. This is one of the worst bloomberg videos in recent memory
@Joshua-eo5hr Because they are poor, they think children are going to be their retirement plan, they don't spend on their children and depend on welfare from government or worse make children work
For real, nobody talks on the elderly of the past didn't have advanced medicine to live too long while needing care, and would just die before burdening younger generations taking the role of a child. Not their fault, but one can't be expected to care for a bunch of old people for years and also raise children at the same time, all on a normal job.
Capitalism hates dependents, whether they’re schoolkids or pensioners. It’s too sociopathically shortsighted to value and invest in its future workforce.
@@LittleBobbyHasTablesexactly, but people say childfree people are selfish for not wanting to create more cogs for disgusting governments. Humans are content $l@v3s.
well if youtube didn't demonetize children's channels it could have been. Everyone can just have babies and make them earn money from youtube since kids channels were the most profitable until youtube decided to demonetize children channels to prevent exploitation of children.
Low birth rate, aging population, suicide rate, elderly poverty rate are the highest in the world. Both conservatives and progressives do not think about solving this problem, but only work hard to get elected, and show off. I worked over 15 hours every day while skipping lunch, "That's just how it is", "There are many people who can do it even if you don't", "You came to our company because you had nowhere else to go" It's disgusting and shameful, so I gave up on marriage and live. In return for treating the 586 generation as expendable, My children pay 3 times the amount of taxes, but the national pension and health insurance are bankrupt.
no. conservatives don't care about this problem. advocacy for the working class and a better welfare state, healthcare, and work-life balance, are all core progressive ideals. i guarantee in your country if you look at what the progressives are saying, they're going to be many times more likely than anyone else to call out these issues. this ain't a both sides problem, you don't need to pretend it is.
@@esparda07 Fertility rates are below replacement across Southeast Asia and India. Singapore has the second lowest fertility rate in the world and Thailand's fertility rate is rapidly declining. Fertility rates across most of the rest of Southeast Asia are either at replacement level, close to it or below it. India's fertility rate is below replacement level, most of its states have below replacement level fertility and its urban fertility rate stands at 1.6. Yesterday, Bloomberg published an article about South India's rapidly declining fertility crisis. Stop pretending to be Indian or Southeast Asian cause if you were, you would know all of this.
Corporations need more workers to keep increasing profits. Governments need citizens to bring in taxes. However increased profits means increased prices and so couples feel they don't have the disposable income to handle the costs of raising a child. They needed women to join the workforce to maintain the upward trajectories on shareholders reports. And yet they expected women to keep pumping out kids at the same rate and not pursue careers like men would. Maybe this is just the system self-correcting from capitalism? This is playing out at different levels all across the developed world. Fascinating stuff.
It's not because of people working. It's all because of "trickle down." Everything they work hard for being the most productive peoples on planet earth but our wages artificially separated from our productivity, sending everything straight to the tip top.
As a South Korean, there is an another unspoken reason for this phenomenon. Our generation is not sure that we can provide all financial&social supports to our children as much as we have received from our parents.
Even in Sweden, where the society is conducive to having children, fertility is 1.5. Well below replacement of 2.1. So it's not really about money. Having children is no longer viewed as an obligation to family and society. It's viewed as a choice. And people are making that choice. Fits.
This is really mostly it. Back in the old days (agrarian society), they were less wealthy, worked longer hours (although less over the year), and less educated. You'd think, in an urban context, this would explain having less kids. But it doesn't. Those people had more kids. And in an urban environment, the people who are less educated, work 2 jobs, have no savings, are having several kids on their own. It really has nothing to do with money. It's the culture and environment.
You don't think that there's a correlation between cost of living and low birth rates? You cite Sweden, which has a much higher birth rate than South Korea, which actually fits the very well established relationship between high costs of living and lower birth rates.
@@Ocker3 Many poverty filled African nations or south Asian or middle eastern nations often have higher birth rates despite poverty. Its about culture and religion and civilisational values
@Erdwick as incomes go up, birth rates tend to go down. But that's from a variety of different factors, like both parents having high paying jobs and industry becoming more about knowledge work and less about manual labour. It's also about richer countries usually having lower child mortality, so a family doesn't need to have five children to get 2-3 to adulthood.
So basically, it's individualism, hyper-competitive society, setting unreal standards for raising children and the burden of responsibilities. It's just going to be worse for them.
@@kzm-cb5mr we need to keep posting "pension, paid maternity+paternity leave of one year, nanny for two years paid, low housing costs" fort he boomer politicians to get it.
I lived about 35km outside of Seoul, and the school that I taught at many families had 2-3 kids. That was quite unreal to me. If the Korean government can finally move all organs of government out to Sejong, and empty out Seoul, I think it would encourage more people to have more children naturally, if they can just get spiralling cram school (hagwon) costs under control and also to empower public school teachers to do the jobs that they were trained to do. Korea's public schools are private schools in other countries.
I don't know that moving the government would do all that much. People go where the jobs and activities are, not where the politicians are. Getting family costs under control (cram school or anything else) is the real answer. People who can barely afford to take care of themselves just aren't going to be as interested in trying to take care of others.
@altrag south korea, much like japan, structured its economy in a manner where most, if not all, economic activity centers around where the govt carries out its function (in south Korea its Seoul, in Japan it's Tokyo). The further away a place is from govt activity, the less economic activity there is. As such there is less opportunities and migration attraction in the peripheries, which means businesses are less likely to open up in those areas, which means even lower opportunities and migration attraction. It is a vicious cycle that almost any large (as in bigger than a city state) unitary countries (countries where most economic and govt activity revolves around the capital) have to deal with.
@@sasi5841 You're not _wrong,_ but you're asserting that the coincidences of history will be repeated in today's completely different scenario. When there is no big business, economic activity is primarily centered around the singular remaining economic hub - the government. So of course small businesses start in that area, some of which became the big businesses we have today. But now the reverse is true. The big businesses are the main economic hub. They employ far more people and control far more of the money supply than the government does. Moving the government today would bring _some_ people (especially those who work for the government), but businesses can't just uproot like that. It takes a lot of time and money to build entire new office towers and move literally millions of workers, etc. Businesses would likely move _eventually_ but "eventually" is measured in decades by the time a critical mass of them have done so (unless the government offers enough incentives to force the move, of course). North America is kind of the strange one where a lot of our government bodies reside in cities that aren't the economic centers. That's kind of a leftover of the colonial days - our economic centers were developed while we were still colonies and they grew up around the _colonial_ centers of power rather than the seats of modern government (and largely illustrates my point from above - if the "just move government" idea worked, you'd expect DC to be America's economic hub by now, rather than New York or LA or Houston or any number of other cities that have more economic activity than Washington). Same for Ottawa up in Canada, Albany within New York state, etc. History is of course not 100% consistent on anything so I'm sure there will be counterexamples, but the common case is that people follow the money more than they follow the power.
They created an entire government department to address the issue and staffed it with a legion well-paid civil servants. What more do you want from them?
Listen. When you can't afford to even feed and take care of yourself, how do you expect to raise a child? In our parents generation, it was far easier to purchase a home. The direct comparison with wages to home prices was MUCH lower than it is today. In todays age, almost no young people can afford a home until they are at least well into their mid to late 30s/40s.
My mom couldnt afford having a child but still had me, my parents bought their first home when I was 12. I dont get why people think that owing a home is a requirement.
when I was young, we rationed with 2 meals a day and lived in a house with 1 room and external shared toilet. yet my parents and others of their generation had many children. some of the poorest countries have highest fertility and richest have lowest. money and affordability is an issue but it's not the only or even the most important one. the real issue is ideological. people now are narcissistic and materialistic. their own comfort and impulses drive most decisions. the concept of compromising for a greater purpose is gone. everything is transactional. unless you return to the old norms, the issue won't be solved. many people are giving many 'reasons' but no one touches on the real reason because it's politically incorrect. but unless that's solved, the crisis will persist. throwing bundles of cash at the problem won't solve it - it will only lead to inflation.
@@the80386 You just misspelled "lower standards", just because people lived like animals and breed every mating season in the past that doesn't mean we should do the same now or even worse be forced to live like this because some politicians decided so. Life doesn't have to be so hard, especially today that we should make things easier for everyone with all the technology and knowledge we have. You are glorifying hardships and bring them as an example, nobody wants to live in an apartment with 1 bedroom and barely be able to afford food and torture their five kids in a world where there is an abundance of everything and all of that just to please the masters that the economy is not collapsing. Every person wants and deserves to work and be able to make a living out of their own work instead of feeding some rich politicians. Humans are not money nor statistical data.
@@the80386 I agree with you, but your comment is full of toxic biased terms. You should see it rather more neutral. The problem is not that people are evil, narcisstic and materialistic demons. The problem is INDIVIDUALISM and that is the consequence of modernity, with all its scientific and technological progress. People want to enjoy their life more, and all those inventions and discoveries highlight the value of individuals compared to the collective of past centuries. Back then in the past people could not be individualistic like we do. They were members of a collective, of a clan, of a tribe, of a greater family that RULED them with iron fist. Without that collective people died very quickly, because there was no technology or science to prevent that. But with individualism there comes also the value of not sacrificing your hobbies and interests and life quality for another life. Because let´s face it, siring children only makes sense, if you have a strong commitment for something GREATER than yourself, like the NATION, the CLAN, the TRIBE, the KINGDOM, the IDEOLOGY, the RELIGION. When you think individualistic, why should you produce babies? For whom? The people do not want to live in squalor to produce the next generation, because there is nothing GREATER than themselves that compels or forces them to do so.
@@annaairahala9462 most depressing outlook to have. Trying to defy one of the best, most traditional aspects of life for modern placation. Reject love and family, embrace cheap substitutions, apparently. (I'm saying this as someone who loves dogs btw)
@@thekamotodragon Dogs aren't modern they were companions for humanity for tens of thousands of years.Also dogs/cats aren't cheap by any means either especially if they get sick.Also they are not a substitution no child can replace a loved dog/cat or vice versa.
Middle class people didn't used to have to choose between the lifestyle they want, and children. Now however, all but the wealthiest people have to make massive financial sacrifices to have children that will materially lower their standard of living. The MSM needs to stop pretending that the issue is complicated, it's super simple and there are very obvious things governments can do if they really wanted to fix the problem.
@@hello855 Yes they are. Pro union policies to raise wages, public infrastructure and renewable energy projects to increase employment, a UBI, these are just a few basic things that could be done. The problem is the amount of corporate, right wing, and billionaire money behind propaganda that scares idiots with words like SOCIALISM !!! so they choose to live like serfs.
Everyone is (rightly) talking about the workloads hours, but very few people addresses that one of the reasons korean women are not interested in building a family is due to rhe rampant sexisms in korea
@ANGGELAful They won't touch that issue. Otherwise the men in their culture might have to change. Much easier to blame women for not doing their duty for the state.
Is that new? Or has that sort of reality been around since 10,000 BC? Traditionally, women had it hard. In Korean history, only the men had it harder than the women.
The real issue is Western ‘culture,’ driven by technology and neoliberal turbo-capitalism at its worst. Muslim countries aren’t complaining-they recognize that everyone’s rights matter, not just women’s, who are close to entering the realm of untouchable privileges these days🤷♂
@@TheGalacticIndian Birth rate Iran = 1.7, birth rate Turkey 1.9, birth rate Bangladesh 1.9. All of them well below replacement level - a little higher than in Europe, but these countries are also considerable less urbanised - in urban areas the birth rate is lower. However if you want a high birth rate, look up Afghanistan it's 4.3 - but I personally prefer countries where women allowed to speak to each other.
@@changedNameSorryAlso, you're indirectly agreeing with the other comment. Turkey, Iran and Bangladesh have rapidly westernized in the last 30 years. You can see it in their TV dramas, music videos, clothing fashion etc. Iran is an Islamic Republic only by name, the government would fall the minute they really tried to ban any of mentioned things. A sustainable society needs to inventivize a traditional lifestyle or else the solution to the demographic crisis will only be between anarco-leftist degrowth fantasies, mass immigration or betting all on robots.
I mean having lived in Japan for a handful of years, studied japanese for all 4 years of school and worked in japanese workplaces for over a decade and gotten a feel for the culture of that region, I'm not surprised. Economics is a significant factor but the rampant and overt chauvinism deeply negatively affects the psychology of both men and women
Elephant in the room that directly affects the pensions, home values, stock prices is to make it vastly cheaper for younger people to not just afford but thrive in their lives with enough surplus to have kids. Older generations will not let any of those things become more affordable at their expense.
let's not blame just the women here. Equal part is that men not willing to take on the responsibilities of taking care of their own children, or at least do 50%. lots of blame to go around, government not providing enough assistance with childcare or help providing laws or rules that incentivize having families. Retirements, taking care of elder parents, and etc. there are lots of pressure for young people.
Even if you make 2x more from the same working condition you still can't improve the birthrate. Korea will still be unafforable to one parent working families.
These countries will do anything but de-monopolize and de-rig the economy and make children affordable to the honest hardworking young generations. Wonder why?
Seoul is at 0.59, the national average is 0.78, the largest province with over 13 million is Gyeonggi which is at 0.84. Those provinces probably have a wide range internally, but it still boils down to the fact that the wealthier half decided to have small families.
Low birthrates are not bad, they are just a threat to the current system of capitalism based on infinite growth. Low birthrates will exacerbate political systems that benefits an older and richer generation, and will also reduce the quality of pensions, but from a purely social and scientific context, a lot won't change.
the future of the world actually won't need people that much...with ai coming out....more ai people will exist than humans therefore, humans really don't need to exist. Ai will do everything so there's no point for humans to procreate.
The root cause is not addressed and yet another piece pinning the blame solely on women. How are young women meant to raise any children single handedly whilst holding down a full time job with no job security, no marriage security, highly materialistic costly, cut-throat society and lack of help from their partner or parents in child rearing?
Why didn't you interview any young men for this? It takes two to tango so to speak and a young man's perspective on why he isn't or doesn't want to get married and have kids is equally valid.
South Korea, One of The Richest Countries not only in Asia but in the entire world, actually the poorest country because they can't afford to have comfortable and decent life even though the people always mock Southeast Asian countries as poor countries. What a ironic.
I lived in SK for a couple of years and I never heard anyone 'mocking' SE countries in the media or in person. If you're referring to online trolls, they exist in every country. Maybe you should go outside and get a breath of fresh air, rather than making up stuff in your head.
"...could overwhelm economic growth"... you just said it, having kids is not about economic growth. They turned humans into statistical data and money.
misogyny stems as a result of women not wanting to get with en who aren't top tier in looks. If you want misogyny to go away, give men a reason to want to care about women.
Cheap or expensive is really only a question of what you are comparing it with. Most of what's hiking up the costs in Korea are not child birth, child rearing and costs for diapers or formula, it's the private education sector that are basically baked into East Asian and some Southeast Asian societies. State has to ban extracurricular study forms so that parents are not forced to spend so much money just because their kids would be outcompeted by the other cram school goers. It's a competitive sector that thrives on the benign fears of parents. Not paying for such schools is basically equal to neglect/ punishment in these societies.
@@EternalKhann Yeah but whenever a party even tries to touch on that issue, their popularity plummets and angry parents are out on the streets protesting against limits on private education. I still remember the sh*tshow that happened when the democratic party limited night schools for minors to 10 pm
@@Monsuco That's interesting history. Condoms have a few problems though. The ones before WW2 had poor quality control and high leakage rates. They were shunned or banned from advertisements. They also had to be used by men, which had a much greater power in the household both socially and legally then. And sterilizations are non-reversible, people like keeping their options open. I will take your point though, as apparently "from 1955 to 1965, 42% of Americans of reproductive age relied on condoms for birth control". It's not just the availability of contraceptives as a tool, but also the cultural environment and purpose the tool is used for.
Interesting point! I've never seen things from that angle. Now that you pointed it out, the decline in births isn't a new trend. The cycle merely keeps going around. It just wasn't a problem for boomers because their parents didn't have retirement pensions and probably died before reaching retirement age.
The question is, what's wrong if the population declined? The world's population is over 8 billion now. In 1999 it was only 6 billion and everything was fine. We've grown faster than we can sustain a middle-class couple having a family. The economy has to scale with the size of the population.
Reducing the population wont solve the question. The problem is the rich and old people choosing what the poor should do. The earth can sustain 2x 3x 4x our current pooulation (lool at how many food US waste for example)
@@reynanhenry612 humans and livestock are already 96% of the landmass of mammals. We are depleting natural resources (soil, freshwater, fish stocks) faster than they regenerate. We are in the midst of the 6th mass extinction in Earth's history entirely caused by human actions. Sure, the Earth could support evej more people, but then all these problems get worse, because it's always cheaper to exploit the natural world than to live "sustainably." With AI and automation, fewer humans are needed. If distributed fairly, the wealth from these advances can support the inverted pyramid of an aging population, and over time as young people see the future will be a better place, they may have more children.
@@MosesKim-je5rjrobots will replace caretakers for the elderly. Less population means less housing pressure. Prices will fall and allow future generations to own a home. All the fuss is about not having infinite market growth for corporations.
It's a cultural phenomenon, not a logistics problem. This culture literally went from uneducated, rural economy to economic and technological powerhouse in the span of one lifetime. This was the result of an exclusive emphasis on education and career. Four generations of South Koreans have been raised to value career prestige and income above all else. Having a family is not a value that they think is worthy of sacrifice, especially for women.
one solution could be that government takes effort to spread the population throughout korea rather then concentrating in seoul by moving main federal offices to other cities where the housing costs and living expenses are cheaper then seoul.
Some things are pretty universal - people dont want to have kids, they can't provide for, and they dont themselves want to be poor. But companies and governments don't seriously want to fix things like high housing costs. They fundamentally aren't looking out for peoples economic interests in a just way. They are looking out for the economic interests of the owner class of people.
The winning formula: Have everyone in the family actively participate in raising the child. In-laws and husband helping to make meals, do laundry, take the child to school, clean the house. Everyone working as a team. As the saying goes, "It takes a village...". Then increase wages for both the mother and father's income and decrease working hours to 8 hours or less with a minimum of 2 days off. Result; the birth rate will sky rocket.
Assuming someone has any family support to begin with though, and also assuming there's not in the same workaholic situation. The rest is definitely a solution however
@@nrgpup77 exactly! I have 2 kids, they start to be older now. When I needed my parents most, or my in-laws,everybody was still working. Now that some started retirement, the kids can already look for themselves...😅
MY SOLUTION... In future, the day will come when the govt will give birth to their own babies in their own centres and people will be hired to take care of them like a normal job.
That would never work unless you could somehow get more money out of the child than paying for both the child and the caregiver for 24 years + college. Not to mention retirement for both. Im pretty sure this is impossible.
I assert that the demographic collapse problem is temporary because probably within the next couple of decades we will be able to do an awful lot to treat the symptoms of aging and then also the cause of it itself and what that means is that the death rate will fall below the birth rate and that's all that's needed to keep the population stable and even growing.
@@christopheraaron2412Dude, the problem is not the total population, but the number of old people compared to the youngsters. Right now the average age of japanese and italians is almost 50 years old and growing. Old people don't work so they don't produce, don't consume so the economy will shrink and need welfare so young people will be taxed to pay for grandma's healthcare and pension. Your "solution" would actually make the problem worse, because it would create a bigger percentage of the population not productive and dependent on welfare.
You should point out that these government sponsored "matchmaking events" are nothing new. Japan and Singapore have been doing these for decades, with no discernable results.
Beating around the bush, none is addressing the ever increasing hyper cost of living. It's hard to even manage single if not earning really well forget about family...
Hypocrisy at its best. Let the middleclass Get fair compensation linked to cost of living at the location and work life balance.Let both the parties have common agreement on this.
"Solution" implies there is a problem. Any thinking and thoughtful person should know that a low birth rate is not a problem and certainly not "the" problem. The real problem is our economic models. The earth has enough human beings. Anyone choosing not to have children is doing the earth and all other life on it a huge favor.
Who exactly has the most to lose from population decrease? . . . Maybe the ones telling that we absolutely need a growth based economy? (in order to skim off the profits)
The focus needs to be on adjusting to a smaller workforce instead of boosting the population. The happiness of the people should come before the comfort of the rich and the corporations. They just want to avoid a decrease in profits a smaller workforce would create.
I live in the US. The Republicans want women to stay home and have babies. About 15 years ago a woman I worked with had lived in Michigan as a teenager where cars were made. She said that men could graduate from high school, get a job in the car industry, and almost immediately have enough resources to buy a house, get married, and have kids. That was in the early 70s. That is no longer the case here. Young people are not making enough money to have families - men or women. They can hardly support themselves. If you support the multi millionaires and the billionaires instead of the middle class, this is what happens. But less people affects those billionaires who rely on more and more economic growth.
What about gender inequality? In Korea and Japan, most men don't do their fair share of childcare or housework and expect their wives to do most of it.
Gender equality seems to correlate with lower birth rates. Look at Scandinavia vs the islamic world or Africa or south Asia. Not talking about the morals of it but in terms of numbers.
@@Erdwick That isn't a very fair comparison. While I don't disagree that gender equality would likely correlate to lower birth rates as women wouldn't be forced to have children against their will, your comparison is flawed because a major factor has to do with culture and income. Healthy households, lower child mortality, and financial stability all have a significant impact towards decreasing birthrates, but these are not for bad reasons.
@@old_toucs6283 If you are looking at the past then you have to look at the other variables too. In the past when birthrates were "a lot higher" (and men also didn't share childcare/housework)....were the men able to sustain the family on their one income so the woman didn't have to also work while taking care of kids and home? That's the US was like in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. A man can say, "My mother/grandmother was able to do it".... but did Mother or Grandmother have to work a job outside the home or did the male breadwinner's salary cover the family expenses? Make sure you are comparing apples to apples and not cherry picking one variable to make a point.
@infinite.possibilities111 That's a factor that young women often cite. After working all day for their employers, they want to go home and relax. They don't want a second full-time job as the primary caregiver for children, all while bearing the primary responsibility for family meals and chores. In most cultures, men still view parenting, home chores, and cooking as women's work. Fewer women are willing to sign on for such a bad deal. Domestic violence is also commonplace. One woman referred to marriage in her culture as a 'license to beat'. Is it any surprise they are rejecting marriage and family? Google South Korea's 4B movement. It's an interesting phenomenon.
women don't want to have babies because we sacrifice so much in order to have a child. It doesn't need to be this way. Men can step up to the plate. the sacrifices to have a child should be shared equally. If we had this, we wouldn't be having the declining birthrate in so many countries around the world. We just need men to STEP UP.
The issue isn't necessarily the size of the population: it's how many old people there are. When you have a small young population supporting a huge old population, how can the young possibly prosper?
And in other news, who cares inflation is growing? Imma tell that grocery store cashier to go inflate his capitalistic self and then I'll just pay last month's prices and leave. Simple.
Choosing career over family is always a losing battle. You've never heard an old woman on her death bed say I should have put more hours in at the office.
The real false rhetoric is that having a child, is not an ungrateful job. I can't even begin to count how many parents have said that, you think at a old woman's death bed the children she had are going to genuinely cry for her and not whine for inheritance or not even show up? That's a sweet story but this is the real world
As numerous love hotels have been springing up in and around urban areas in S.Korea, the country's birth rate has simultaneously been declining, and the divorce rate has increased significantly. Studying this trend can provide insights. Please keep an eye on S.Korea’s changes in the future
Read more about how 'Asia's Baby Shortage Cries Out for a Gender Equality Solution' on Bloomberg: www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-11-01/birth-rates-drop-has-governments-in-east-asia-scrambling-for-a-fix?sref=zU1fOhDr
Housing Inflation wouldn't have ballooned if Boomers didn't over spend with government policies..............
That won't help.
Yes yes marry me when I am old and in hurt tile
Please marry me, pay me, etc etc XD
When the country collapses the Samsung family will go abroad with all the money they have. 😂
women going into the working force actually made them more depressing. Traditional womanhood was more happier before 21st century than now.
I’m always surprised by how countries direct response to declining birth rates is to strongly promote marriage and higher birth rates, rather than addressing the deeper, underlying causes of the decline.
This reminds me of a high school near San Francisco that I once read about. Known for its reputation and top-achieving, straight-A students, it imposed intense academic and social pressures on their students. These demands tragically led to a high rate of suicides. So in response, the school hired someone to monitor a nearby train track often used in these suicides, in hope that he would stop them in their act.. instead of actually addressing the issue
Also kind of like the pizza party for working months on a project in a job
The hyper-competitive nature of Korean society is making me reconsider having children. I'm concerned about the pressures and challenges they might face.
In India, there is a town called Kota which is the hub of coaching centres for IIT JEE examination, arguably the most prestigious and the most tough engineering examination in India. One of the coaching centres had successive episodes of suicides by hanging and they responded by removing the fans from the rooms of the children living in hostels/dorms.
Absolutely correct.
Yes there needs to be a government initiative for affordable child care and laws protecting pregnant women and mothers. This will help women bare the load of raising the next generation.
You can't really force two competing workaholics to have a child
Yea, you gotta ask there bosses, if bosses agree with there less production.
Yep. Solution would be to not educate women but in cloister schools only like my grandma, tax singles and give incentives for families, abolish no-fault divorce, prosecute people who spread certain diseases as if they had physically attacked someone, the whole nine yards.
In essence: Go back to a society that worked, pre LBJ's "great society"-scam.
Well said.
Well said again!
Love how their fix for improving work-life balance is telling people, "remember to balance your work-life!".
I am korean, we are doomed since all our politicians are super old rich men only. They will NEVER in a million year understand what is wrong.
Do you think they found the elixir to immortality and are just not saying?
진짜 한국은 망햇음
I thought politicians in South Korea were elected by the people. Why don’t the people elect better politicians who will understand?
@@ethanlamoureux5306 you are living in a dream world. Because people are ignorant and don't care about politics. Young people are struggling to survive and they don't go into politics. And most people are not rich enough/ no connection to go into politics and be successful. It is the same everywhere around the world.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 just because we have democracy, does it mean that everything is fair and just and clean? What about corruption? What about capitalism? Rich and powerful connections passed onto their own children only? I don't know where you are from, but i am sure it is the same in most of other countries.
The title of this video is highly misleading. There was no “radical solution” offered here whatsoever. It even admitted these methods were deemed 90% ineffective by South Koreans.
match making meet ups are weird altogether. you'll probably see pretty close to 100% socially awkward people there. it is a waste of time.
They mean the Radical entitlement must change. China one child policy in the 80s was the tip of the iceberg
Just because a solution is considered ineffective doesn't make it not radical
A lot of other countries have dealt with it for decades, by encouraging immigration. But their ethnic identity and cultural heritage is really himportant to people in East Asian countries, so they're less willing to accept such "blending" of populations. But imo, the main reason why young people are less willing to start families, is because it's too expensive to live their own lives for many people, in these modern times where quality of life is higher than ever for average people.
So people who are just barely able to balance their own lives and interests when it comes to their finances, would therefore be forced to reduce not only the quantity, but more importantly the quality of what they consume if they start their own families. It's a given to reduce the quantity when doing it, but the reduction in quality due to lack of spare finances for themselves after taking care of their mortgage, childcare and so on, is larger than ever before.
The problems they talk about in the video has been blamed for decades for this phenomenon, but they have always been the same for centuries. Women were working on their farms with their spouse even back when the only available consumerism was drinking, reading and playing board games. Families always took care of their elderly back then too.
The only difference now is that the quality of life is so high for average people, and the cost of it is also higher than ever. But nobody talks about that as a possible reason for the demographic crises. Yet they see third world countries booming with population growth, where everything in their lives is much, much harder, while the stuff to consume is also much, much lower in quality there. And there, families also take care of their elderly.
@Joppi1992 haha thanks your beloved Leftistm
So the radical solution is..... matchmaking? They're in trouble.
True. I was thinking this video would present that S. Korea was considering mass immigration. But the homogenous Asian cultures have never accepted that, at least mass immigration.
The title is pure clickbait. Cmon Bloomberg do better.
South Korean government should knock off housing loan for every child that has been given birth to.
@@billyhill434 we need to keep posting "pension, maternity+paternity 1 year paid leave, nanny for 2 years paid, lower housing ownership cost" in all such videos for the old boomer politicians to get it.
@@beyondfossil Most cultures never seem to completely accept it
They should address their workaholic culture rather than pouring cash for babies and marriages.
They should support single parents not shaming them and their kids
If workaholic culture was the cause then Europe would be booming with kids. Its largely irrelevant as a factor. What is relevant is people believing their lives are better off without kids, that kids are a matter of choice.
@@annalehman93941 they're already getting support.
@@Carthodon Korean workaholic culture is on another level, they work 9amto9pm and drinks or attend work dinner and talk work again. some folks working more than 12 hours a day - no time for date or family
@@ytn00b3 Instead of having multiple explanations for why every country with a welfare system that is wealthy is going extinct, it makes sense to find that one explanation even if it doesn't massage people's egos by saying them not having kids is not their fault.
In every society which is dying out the obvious answer is a belief that kids are a choice. In Europe this is done because people are hedonistic, and see children as a drag on their fun. In East Asia it is because social status is determined by their career and people really want that social status. In both cases it is selfish, and this is allowed because no one worries about starving to death when they're too old to work because of the generous welfare systems.
Instead of remaking the entire economy to theoretically help selfish people which has never been shown to actually work, taking away pensions has been shown to work. Once people realize they need others in order to survive, they will find the motivation in themselves to sacrifice a few decades to raise them well so those same people can take care of them when they're old. Bringing back religion could also work though I don't know how a government can actually make that happen without becoming an international pariah.
4:38 Notice the decline from 2023 to 2024. Coincidentally, in 2023, the S. Korean government considered raising the cap on weekly work hours from 52 to 69. The measure was defeated but the message was loud and clear--the government cares more about the chaebols and corporations than it does S. Korean families. 😥
real world cyberpunk dystopia is what S korea is
prob also abiding by WE-F protocols of forcing the human population to decline per muh cli-mate chan ge
This had nothing to do with that value btw. I don't think you understand both the choices towards having a kid OR the governments raise on weekly work hours. There's nothing wrong with allowing higher work hours to be statistically valid.
@@Gizziiusa c'mon. quit the cartoonish conspiratorial nonsense. "protocols" "forcing" "the human population" right, and for sure tied to climate. yeah right... you should learn how boring the WEF really is...* and how little any organization can do to influence large scale social trends... case in point, aggressive, focused campaigns to encourage fertility have very little effect. the world is not a comic book. it's a ridiculously complicated network of networks of networks of complicated systems of systems... nobody understands it, let alone can pull the strings.
* as in, actually do some reading and learning about it. real sources, not filtered, curated political pablum
@@FreeSeoul Except it would pressure people to work more hence they have less time more their children or looking for a partner.....
To paraphrase another poster: "the wolves are upset that the sheep aren't reproducing enough."
Agree, the squires are upset that their cattle aren’t reproducing
-We need to raise the birthrate
-So we are going to increase wages and reduce working hours
- Nah, lets do Tinder in real life
Someone failed economics
@@snowheader2200 Yeah... you did.
They need to do something about the chaebol. Just the top few control half of South Korea's economy and make it challenging to make any difference for the employees.
If high wages and reduced working hours caused higher birth rates we wouldn’t see this phenomenon in the most developed countries. It is the least developed countries with the lowest wages and worst working conditions which have the highest birth rates.
I’m not saying the solution is to make wages and working conditions worse, but they’re clearly not the real cause.
@charlieread2097 it's absolutely the opposite, and it's not just SK experiencing this. Even in the US (and especially in Japan), we are seeing lower birthrates due to wages not keeping up. Are parents supposed to pay bills with magic?
This addresses none of the underlying root causes of why so many countries are experiencing this.
These countries will do anything but de-monopolize and de-rig the economy and make children affordable to the honest hardworking young generations. Wonder why?
IMO: capitalism.
what is it ? I think its the lack of daycares and assistance to providing mothers with a place to bring there kids while they go to work
@@ImKevin nah it's just children are too expensive and everything is fcking expensive in this world no matter how much you work. Simple as that
8.2 BILLION people on the planet just isn't enough -right?
200 years ago get married and have a kids was a question of survival as an individual, now don't get married and don't have kids is a question of survival as an individual
you are close to the truth. At least you are on the right track. It is about evolution of self-centeredness and the de-evolution of family-community identity. People today are self-centered. Having children is the opposite of self-centered so that's why ppl don't want to have children, not because they can't. Anyone can have lots of children if they want. They just love themselves too much.
@@breakaway2x Can you identify an altruistic reason to have a child? ... I think having children is the egotistic choice.
@@MarianaSilva-kh4io The future generation is going to fund the pensions of todays generation, meaning you'll be eating off strangers.
@@MarianaSilva-kh4ioWanting to bring another life into the world, loving him/her with all that you can give?
It's still your need to do that, you are creating someone that didn't choose to be here, to love. The only altruistic way to do that is to give that love to someone that already exists... Adoption
At this rate, North Korea won't even have to invade the South ... They'll just have to wait 😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
North Korea rate probably isn't much better.
@@bureaffari3694
Kim is all ears... go on, what's your plan ?
They probably already realized that the moment BTS showed up.
North Korea's fertility rate is also below replacement level and Kim Jong-un said it is a North Korean woman's patriotic duty to have a child.
South Korea is suffering now because they're working just as hard as they did when they came out of the Korean war. We're talking minimum 52 hour workweeks and last year they were trying to raise it to 69. Add that to their rent market that requires a deposit like you own a house and the general high cost of housing.. Koreans cannot afford kids both in money and in time.
I disagree. You are only ascribing to the office working career. Nobody else has to work more than 40 hours a week. It's not expensive at all. Korea is very cheap to live in. The problem is culture mindset. People have become superficial and materialistic and self-centered. Nobody cares about sacrifice and suffering. They only care about their own selfish lives, comforts, and pleasures. It's not that they can't have children...it's that they don't want to. Huge difference. Koreans and most developed nations peoples are highly superficial and have no desire to live a life of sacrifice like our parents and grandparents did. This has nothing to do with work, expense, or even school/job stress/competition.
Meanwhile, in France, we have a 35 hour work week, parental leave, arguably better daycare, it's not perfect, but we have a higher fertility rate, just sayin'
@@edsiles4297 One, that's largely due to immigration. Two, France is also declining
It has nothing to do with all this. Why are people afraid of saying that they just don't want kids because they don't provide anything anymore?
.it not about ideologies of women or men. in marriage ( specially when child born) both women and men do some sacrifices in there life and thing about there family but individually ideologies now become a core of east Asian or western society due this people still think about their own life but not there family or children specifically for women(new gen) they grow adult but they not know how expensive this society for living but majority of men ready to sacrifice their own preferences for family and children ( i say according to my experience) and specifically western media try to make this ideologies that if a women is house wife then this is some kind a oppression of women done by men but if your mother is housewife and father is money maker of family, then ask to your mother if she feel some kind oppression by your dad and this is biggest unrespect of my mother if anyone say that your mother doing a maid work for my family because my mother do every think according her wish and no one force her and it called care for children and love for husband not some kind a oppression.
The younger generation isn't getting married or having children because the older generation got all the power and resources, and refuses to give it up. It's the same story in the U.S. and other developed countries with declining birth rates.
So... your solution is ending all the old folks like Andy Cuomo did?
it's not about a generational wealth gap driving the alienation, but how the very rich "1%" have impoverished the bottom 90%.
In every industrial consumer society.
That is the result of Neoliberal capitalism, ie let the "markets" (1%) RULE.
There are way more impoverished retirees than there are comfortable ones.
@@qarljohnson4971 Nope, not the markets. The distortion of markets by those elites for their own gain, eg the use of the Fed to "rescue" friendly banks and let banks owned by people they don't like fail.
Lol such nonsense. You could shower our generations with money, but we would just spend it on vanity and vacations.
@@qarljohnson4971 The thing is, even if you are in the top 90% in S.Korea(I mean above the bottom 10%), you aren't impoverished. However you may feel you are because, just like a normal person would feel bad about themselves if they were looking at Instagram models all day, people want too much. There was this saying going around in lower elementary school grades last year, "vacation begger." It's what kids called other kids whose families did not take a overseas vacation. KIDS are ranking their happiness according to where their families spent their time. (Paris > London=Rome > New York = LA = Hawaii etc. > Bali or any SE. Asian resort > domestic) "Wait, you've never been to Europe or the US? Is your family POOR?" Yes, the whole society is spoiled and that blame does not go to the older generation. (or maybe a little bit but not totally at least.)
That lady summarized it best. If you're ready a child is a blessing.If you're not, its a disaster
in a lot of cases, by the time the woman thinks she's ready, her fertility is low lol
@@GameFuMaster better to regret not having them than regret having them.
@@jiminkaijinyoungnikkie9921💯
@@jiminkaijinyoungnikkie9921 lots of women seem to 180 after having their child and go on to having second ones.
@@GameFuMaster And where'd you get that from?
Did I miss something? What is their radical solution to the birth rate crisis?
Government tinder and getting paid a one time small cash bonus. They have no solutions, korea is going extinct.
I was also waiting hah there were just suggestions and that's it, no actual practice because the issue is deep-rooted in their society and culture that is trying so hard to be individualistic by taking only the negative parts of individualism
Immigration from Philippines and India.
@ where in the video did they say that?
@@info781 never gonna happen
If you have to work 500 hours a week, making a baby is the last thing in your mind after work.
Yes it is not on your to-do list lol.
this is false. Koreans in the past had to work 24 hours a day no sleep and still had 10 babies each with no money. So it's just an excuse and lie that they work too much or it's too expensive. That's not what it's about at all. It's all about selfishness.
@breakaway2x don't think so. No one works 24 hours a day with no sleep.
Impossible. There are only 168 hours in a week.
@@breakaway2x koreans male or koreans both males and females were working 24 hours?
Then the mothers took care of the kids. Now when both are working who do you expect to take care of the kids if they both are working probably 18 out of 24 hours?
Old politicians will never understand the needs of young people today. It's a vastly different world, vastly removed from the 60s or 70s.
they can literally just ask, it's not some secret.
They don’t want to ask, because they think they know and the young should follow.
It’s only getting worse with the average age of politicians going ever higher. We need a massive new wave of younger people in government
Excuses...
@@toppicks6460your response is exactly why this person wrote that comment
It is sad that a lot of people have a child, go back to work and then pay someone else essentially all of their hard-earned money to look after their child.
Exactly. So better not do it at all then
So True. Whats the point of being a parent if you don't even raise your child? This used to be a problem with men who wouldn't participate but now even women are choosing their careers over their kids as well. The younger generation has decided to not have kids at all. Looks like we will be studying korean and japanese people in history books within a 100 years like some ancient civilization.
For that child eventually becoming a servant for the rich
Correct, always puzzled me why you would outsource the childrearing. Your most valuable asset and heir to your legacy.
out of touch, old, rich people making solutions for the country lol
I'm glad someone in this comments section gets it, lol.
money isn't going to fix anything. they need to fix their society. they are too fixated on vanity, status, and appearances. its deplorable and depressing to live in korea
There's also the work-life imbalance
Is that comment for Singapore, Taiwan, Japan and China?
Least judgmental and generalizing foreigner. Is that why the birth rate is dropping even in happier and """less vain""" countries? Pretty vain of you to judge like that btw
No the rich are taking everything there just like here. Lets not distract ourselves
@@SL-jn8cz the whole world except for third world countries basically
Extremely lazy journalism at its worst. It's like Bloomberg sent 1 person to Korea for 5 minutes and interviewed only their friends, touching on only the most trendy, fashionable issues. The woman who said "marriage is sacrificing oneself" clued you in to the real issue at hand, but you just ignored that completely.
Yes they've tried everything except actually listening to women's concerns 🤦♀️
Exactly 💯. No depth to it. UA-camrs do a better job...
You should see the full video
That's just justification bro, there are many issues related but there are some dominant one's and people are not trying to fix that ..
"The thought of raising a child in such a cutthroat society is overwhelming. I'm afraid they won't be able to cope with the constant pressure to succeed."
Simple. We humans are seen as cogs in the wheel to keep the system going. Bringing a child into this world should be the mother and fathers choice and the enjoyment of raising a child should be their priority. The policymakers instead overlook the expensive nature and pressure of society and just worry about making babies to keep the system going. That in and of itself takes away the pleasure of having and raising children.
BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR GDP
You're owned.
The rich sqeeuzing the working class into extinction
Not only that. South Korea as a society grew materialistic, became obsessed with appearances (plastic surgery capital), vanity, status. Their problem is selfishness.
@@vervetech9395then why do all the western countries also have low non replacement birth rates?
The rich have always squeezed the working class. You think you're getting squeezed more than a feudal serf? No. But the serf still had a family.
@@vervetech9395 having children is being selfish. Human beings are selfish. South Korea top 1 percent population controlling their GDP, government and market is being greedy and morally corrupt
You nailed it! The wealthy want that cheap labor.
I don’t need marriage or kids, I need stability
Facts
Until the correlation changes the rest don't see they are two separate things
there is no such thing as stability. Life is volatile. Always has been and always will be.
Yup you're right this goes for both men and women
No young men are interviewed
That is point of media
This is just some out of touch American journalist who went to vacation in Seoul and asked a couple AI level questions to her friends to churn out this trash. This is one of the worst bloomberg videos in recent memory
@@sharpasacueballthey need the justification so they can deduct the trip from theiy tax right
@@reynanhenry612
Point
Because it’s young women who decide to give birth. Young men don’t have a say in a woman giving birth to his child.
People don’t want to get married and have kids bec it’s so expensive
Then why do the poorest people and countries have the most kids.
@@Joshua-eo5hr Different mentality.
@@Joshua-eo5hr True in every country except America. IN America, the richest have more kids.
@@Joshua-eo5hr no access to birth control
@Joshua-eo5hr Because they are poor, they think children are going to be their retirement plan, they don't spend on their children and depend on welfare from government or worse make children work
As someone who took care of aging parents. It's not easy and you end up feeling like you lost the opportunity to do things.
For real, nobody talks on the elderly of the past didn't have advanced medicine to live too long while needing care, and would just die before burdening younger generations taking the role of a child. Not their fault, but one can't be expected to care for a bunch of old people for years and also raise children at the same time, all on a normal job.
If making children was profitable, trust and believe people are lining up for it.
It's profitable for the government and corporations. That's why the government is worried about the fertility rate.
Capitalism hates dependents, whether they’re schoolkids or pensioners. It’s too sociopathically shortsighted to value and invest in its future workforce.
@@LittleBobbyHasTablesexactly, but people say childfree people are selfish for not wanting to create more cogs for disgusting governments. Humans are content $l@v3s.
@@LittleBobbyHasTables its existentially profitable for humans as well, it's just the corporate/elite greed and fmnzm that caused this to be an issue.
well if youtube didn't demonetize children's channels it could have been. Everyone can just have babies and make them earn money from youtube since kids channels were the most profitable until youtube decided to demonetize children channels to prevent exploitation of children.
Low birth rate, aging population, suicide rate, elderly poverty rate are the highest in the world.
Both conservatives and progressives do not think about solving this problem, but only work hard to get elected,
and show off.
I worked over 15 hours every day while skipping lunch,
"That's just how it is", "There are many people who can do it even if you don't", "You came to our company because you had nowhere else to go"
It's disgusting and shameful, so I gave up on marriage and live.
In return for treating the 586 generation as expendable,
My children pay 3 times the amount of taxes, but the national pension and health insurance are bankrupt.
no. conservatives don't care about this problem. advocacy for the working class and a better welfare state, healthcare, and work-life balance, are all core progressive ideals. i guarantee in your country if you look at what the progressives are saying, they're going to be many times more likely than anyone else to call out these issues. this ain't a both sides problem, you don't need to pretend it is.
This is going to be a global problem soon enough.
Better remind India and Southeast Asia. I don't think we got the memo.
@@esparda07 Fertility rates are below replacement across Southeast Asia and India. Singapore has the second lowest fertility rate in the world and Thailand's fertility rate is rapidly declining. Fertility rates across most of the rest of Southeast Asia are either at replacement level, close to it or below it. India's fertility rate is below replacement level, most of its states have below replacement level fertility and its urban fertility rate stands at 1.6. Yesterday, Bloomberg published an article about South India's rapidly declining fertility crisis. Stop pretending to be Indian or Southeast Asian cause if you were, you would know all of this.
@@esparda07India's fertility rate is also decreasing drastically, i think by 2030 it will come below 1.8- 1.9 😊
Birgh rate of indigene German women is 0.3.
It's the 🧕🏾 with german citizenship that pop out one after another and keep our birth rate at 1.4
@@esparda07 Fertility rate is also starting go down in Southeast Asia, Thailand is especially in precarious position.
Corporations need more workers to keep increasing profits. Governments need citizens to bring in taxes. However increased profits means increased prices and so couples feel they don't have the disposable income to handle the costs of raising a child. They needed women to join the workforce to maintain the upward trajectories on shareholders reports. And yet they expected women to keep pumping out kids at the same rate and not pursue careers like men would. Maybe this is just the system self-correcting from capitalism? This is playing out at different levels all across the developed world. Fascinating stuff.
It's not because of people working. It's all because of "trickle down." Everything they work hard for being the most productive peoples on planet earth but our wages artificially separated from our productivity, sending everything straight to the tip top.
It is like a snake devour itself.
That's right 👍
It's only one of reason of dominant reasons but their are other reason also 😊
Not just developed world but developing countries like India and China will face this reckoning in a couple of decades.
As a South Korean, there is an another unspoken reason for this phenomenon. Our generation is not sure that we can provide all financial&social supports to our children as much as we have received from our parents.
Even in Sweden, where the society is conducive to having children, fertility is 1.5. Well below replacement of 2.1. So it's not really about money. Having children is no longer viewed as an obligation to family and society. It's viewed as a choice. And people are making that choice. Fits.
This is really mostly it. Back in the old days (agrarian society), they were less wealthy, worked longer hours (although less over the year), and less educated.
You'd think, in an urban context, this would explain having less kids. But it doesn't. Those people had more kids. And in an urban environment, the people who are less educated, work 2 jobs, have no savings, are having several kids on their own.
It really has nothing to do with money. It's the culture and environment.
You don't think that there's a correlation between cost of living and low birth rates? You cite Sweden, which has a much higher birth rate than South Korea, which actually fits the very well established relationship between high costs of living and lower birth rates.
If Sweden's fertility rate is 1.5, they are already doing well. They are much higher than Canada (1.28), and close to USA (1.8 I think).
@@Ocker3 Many poverty filled African nations or south Asian or middle eastern nations often have higher birth rates despite poverty. Its about culture and religion and civilisational values
@Erdwick as incomes go up, birth rates tend to go down. But that's from a variety of different factors, like both parents having high paying jobs and industry becoming more about knowledge work and less about manual labour. It's also about richer countries usually having lower child mortality, so a family doesn't need to have five children to get 2-3 to adulthood.
So basically, it's individualism, hyper-competitive society, setting unreal standards for raising children and the burden of responsibilities. It's just going to be worse for them.
@@kzm-cb5mr we need to keep posting "pension, paid maternity+paternity leave of one year, nanny for two years paid, low housing costs" fort he boomer politicians to get it.
Basically, government approved Tinder
lol..
🤣
i.e. more wasted tax payer money
Tinder causes objectification and can require a very long time to actually obtain a face to face. Tinder is the problem, not the solution
I lived about 35km outside of Seoul, and the school that I taught at many families had 2-3 kids. That was quite unreal to me. If the Korean government can finally move all organs of government out to Sejong, and empty out Seoul, I think it would encourage more people to have more children naturally, if they can just get spiralling cram school (hagwon) costs under control and also to empower public school teachers to do the jobs that they were trained to do. Korea's public schools are private schools in other countries.
I don't know that moving the government would do all that much. People go where the jobs and activities are, not where the politicians are.
Getting family costs under control (cram school or anything else) is the real answer. People who can barely afford to take care of themselves just aren't going to be as interested in trying to take care of others.
@altrag south korea, much like japan, structured its economy in a manner where most, if not all, economic activity centers around where the govt carries out its function (in south Korea its Seoul, in Japan it's Tokyo). The further away a place is from govt activity, the less economic activity there is. As such there is less opportunities and migration attraction in the peripheries, which means businesses are less likely to open up in those areas, which means even lower opportunities and migration attraction. It is a vicious cycle that almost any large (as in bigger than a city state) unitary countries (countries where most economic and govt activity revolves around the capital) have to deal with.
@@sasi5841 You're not _wrong,_ but you're asserting that the coincidences of history will be repeated in today's completely different scenario.
When there is no big business, economic activity is primarily centered around the singular remaining economic hub - the government. So of course small businesses start in that area, some of which became the big businesses we have today.
But now the reverse is true. The big businesses are the main economic hub. They employ far more people and control far more of the money supply than the government does. Moving the government today would bring _some_ people (especially those who work for the government), but businesses can't just uproot like that. It takes a lot of time and money to build entire new office towers and move literally millions of workers, etc. Businesses would likely move _eventually_ but "eventually" is measured in decades by the time a critical mass of them have done so (unless the government offers enough incentives to force the move, of course).
North America is kind of the strange one where a lot of our government bodies reside in cities that aren't the economic centers. That's kind of a leftover of the colonial days - our economic centers were developed while we were still colonies and they grew up around the _colonial_ centers of power rather than the seats of modern government (and largely illustrates my point from above - if the "just move government" idea worked, you'd expect DC to be America's economic hub by now, rather than New York or LA or Houston or any number of other cities that have more economic activity than Washington). Same for Ottawa up in Canada, Albany within New York state, etc.
History is of course not 100% consistent on anything so I'm sure there will be counterexamples, but the common case is that people follow the money more than they follow the power.
Where is this South Korea’s Radical Solution? You are not covering the topic
They created an entire government department to address the issue and staffed it with a legion well-paid civil servants. What more do you want from them?
@@Veylon I meant that the video is named 'South Korea's Radical Solution' but there is no solution mentioned in the video.
Listen. When you can't afford to even feed and take care of yourself, how do you expect to raise a child?
In our parents generation, it was far easier to purchase a home. The direct comparison with wages to home prices was MUCH lower than it is today.
In todays age, almost no young people can afford a home until they are at least well into their mid to late 30s/40s.
My mom couldnt afford having a child but still had me, my parents bought their first home when I was 12. I dont get why people think that owing a home is a requirement.
when I was young, we rationed with 2 meals a day and lived in a house with 1 room and external shared toilet. yet my parents and others of their generation had many children. some of the poorest countries have highest fertility and richest have lowest. money and affordability is an issue but it's not the only or even the most important one.
the real issue is ideological. people now are narcissistic and materialistic. their own comfort and impulses drive most decisions. the concept of compromising for a greater purpose is gone. everything is transactional. unless you return to the old norms, the issue won't be solved.
many people are giving many 'reasons' but no one touches on the real reason because it's politically incorrect. but unless that's solved, the crisis will persist. throwing bundles of cash at the problem won't solve it - it will only lead to inflation.
@@the80386 You sir got the gold medal, finally someone saying the truth.
@@the80386 You just misspelled "lower standards", just because people lived like animals and breed every mating season in the past that doesn't mean we should do the same now or even worse be forced to live like this because some politicians decided so.
Life doesn't have to be so hard, especially today that we should make things easier for everyone with all the technology and knowledge we have.
You are glorifying hardships and bring them as an example, nobody wants to live in an apartment with 1 bedroom and barely be able to afford food and torture their five kids in a world where there is an abundance of everything and all of that just to please the masters that the economy is not collapsing.
Every person wants and deserves to work and be able to make a living out of their own work instead of feeding some rich politicians.
Humans are not money nor statistical data.
@@the80386 I agree with you, but your comment is full of toxic biased terms. You should see it rather more neutral. The problem is not that people are evil, narcisstic and materialistic demons. The problem is INDIVIDUALISM and that is the consequence of modernity, with all its scientific and technological progress. People want to enjoy their life more, and all those inventions and discoveries highlight the value of individuals compared to the collective of past centuries. Back then in the past people could not be individualistic like we do. They were members of a collective, of a clan, of a tribe, of a greater family that RULED them with iron fist. Without that collective people died very quickly, because there was no technology or science to prevent that.
But with individualism there comes also the value of not sacrificing your hobbies and interests and life quality for another life. Because let´s face it, siring children only makes sense, if you have a strong commitment for something GREATER than yourself, like the NATION, the CLAN, the TRIBE, the KINGDOM, the IDEOLOGY, the RELIGION. When you think individualistic, why should you produce babies? For whom?
The people do not want to live in squalor to produce the next generation, because there is nothing GREATER than themselves that compels or forces them to do so.
The most serious and frightening thing is IT COULD AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
IF the GDP per capita goes up, who cares other than the rich?
Oh no, what a nightmare 🙀 🤪
i was in japan recently, I saw more people pushing strollers for dogs than baby strollers with human babies in them.
Pretending your dog is a child is a lot easier than going through pregnancy
It's cheaper and not as time intensive
@@annaairahala9462 most depressing outlook to have. Trying to defy one of the best, most traditional aspects of life for modern placation. Reject love and family, embrace cheap substitutions, apparently. (I'm saying this as someone who loves dogs btw)
@@thekamotodragon I don't think it's depressing at all. The way you define your values, I would never want that for my life.
@@thekamotodragon Dogs aren't modern they were companions for humanity for tens of thousands of years.Also dogs/cats aren't cheap by any means either especially if they get sick.Also they are not a substitution no child can replace a loved dog/cat or vice versa.
South Korea has over 50M people in an area roughly the size of Kentucky.
That's too many people imo.
Exactly 💯. I don't know why they never say this about this issue. It's just a natural correction at this point.
Not really
@@Joshua-eo5hr 25m people are packed in about 10,000km2. That is higher than some of the densest countries such as Rwanda or Bangladesh.
@@jameskamotho751325 m people in which city?
@@Joshua-eo5hr How is it not too many people? What do you want? Will you be happy only when Seoul has expanded to take over the entire peninsula?
It's a party organised by the killer on the funeral of his victim. Hypocrisy at its finest
My father bought a house - not a McMansion, but decent - had a wife, raised 4 kids, and didn't have a huge income. Try that now. You'll be homeless.
Exactly. If it takes you 35 years to claw your way to financial security, why would you instantly jeopardize it by having children?
Hyper-materialistic status-obsessed society with sharp income polarisation. What could possibly go wrong.
Middle class people didn't used to have to choose between the lifestyle they want, and children. Now however, all but the wealthiest people have to make massive financial sacrifices to have children that will materially lower their standard of living. The MSM needs to stop pretending that the issue is complicated, it's super simple and there are very obvious things governments can do if they really wanted to fix the problem.
Solutions that would require massive transformations in the job market and economic structure aren't "obvious things" that governments can do.
@@hello855 Yes they are. Pro union policies to raise wages, public infrastructure and renewable energy projects to increase employment, a UBI, these are just a few basic things that could be done. The problem is the amount of corporate, right wing, and billionaire money behind propaganda that scares idiots with words like SOCIALISM !!! so they choose to live like serfs.
What is the MSM?
Mainstream media...
Exactly 💯. I think middle class households don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle for children.
Everyone is (rightly) talking about the workloads hours, but very few people addresses that one of the reasons korean women are not interested in building a family is due to rhe rampant sexisms in korea
That is one reason for sure, although I don't think it's the only reason
@ANGGELAful They won't touch that issue. Otherwise the men in their culture might have to change. Much easier to blame women for not doing their duty for the state.
Yes, there is rampant sexism against men in SK.
@@FuryOfCalderon 😂🤏
Is that new? Or has that sort of reality been around since 10,000 BC? Traditionally, women had it hard. In Korean history, only the men had it harder than the women.
The root problem is on affordability and people can't really get jobs outside of Seoul
That's very disheartening 😮
The real issue is Western ‘culture,’ driven by technology and neoliberal turbo-capitalism at its worst.
Muslim countries aren’t complaining-they recognize that everyone’s rights matter, not just women’s, who are close to entering the realm of untouchable privileges these days🤷♂
@@TheGalacticIndian Birth rate Iran = 1.7, birth rate Turkey 1.9, birth rate Bangladesh 1.9. All of them well below replacement level - a little higher than in Europe, but these countries are also considerable less urbanised - in urban areas the birth rate is lower. However if you want a high birth rate, look up Afghanistan it's 4.3 - but I personally prefer countries where women allowed to speak to each other.
@@changedNameSorryAfganistan was a beautiful country before the British invasion, the Russian invasion and the NATO-allied invasion.
@@changedNameSorryAlso, you're indirectly agreeing with the other comment. Turkey, Iran and Bangladesh have rapidly westernized in the last 30 years. You can see it in their TV dramas, music videos, clothing fashion etc. Iran is an Islamic Republic only by name, the government would fall the minute they really tried to ban any of mentioned things.
A sustainable society needs to inventivize a traditional lifestyle or else the solution to the demographic crisis will only be between anarco-leftist degrowth fantasies, mass immigration or betting all on robots.
Declining birth rates are one more reason for us to reassess our blind allegiance to the impossibility of infinite exponential economic growth.
I mean having lived in Japan for a handful of years, studied japanese for all 4 years of school and worked in japanese workplaces for over a decade and gotten a feel for the culture of that region, I'm not surprised. Economics is a significant factor but the rampant and overt chauvinism deeply negatively affects the psychology of both men and women
🤣🤣🤣
@@TheInterwebzMan How old are you? 12?
@@cjbolan8059 If you are eight, twelve is really old.
The woman (37 years old) said: ''I am not sure if I am ready to have a child''. You are 37 years old!!! When will you be ready!??
Elephant in the room that directly affects the pensions, home values, stock prices is to make it vastly cheaper for younger people to not just afford but thrive in their lives with enough surplus to have kids. Older generations will not let any of those things become more affordable at their expense.
Raising a child IS a job... You can't have women focused on their monetary job and expect them to do both
let's not blame just the women here. Equal part is that men not willing to take on the responsibilities of taking care of their own children, or at least do 50%. lots of blame to go around, government not providing enough assistance with childcare or help providing laws or rules that incentivize having families. Retirements, taking care of elder parents, and etc. there are lots of pressure for young people.
Even if you make 2x more from the same working condition you still can't improve the birthrate. Korea will still be unafforable to one parent working families.
One working parent household’s unaffordable in all developed countries because you’re competing against two parents working for housing.
These countries will do anything but de-monopolize and de-rig the economy and make children affordable to the honest hardworking young generations. Wonder why?
Seoul is at 0.59, the national average is 0.78, the largest province with over 13 million is Gyeonggi which is at 0.84.
Those provinces probably have a wide range internally, but it still boils down to the fact that the wealthier half decided to have small families.
It's only unaffordable because parents choose to pay thousands of usd worth of money for private education. Take that away and it is not too bad
Low birthrates are not bad, they are just a threat to the current system of capitalism based on infinite growth.
Low birthrates will exacerbate political systems that benefits an older and richer generation, and will also reduce the quality of pensions, but from a purely social and scientific context, a lot won't change.
the future of the world actually won't need people that much...with ai coming out....more ai people will exist than humans therefore, humans really don't need to exist. Ai will do everything so there's no point for humans to procreate.
The root cause is not addressed and yet another piece pinning the blame solely on women.
How are young women meant to raise any children single handedly whilst holding down a full time job with no job security, no marriage security, highly materialistic costly, cut-throat society and lack of help from their partner or parents in child rearing?
The corporate oligarchs complaining that the peasants aren't making more meat for the grinder
Why didn't you interview any young men for this? It takes two to tango so to speak and a young man's perspective on why he isn't or doesn't want to get married and have kids is equally valid.
South Korea, One of The Richest Countries not only in Asia but in the entire world, actually the poorest country because they can't afford to have comfortable and decent life even though the people always mock Southeast Asian countries as poor countries.
What a ironic.
Actually they're better then all of asia the only issue is the housing every else thing is cheap
What country has it so that all their citizens can afford at least all the basics?
I lived in SK for a couple of years and I never heard anyone 'mocking' SE countries in the media or in person. If you're referring to online trolls, they exist in every country. Maybe you should go outside and get a breath of fresh air, rather than making up stuff in your head.
"...could overwhelm economic growth"... you just said it, having kids is not about economic growth. They turned humans into statistical data and money.
How about the crippling misogyny in south korea?
misogyny stems as a result of women not wanting to get with en who aren't top tier in looks. If you want misogyny to go away, give men a reason to want to care about women.
@@skelochest2
So you're saying misogyny is a direct cause of your entitlement?
Economics is the major problem here . Being a single mother is almost impossible
@geethasanthosh6084 also thr fact that childcare and thr health risks of having a baby falls squarely on women.
@@skelochest2Well isn't the Biggest reason stated in this video itself on which you are commenting ? 😅
Countries should just accept this as a ntaural progression to a population that has fewer and fewer resources per citizen.
Kids are expensive. Especially in Korea. That is it
Cheap or expensive is really only a question of what you are comparing it with. Most of what's hiking up the costs in Korea are not child birth, child rearing and costs for diapers or formula, it's the private education sector that are basically baked into East Asian and some Southeast Asian societies. State has to ban extracurricular study forms so that parents are not forced to spend so much money just because their kids would be outcompeted by the other cram school goers. It's a competitive sector that thrives on the benign fears of parents. Not paying for such schools is basically equal to neglect/ punishment in these societies.
@@EternalKhann Yeah but whenever a party even tries to touch on that issue, their popularity plummets and angry parents are out on the streets protesting against limits on private education. I still remember the sh*tshow that happened when the democratic party limited night schools for minors to 10 pm
Plus crazy work culture that's like a cult
How is that a problem if you have money like the 37 year old lady?
Yeah but it's not expensive for people of Nigeria, Uganda and Somalia. They are very rich people that's why they have 10 children per woman.
Boomers were spoiled and rich yet had 3 times less kids than their poor parents. I'm not sure 'being ready' is a real factor.
It is after the mass availability of contraceptives. Before that it was less of a choice.
@@LadifourCondoms were around long before the pill as was sterilization.
@@Monsuco That's interesting history. Condoms have a few problems though. The ones before WW2 had poor quality control and high leakage rates. They were shunned or banned from advertisements. They also had to be used by men, which had a much greater power in the household both socially and legally then. And sterilizations are non-reversible, people like keeping their options open.
I will take your point though, as apparently "from 1955 to 1965, 42% of Americans of reproductive age relied on condoms for birth control". It's not just the availability of contraceptives as a tool, but also the cultural environment and purpose the tool is used for.
Interesting point! I've never seen things from that angle. Now that you pointed it out, the decline in births isn't a new trend. The cycle merely keeps going around. It just wasn't a problem for boomers because their parents didn't have retirement pensions and probably died before reaching retirement age.
The question is, what's wrong if the population declined? The world's population is over 8 billion now. In 1999 it was only 6 billion and everything was fine. We've grown faster than we can sustain a middle-class couple having a family. The economy has to scale with the size of the population.
I keep asking the same question. They made uproar about over population in the 90s and 2000s. What changed?
@@MosesKim-je5rj taxing the big corporations should fix that.
Reducing the population wont solve the question. The problem is the rich and old people choosing what the poor should do. The earth can sustain 2x 3x 4x our current pooulation (lool at how many food US waste for example)
@@reynanhenry612 humans and livestock are already 96% of the landmass of mammals. We are depleting natural resources (soil, freshwater, fish stocks) faster than they regenerate. We are in the midst of the 6th mass extinction in Earth's history entirely caused by human actions. Sure, the Earth could support evej more people, but then all these problems get worse, because it's always cheaper to exploit the natural world than to live "sustainably."
With AI and automation, fewer humans are needed. If distributed fairly, the wealth from these advances can support the inverted pyramid of an aging population, and over time as young people see the future will be a better place, they may have more children.
@@MosesKim-je5rjrobots will replace caretakers for the elderly. Less population means less housing pressure. Prices will fall and allow future generations to own a home.
All the fuss is about not having infinite market growth for corporations.
I have no wife or kids yet my life can be an absolute migraine sometimes because of the a**holes I have to contend with
It's a cultural phenomenon, not a logistics problem. This culture literally went from uneducated, rural economy to economic and technological powerhouse in the span of one lifetime. This was the result of an exclusive emphasis on education and career. Four generations of South Koreans have been raised to value career prestige and income above all else. Having a family is not a value that they think is worthy of sacrifice, especially for women.
"The solution is for the government to be my husband"
Yeah, it's not the horrible work life balance, low pay, high cost of living, and anti-woman attitudes. We just need a government date program.
one solution could be that government takes effort to spread the population throughout korea rather then concentrating in seoul by moving main federal offices to other cities where the housing costs and living expenses are cheaper then seoul.
This should be viewed as a symptom of a broken / unhealthy system not a problem itself.
Some things are pretty universal - people dont want to have kids, they can't provide for, and they dont themselves want to be poor.
But companies and governments don't seriously want to fix things like high housing costs. They fundamentally aren't looking out for peoples economic interests in a just way. They are looking out for the economic interests of the owner class of people.
The winning formula: Have everyone in the family actively participate in raising the child. In-laws and husband helping to make meals, do laundry, take the child to school, clean the house. Everyone working as a team. As the saying goes, "It takes a village...". Then increase wages for both the mother and father's income and decrease working hours to 8 hours or less with a minimum of 2 days off. Result; the birth rate will sky rocket.
Assuming someone has any family support to begin with though, and also assuming there's not in the same workaholic situation. The rest is definitely a solution however
@@nrgpup77 exactly! I have 2 kids, they start to be older now. When I needed my parents most, or my in-laws,everybody was still working.
Now that some started retirement, the kids can already look for themselves...😅
MY SOLUTION...
In future, the day will come when the govt will give birth to their own babies in their own centres and people will be hired to take care of them like a normal job.
That would never work unless you could somehow get more money out of the child than paying for both the child and the caregiver for 24 years + college. Not to mention retirement for both. Im pretty sure this is impossible.
that sounds terrible
I assert that the demographic collapse problem is temporary because probably within the next couple of decades we will be able to do an awful lot to treat the symptoms of aging and then also the cause of it itself and what that means is that the death rate will fall below the birth rate and that's all that's needed to keep the population stable and even growing.
You should be president
@@christopheraaron2412Dude, the problem is not the total population, but the number of old people compared to the youngsters. Right now the average age of japanese and italians is almost 50 years old and growing. Old people don't work so they don't produce, don't consume so the economy will shrink and need welfare so young people will be taxed to pay for grandma's healthcare and pension. Your "solution" would actually make the problem worse, because it would create a bigger percentage of the population not productive and dependent on welfare.
You should point out that these government sponsored "matchmaking events" are nothing new. Japan and Singapore have been doing these for decades, with no discernable results.
High cost of living ,all the countries are facing the same problem! Tycoon are worried !
Why would any one with the smartphone want to sacrifice it for the trouble of having kids?
High competition, low growth. Too many people cause headache.
Beating around the bush, none is addressing the ever increasing hyper cost of living. It's hard to even manage single if not earning really well forget about family...
Seoul is the most unfriendly city to children. People were rude to prams and children. I was quite surprised
I want to see what happens if their birth rate keeps falling, it'd be an interesting case study.
Hypocrisy at its best. Let the middleclass
Get fair compensation linked to cost of living at the location and work life balance.Let both the parties have common agreement on this.
Don't use humans like machines..think before it's too late
"Solution" implies there is a problem. Any thinking and thoughtful person should know that a low birth rate is not a problem and certainly not "the" problem. The real problem is our economic models. The earth has enough human beings. Anyone choosing not to have children is doing the earth and all other life on it a huge favor.
Give big tax breaks for each new child.
They are too greedy to do that. They don't want to give up the tax income
Who exactly has the most to lose from population decrease? . . .
Maybe the ones telling that we absolutely need a growth based economy? (in order to skim off the profits)
The focus needs to be on adjusting to a smaller workforce instead of boosting the population. The happiness of the people should come before the comfort of the rich and the corporations. They just want to avoid a decrease in profits a smaller workforce would create.
I live in the US. The Republicans want women to stay home and have babies. About 15 years ago a woman I worked with had lived in Michigan as a teenager where cars were made. She said that men could graduate from high school, get a job in the car industry, and almost immediately have enough resources to buy a house, get married, and have kids. That was in the early 70s. That is no longer the case here. Young people are not making enough money to have families - men or women. They can hardly support themselves. If you support the multi millionaires and the billionaires instead of the middle class, this is what happens. But less people affects those billionaires who rely on more and more economic growth.
What about gender inequality? In Korea and Japan, most men don't do their fair share of childcare or housework and expect their wives to do most of it.
You mean more like families when birth rates were a lot higher?
Gender equality seems to correlate with lower birth rates. Look at Scandinavia vs the islamic world or Africa or south Asia. Not talking about the morals of it but in terms of numbers.
@@Erdwick That isn't a very fair comparison. While I don't disagree that gender equality would likely correlate to lower birth rates as women wouldn't be forced to have children against their will, your comparison is flawed because a major factor has to do with culture and income. Healthy households, lower child mortality, and financial stability all have a significant impact towards decreasing birthrates, but these are not for bad reasons.
@@old_toucs6283 If you are looking at the past then you have to look at the other variables too. In the past when birthrates were "a lot higher" (and men also didn't share childcare/housework)....were the men able to sustain the family on their one income so the woman didn't have to also work while taking care of kids and home? That's the US was like in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. A man can say, "My mother/grandmother was able to do it".... but did Mother or Grandmother have to work a job outside the home or did the male breadwinner's salary cover the family expenses? Make sure you are comparing apples to apples and not cherry picking one variable to make a point.
@infinite.possibilities111 That's a factor that young women often cite. After working all day for their employers, they want to go home and relax. They don't want a second full-time job as the primary caregiver for children, all while bearing the primary responsibility for family meals and chores. In most cultures, men still view parenting, home chores, and cooking as women's work. Fewer women are willing to sign on for such a bad deal. Domestic violence is also commonplace. One woman referred to marriage in her culture as a 'license to beat'. Is it any surprise they are rejecting marriage and family? Google South Korea's 4B movement. It's an interesting phenomenon.
women don't want to have babies because we sacrifice so much in order to have a child. It doesn't need to be this way. Men can step up to the plate. the sacrifices to have a child should be shared equally. If we had this, we wouldn't be having the declining birthrate in so many countries around the world. We just need men to STEP UP.
Hmmm...just keep swiping left.
I liked the part where they showed "THE RADICAL SOLUTION"
Might have to set the rule -> More salary - More Babies
Honestly, the obsession on growth is the issue to me. Who cares if the population isn't growing? Capitalism sucks.
The issue isn't necessarily the size of the population: it's how many old people there are. When you have a small young population supporting a huge old population, how can the young possibly prosper?
@@stereomachine The low birth rate is what creates the huge number of old people tho.
@@Anon-te6uq yeah, that doesn't contadict my point. that was a basic assumption i was making
And in other news, who cares inflation is growing? Imma tell that grocery store cashier to go inflate his capitalistic self and then I'll just pay last month's prices and leave. Simple.
I mean if you want to go back to eating potatoes while toiling on the fields all day, that's a non-issue.
Choosing career over family is always a losing battle. You've never heard an old woman on her death bed say I should have put more hours in at the office.
Most people who choose to do nothing but work aren't usually self aware enough to be aware that things could be different, even on their death bed.
The real false rhetoric is that having a child, is not an ungrateful job. I can't even begin to count how many parents have said that, you think at a old woman's death bed the children she had are going to genuinely cry for her and not whine for inheritance or not even show up? That's a sweet story but this is the real world
@@greedyreader15
For the most part, in most countries outside the west, her kids and grandkids will be around her, yes
@@MA-gu2upWho cares if she's homeless (as many mothers are, b/c they had kids).
@@l19719 her adult kids, her family, and the country
the subtitles are wild!
thank you. i will turn it on
As numerous love hotels have been springing up in and around urban areas in S.Korea, the country's birth rate has simultaneously been declining, and the divorce rate has increased significantly. Studying this trend can provide insights. Please keep an eye on S.Korea’s changes in the future
The Government helps you to find a love partner. I feel sick.
Reduce the working hours? Give higher salaries? Erase the gender-gap? Give more vacations?? NO! Let's organize matchmaking events instead 🥰❤
When countries stop caring about the cost of living and the working class, then people have less children. This is also the case in the U.S.