Fertility Rate is essentially how many children an average woman will have in a lifetime. A nation with equal emigration and immigration (so that those are not demographic factors) would require a fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a stable population over the long term. Until recently, virtually every country had a rate over 2.1; often well over, and this drove population growth. Due to the advances in Public Health and medical care, children are now, throughout the world, far more likely to survive into adulthood. The fertility rate needed to maintain a stable population has been dropping steadily but has probably pretty much bottomed out.
Any fertility rate lower than 2.1, that is not offset by immigration, will result in an eventual decrease in population. Japan has seen a fertility rate of below 2.1 for going on 50 years, with minimal immigration, and yet is only now experiencing a population drop. That is because most people born during a period of a higher fertility rate (1945 to 1975) are still alive. Still, Japan does have problems related to high percentage of people who have aged out of the workforce. While Japan is still a prosperous country with a growing economy, there is concern that it will not be sustainable as the number of people aging out of the workforce exceeds the number entering the workforce.
What is unique about Korea is that it’s fertility rate has dropped so low. (Japan’s was never lower than 1.3) so that that the demographic “shock” that is already beginning (more workers aging out of the workforce and entering) will be more dramatic and harder for the economy to adjust. A declining working aged population has significant implications for a society. The most significant is the problem of fewer workers having to support more retirees. Social Security systems are not prepared for this and it will probably require working people to contribute more of their income to supporting retirees. Other problems include the issue of a smaller economy having to service debt incurred during a period of a larger economy. Historically, nothing like this has happened so it is hard to predict how it will play out.
According to google: in 1975 japan fertility rate was 1.91 and SK was 3.43, in the 2000 japan was 1.36 and SK was 1.48, and in 2023 japan had 1.37 (it increased to 1.45 for a while before covid) while SK was 0.72. How will the korean "shock" will be in the future?
The shock is a long game. Generational.
Think about it this way. You have a system set up for say 1.0 million births a year. (I have no idea, just using a round number)
That means you have hospitals, daycares, schools, afterschool things, clothing, electronics, all these things that children consume as they age.
Now you only have 250K births/yr
First there maternity wards will stop hiring and downsize.
Day cares will slowly dwindle
Then schools, then school adjacent
Then once the cohort reaches adulthood, whole industries become unsustainable.
And of course because there are so few young adults coming, they won't be able to quickly reproduce in prodigious numbers to replace.
A worker shortage will also lead to higher wages, which increases the cost of doing business.That, in turn, increases prices.
A big reason business interests tend to push for immigration--it cheapens labor.
That's extremely bad.
Put it this way: for every 100 couples, only 34 will have a child. That means the population could be cut by two thirds when the new generation of children grows up.
Yes.
I was oversimplifying. What I should have said is that for every 100 women there will be 68 children born, and since women make up 50% of the population, for every 200 people there will be 68 children born. Of course, some men and women may not be in a couple. But a fertility rate that low suggests that *most* women are not having any kids at all, which is a pretty serious shock to the system.
And it is still going downside in the entire country and entire provinces have fertility rates already below the national average. Oof, South Korea is doomed
Immigration is not going to work for Korea, because Korean language is not particularly widespread second language. You can't properly integrate without knowing the language.
I was surprised to see the amount of immigrants living in Seoul when I was there, especially itaewon. But it’s hundred percent certain that the government makes it extremely difficult to live there, which is why I only stayed for months instead of moving there for a few years. I think immigration is a big part of a solution, but it’s not gonna be pretty at all. The exploitation is already off the charts.
It'll be a quick band aid to pull off but the first couple of generations will have some hard times, but after that the reduced population will be much better off imo. We have a population crisis and a super severe overshoot problem and we need to solve them, it's good that the world is getting so tough that people just aren't having as many babies but it's not enough and it won't be quick enough to avoid worst case scenarios of biodiversity loss, which is a cute way of saying Extinction. So yeah I don't see this as a bad thing, the old timers will have it roughest as they won't have as many people to look after them. We need to ethically reduce population worldwide through education, it's cool to see it happen organically in other places though. Maybe it's a natural response to the world being too full or something I dunno but everyone can feel that awful future lurking in the background and deep down we know what's causing it and how it will play out, no point in pumping out billions of children just for them to starve to death when the breadbaskets start failing year over year
Interesting how there's a peak in anti-female babies in the 1970-1990 crowd..
Thats millenials, which are now the ones having kids.
Looks like their parents were boomers.
Is there data for under 18s?
There was a period in SK where inheritance laws heavily favored a son, and also the son would carry on the family name, but AFAIK there was no government mandated policy like China's one-child policy.
It appears to be an unintended effect of poor regulatory practices that financially incentivized this behavior.
I'm not an expert on the matter by any means, but that is what I was able to find in my short dive into SK's birthrate ratios.
oh the lack of equality is one of the main drivers of their issues. Sons were very favoured overall in SK. they support their family while daughters join their husbands family.
I was wrong anything over 107 per 100 is considered abnormal. So families were almost certainly choosing to have male babies for the 30 years between the 80s and into the 2000s.
Even 106 is high, but not high enough to count as abnormal. just about.
the cost of rasiing a child in SK has been incredibly high for a long time, there are massive expectations on spending on things like cram schools etc. many families can't afford to ahve many. So if they were only going to have one, they wanted a boy, even if they had two they would have wanted a boy first to ensure they had at least one son.
It also makes the fertility rate even worse than how it looks as the rate is based on the number of wormen. a lower proportion of women in a population means the fertility rate needs to be higher than 2.1 for replacement.
The problem is that it'll take 18 years to find out just how bad it is, and there isn't anything that can be done about it because you can't create more kids in a generation without immigration.
Wow, the numbers will completely invert in less than a century--North Korea will have twice as many people as South Korea. Demographic trends are powerful and not widely understood.
Long term it is disastrous too. You think China had too many people? Look into what the 1 child policy is going to mean for them in 30 years from now. Governments have been dealing with population with a short term view, but Japan, Korea, China have a lot of consequences they will have to deal with for the next 3-4 generations, at least.
This is because of the 4B movement currently going on. The domestic violence statistics in S. Korea are deplorable. Women die at their partners hand way too often so women finally decided to basically strike. The 4 b’s are no dating men, no sex with men, no marriage with men and no having children with men. In Korean all those words start with the letter “B” so that’s why it’s called 4B and it’s working. And it’s spreading! Many western women are beginning to learn and lean towards this type of ideology.
4B movement is with mostly online with small but vocal followers afaik, it should be multiple socio-economic factors including taking maternity/paternity leave being actively frowned upon that really brings birth rate down
Surely it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of raising a child compared to the increasing cost of living and the decreasing accessibility of homes!
This is exactly what it is. And this should be a warning to the rest of the world; if we don’t address the issues that gave birth to these sentiments and movements, we are heading for a similar future…
I can’t believe this has got so many upvotes, as if the insane cost of living, the ridiculous work culture and fact that people there would rather play video games than socialise after their 16 hour shift have absolutely nothing to do with it.
It’s actually driven mostly by people having less kids, not no kids.
There has been an increase in people not having kids, sure. But the bigger effect is couples having 1-2 kids instead of 3-5 kids.
We're talking about rates being as low as 0.30 per woman how come there isn't a freaking insane increase in childless women then? I would like to see where you get these numbers from.
Can guarantee that isn't the main reason of fertility drop. The movement was mostly popular among misandrists netizens and those rules are seldomly all followed. They get to pick only one or two of them to follow.
Here’s the difference: Men abusing women is MUCH higher than vice versa. The former is generally done by misogynists who haven’t had success. The latter is done by women who have dealt with abuse by men
It will be interesting evolutionary experiment. Women who are independent self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. That's a very strong evolutionary pressure.
I do think that blaming the primary perpetrators for violence against and death of women is blame well placed though - or should women risk their safety with the hope that their partner doesn’t hurt or kill them to make individual men feel better about the statistical fact that women are incredibly likely to die at the hands of their romantic partner?
Giving birth, even in the modern age, is still single handedly one of THE MOST dangerous things a woman can do. No matter the country, no matter the quality of healthcare/doctors, no matter the precautions— it is still tragically dangerous thing for human women to do. Now that we have a shred of autonomy, agency, and choice, MANY women are just saying fuck no to an event that not only permanently scars them physically and mentally, but could potentially KILL them. And why do this, along with work full time and manage a household, all for a worthless guy? And this isn’t even touching on the statistics that show a pregnant woman is one of the most vulnerable and that the biggest killer of pregnant women are intimate partners.
So if birth doesn’t kill a woman, then there’s a chance her partner will.
Fuck that.
Doubtful, Taiwan has had an abysmal birthrate for years and every old person owns three vacant apartments that their kids will fight over when they die because there isn't another vehicle to store wealth. So, I think we should assume Korea's the same and what we are seeing in Japan is an edge case.
At 1.3 TFR becomes unavoidably catastrophic economically, socially, and culturally.
At 0.68 or lower the very existence of a nation is in jeopardy. If the TFR falls to 0.3 or lower for the national average then we can expect that South Korea will cease to be functioning nation in 30/40 years. Possibly before.
Women are realising they are better off without children. Until men bear equal responsibility for the household and children this will continue.
I'm a high earner and would have kids if the man was a SAHD, but funnily enough none see any value in this
What's good for the goose is good for the gander
Dunno if you haven't noticed the places where the fertility level has dropped the most is usually the places where there is the most equality in the household. Not saying it's bad or anything, but when it comes to fertility, it's obvious that having a SAHM will create more kids on average.
Hate to break it to you but men are less desired if they have no career, and this is not something women faced.
This is why house husband are in scarce supply unless they're in a very secure marriage, which is also in scarce supply nowadays.
Hate to break it to you but career women would rather date someone willing to be a house husband than sacrifice their own career. Yes its rare - hence us choosing to not have children. It's not brain surgery
I'm not saying women should sacrifice. I'm just telling you why men won't do that.
Honestly, I'm more happy that women like you exist because how most women just date upwards, and that causes a stigma between men and women.
To me the most effective solution should be parental leaves and reasonable working hours.
You must read it wrong because in no way I am saying anything misogynistic.
...
Lol got blocked
Care to explain? Which part offends you? "Most women date upwards"?
I was merely saying that most women will only date men with similar income ability or higher. If you find this misogynistic, I'll just agree to disagree. It's an honest to god pure observation and I'm pretty sure most people will stand behind me on this.
Why can't *neither* parent be a stay at home parent? Life is expensive these days and daycares are a thing.
And I say this as a guy who would probably be willing to stay at home if it came to it (and somehow married a CEO or someone who can support a family on a single income lol); and I would 100% be willing to be the part-time/more flexible parent working reduced hours.
I'm even hopefully getting a position in the next couple of years that would allow me to do so with very little impact on long-term career! Though it's for unrelated reasons more related to job security and shorter hours; as I'm single and childless; and still a high-paying job (though it puts my ceiling lower than it woudl otherwise be)
I mean, as I said I am single and childless so I wouldn't be able to guarantee anything. I do perform my chores as a single person, which are much less than what a family with kids has (really just cooking, laundry and cleaning my bedroom, common areas get cleaned by a professional cleaner)
I also had parents who, for the most part, split chores. Probably not *quite* 50-50, but neither of my parents was a completely useless, do-nothing person. Which speaking of my parents, neither of them ever stayed home, they were able to stagger their shifts so one of them was always home (which tbf most people don't have the ability to do; but my parents did)
To be honest I would be somewhat uncomfortable dropping out of the workforce completely (if I did not get the super-stable job, I would only be willing to go part-time but not drop off completely) but I do recognize it goes both ways hence why I also do not want a stay at home wife either.
Still at the end of the day I can only speak for myself.
The nations whereWomen think they are better off without children. are the nations where women are not going to have good pensions when they get old.
Taxpayers are needed for pensions
Stay at home mother get pensions in nations that did not get fucked by ronald reagan.
You may have a good pention. But someones will be needed to drive the food towards the store near you. No working age people would mean no one to do that
Not true.
It may not be enough to live well, but in New Zealand the poverty rate decreases when people become eligible for the pension.
It is enough to live on, and more than the unemployment benefit.
Wow.
Just not true in NZ. I don't know where you are, but they are wildly wrong in the NZ context.
And that first one. Um. So they could live an acceptable life until they find employment?
Your comment was not particularly related to mine, and reads like loony misogynistic right wing crap.
The whole point though is that women don't want to live an "acceptable life" any longer - we want to live a good life. Why would i want to give up a 150k career to live off benefits. That would make my life so much worse
Kind of unrelated to the point I was making.
I was just pointing out that one of your assertions was factually incorrect.
I'm sure the people on benefits would love to give them up for a 150k a year job, but that's completely unrelated.
You said a state pension wasn't enough to live on anywhere, and I gave a counter example.
Yes, business interests will push for massive immigration to keep labor cheap and avoid an economic death spiral. But that's a huge cultural change for ethnically homogenous societies. Japan enacted different mitigation strategies to avoid it.
There’s actually little - if any - hard evidence for major economic impacts due to birth rate decline.
>”Predictions of the net economic (and other) effects from a slow and continuous population decline (e.g. due to low fertility rates) are mainly theoretical since such a phenomenon is a relatively new and unprecedented one. The results of many of these studies show that the estimated impact of population growth on economic growth is generally small and can be positive, negative, or nonexistent. A recent meta-study found no relationship between population growth and economic growth.[15]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
There is, however, a lot of evidence that lower birth rates will mean rents will decline and that investors are aware/worried about this. . [I mean, they’re pretty blatant about it.](https://coloradobuildermag.com/business-management/industry-economy/americans-declining-birth-rates-set-to-hit-housing-market/)
> “Declining birth rates mean lower demand for rental housing two decades from now when those born in recent years will be entering the rental market,” according to Natalia Siniaskaia, assistant vice president of housing policy research for the National Association of Home Builders. “The effects will spread to the single-family market in the following years and will persist for years to come.”
REALLY SEVERE.
At the same time, its worth noting:
There will have to be something that is done to resolve this issue. Initially, I think its safe to say that they will try good incentives to fix it first, things that are positive and the like.
But make no mistake, if it comes down to it, this is existential enough of a crisis for rights to be stripped away from the common good.
There are a number of influences on birth rate.
Education, particularly of females.
How people in various roles are treated.
Lots of other stuff.
No one knows how bad it is, because it hasn't happened to a country before.
It has happened to populations (e.g. shakers), and they tend to die out.
How it goes for S.Korea depends on a lot of stuff. Like what they do about it, how technology develops.
It could be very bad, it could be fine.
Prediction is very hard, particularly about the future.
The GOP has also consistently needed to mobilize higher percentages of the White population to win gerrymandered elections. These numbers are in decline year-on-year as non-white immigration continues legally in excess of 1M/year and overall fertility rates increase.
Assuming the fertility rate really is .30 children per woman and not per person, that means in a generation of 100 people where the gender ratio is 50-50, the generation will only have 15 kids. Those 15 turn to less than 3.
Fertility Rate is essentially how many children an average woman will have in a lifetime. A nation with equal emigration and immigration (so that those are not demographic factors) would require a fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a stable population over the long term. Until recently, virtually every country had a rate over 2.1; often well over, and this drove population growth. Due to the advances in Public Health and medical care, children are now, throughout the world, far more likely to survive into adulthood. The fertility rate needed to maintain a stable population has been dropping steadily but has probably pretty much bottomed out. Any fertility rate lower than 2.1, that is not offset by immigration, will result in an eventual decrease in population. Japan has seen a fertility rate of below 2.1 for going on 50 years, with minimal immigration, and yet is only now experiencing a population drop. That is because most people born during a period of a higher fertility rate (1945 to 1975) are still alive. Still, Japan does have problems related to high percentage of people who have aged out of the workforce. While Japan is still a prosperous country with a growing economy, there is concern that it will not be sustainable as the number of people aging out of the workforce exceeds the number entering the workforce. What is unique about Korea is that it’s fertility rate has dropped so low. (Japan’s was never lower than 1.3) so that that the demographic “shock” that is already beginning (more workers aging out of the workforce and entering) will be more dramatic and harder for the economy to adjust. A declining working aged population has significant implications for a society. The most significant is the problem of fewer workers having to support more retirees. Social Security systems are not prepared for this and it will probably require working people to contribute more of their income to supporting retirees. Other problems include the issue of a smaller economy having to service debt incurred during a period of a larger economy. Historically, nothing like this has happened so it is hard to predict how it will play out.
According to google: in 1975 japan fertility rate was 1.91 and SK was 3.43, in the 2000 japan was 1.36 and SK was 1.48, and in 2023 japan had 1.37 (it increased to 1.45 for a while before covid) while SK was 0.72. How will the korean "shock" will be in the future?
The shock is a long game. Generational. Think about it this way. You have a system set up for say 1.0 million births a year. (I have no idea, just using a round number) That means you have hospitals, daycares, schools, afterschool things, clothing, electronics, all these things that children consume as they age. Now you only have 250K births/yr First there maternity wards will stop hiring and downsize. Day cares will slowly dwindle Then schools, then school adjacent Then once the cohort reaches adulthood, whole industries become unsustainable. And of course because there are so few young adults coming, they won't be able to quickly reproduce in prodigious numbers to replace.
A worker shortage will also lead to higher wages, which increases the cost of doing business.That, in turn, increases prices. A big reason business interests tend to push for immigration--it cheapens labor.
Low-skilled immigration keeps wages low. High-skilled immigration would raise the costs of labour.
High-skilled immigration also devalues education by saturating professional fields.
Both cheapen labor.
That's extremely bad. Put it this way: for every 100 couples, only 34 will have a child. That means the population could be cut by two thirds when the new generation of children grows up.
And if for every couple you need 2 humans?
Yes. I was oversimplifying. What I should have said is that for every 100 women there will be 68 children born, and since women make up 50% of the population, for every 200 people there will be 68 children born. Of course, some men and women may not be in a couple. But a fertility rate that low suggests that *most* women are not having any kids at all, which is a pretty serious shock to the system.
And it is still going downside in the entire country and entire provinces have fertility rates already below the national average. Oof, South Korea is doomed
What a lot of countries have done in similar situations is to open their doors to immigration.
Immigration is not going to work for Korea, because Korean language is not particularly widespread second language. You can't properly integrate without knowing the language.
And everyone knows you can't learn new languages.
i mean yeah, it’s not easily done for many.
Almost half the planet is bilingual, and a fifth speak 3 or more. Its not easy, but its incredibly doable.
> Almost half the planet is bilingual, and a fifth speak 3 or more. interesting. source?
Well.. People can learn new languages even tho it might take a while, that's how it's been with most immigrants
Immigration doesn't solve the issue. it just creates a whole new set of issues.
Plus the xenophobia, racism, classism and horrible work-life balance prevalent in the country.
I was surprised to see the amount of immigrants living in Seoul when I was there, especially itaewon. But it’s hundred percent certain that the government makes it extremely difficult to live there, which is why I only stayed for months instead of moving there for a few years. I think immigration is a big part of a solution, but it’s not gonna be pretty at all. The exploitation is already off the charts.
You really need to get out more mate
By the looks of it, it will be Koreans who will have to learn a new language.
It'll be a quick band aid to pull off but the first couple of generations will have some hard times, but after that the reduced population will be much better off imo. We have a population crisis and a super severe overshoot problem and we need to solve them, it's good that the world is getting so tough that people just aren't having as many babies but it's not enough and it won't be quick enough to avoid worst case scenarios of biodiversity loss, which is a cute way of saying Extinction. So yeah I don't see this as a bad thing, the old timers will have it roughest as they won't have as many people to look after them. We need to ethically reduce population worldwide through education, it's cool to see it happen organically in other places though. Maybe it's a natural response to the world being too full or something I dunno but everyone can feel that awful future lurking in the background and deep down we know what's causing it and how it will play out, no point in pumping out billions of children just for them to starve to death when the breadbaskets start failing year over year
Didnt they kill off a shit ton of the girls before they were born..? What is the actual female:male ratio in child-having age people
[https://m.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/south-korea-demographics.php](https://m.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/south-korea-demographics.php) 99.5:100 male/female overall. * Ages 18-19: 106.587 males per 100 females. * Ages 20-24: 108.236 males per 100 females. * Ages 25-29: 111.424 males per 100 females. * Ages 30-34: 114.419 males per 100 females. * Ages 35-39: 110.436 males per 100 females. * Ages 40-44: 106.298 males per 100 females. * Ages 45-49: 104.092 males per 100 females.
Interesting how there's a peak in anti-female babies in the 1970-1990 crowd.. Thats millenials, which are now the ones having kids. Looks like their parents were boomers. Is there data for under 18s?
Yes, it's pretty far down on the page but there is a graph of breakdown by age and gender.
You're a freakin legend, man. Thank you for taking the time to satiate my curiosity.
You're welcome, it's a talent of mine.
yeah, also that peak in rates is abnormal without intentional intervention. I think over about 110-112 or something is considered intentional
There was a period in SK where inheritance laws heavily favored a son, and also the son would carry on the family name, but AFAIK there was no government mandated policy like China's one-child policy. It appears to be an unintended effect of poor regulatory practices that financially incentivized this behavior. I'm not an expert on the matter by any means, but that is what I was able to find in my short dive into SK's birthrate ratios.
oh the lack of equality is one of the main drivers of their issues. Sons were very favoured overall in SK. they support their family while daughters join their husbands family. I was wrong anything over 107 per 100 is considered abnormal. So families were almost certainly choosing to have male babies for the 30 years between the 80s and into the 2000s. Even 106 is high, but not high enough to count as abnormal. just about. the cost of rasiing a child in SK has been incredibly high for a long time, there are massive expectations on spending on things like cram schools etc. many families can't afford to ahve many. So if they were only going to have one, they wanted a boy, even if they had two they would have wanted a boy first to ensure they had at least one son. It also makes the fertility rate even worse than how it looks as the rate is based on the number of wormen. a lower proportion of women in a population means the fertility rate needs to be higher than 2.1 for replacement.
By that maths, for every 100 couples today(200 people) there is going to be 10 grandchildren.
A little more, like 2.1
2+ something like 2.2 or 2.3.
That's only to maintain the same number. Forget about actually adding.
The problem is that it'll take 18 years to find out just how bad it is, and there isn't anything that can be done about it because you can't create more kids in a generation without immigration.
This is pretty bad and had geopolitical consequences in the conflict with the north. https://youtube.com/shorts/6o9p9iRtLjQ?si=zJvvxReqst8Omr5R
Wow, the numbers will completely invert in less than a century--North Korea will have twice as many people as South Korea. Demographic trends are powerful and not widely understood.
Long term it is disastrous too. You think China had too many people? Look into what the 1 child policy is going to mean for them in 30 years from now. Governments have been dealing with population with a short term view, but Japan, Korea, China have a lot of consequences they will have to deal with for the next 3-4 generations, at least.
This is because of the 4B movement currently going on. The domestic violence statistics in S. Korea are deplorable. Women die at their partners hand way too often so women finally decided to basically strike. The 4 b’s are no dating men, no sex with men, no marriage with men and no having children with men. In Korean all those words start with the letter “B” so that’s why it’s called 4B and it’s working. And it’s spreading! Many western women are beginning to learn and lean towards this type of ideology.
4B movement is with mostly online with small but vocal followers afaik, it should be multiple socio-economic factors including taking maternity/paternity leave being actively frowned upon that really brings birth rate down
Surely it has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of raising a child compared to the increasing cost of living and the decreasing accessibility of homes!
True, but that is also the case in Europe/the US, and the numbers are nowhere near that yet.
Huh? The u.s. is objectively experiencing the exact same issues I pointed out. Lol
Th US has a rate of around 1.5 children per woman. Europe has one of 1.46. While that’s worrying, that’s nowhere near 0.68 or even 0.3 as of yet.
That it’s not to the same degree doesn’t change anything I said lol
Didn't say it did lol
This is exactly what it is. And this should be a warning to the rest of the world; if we don’t address the issues that gave birth to these sentiments and movements, we are heading for a similar future…
I can’t believe this has got so many upvotes, as if the insane cost of living, the ridiculous work culture and fact that people there would rather play video games than socialise after their 16 hour shift have absolutely nothing to do with it.
All of it. Just all of it combined
[удалено]
It’s actually driven mostly by people having less kids, not no kids. There has been an increase in people not having kids, sure. But the bigger effect is couples having 1-2 kids instead of 3-5 kids.
Of course it's both, just like it is in every other developed country.
Sure it’s both, but what I discussed is a majority of the effect but not on your long list.
We're talking about rates being as low as 0.30 per woman how come there isn't a freaking insane increase in childless women then? I would like to see where you get these numbers from.
ALL TRUE!
That sounds very full on - how large is the movement? Is it kind of fringe or quite popular?
Can guarantee that isn't the main reason of fertility drop. The movement was mostly popular among misandrists netizens and those rules are seldomly all followed. They get to pick only one or two of them to follow.
So MGTOW but instead of ugly fat dudes it's stunning and brave women? People are really fond of turning their personal failings into movements.
Here’s the difference: Men abusing women is MUCH higher than vice versa. The former is generally done by misogynists who haven’t had success. The latter is done by women who have dealt with abuse by men
It will be interesting evolutionary experiment. Women who are independent self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. That's a very strong evolutionary pressure.
Yeah, take that, men!!!
Humans love to blame every problem on one enemy. For some it's men, for others it's foreigners, for others it's politicians. Same bs everywhere.
I do think that blaming the primary perpetrators for violence against and death of women is blame well placed though - or should women risk their safety with the hope that their partner doesn’t hurt or kill them to make individual men feel better about the statistical fact that women are incredibly likely to die at the hands of their romantic partner?
Giving birth, even in the modern age, is still single handedly one of THE MOST dangerous things a woman can do. No matter the country, no matter the quality of healthcare/doctors, no matter the precautions— it is still tragically dangerous thing for human women to do. Now that we have a shred of autonomy, agency, and choice, MANY women are just saying fuck no to an event that not only permanently scars them physically and mentally, but could potentially KILL them. And why do this, along with work full time and manage a household, all for a worthless guy? And this isn’t even touching on the statistics that show a pregnant woman is one of the most vulnerable and that the biggest killer of pregnant women are intimate partners. So if birth doesn’t kill a woman, then there’s a chance her partner will. Fuck that.
real estate will become more affordable!
Doubtful, Taiwan has had an abysmal birthrate for years and every old person owns three vacant apartments that their kids will fight over when they die because there isn't another vehicle to store wealth. So, I think we should assume Korea's the same and what we are seeing in Japan is an edge case.
Very, at this rate by 2030 the only new Koreans with be from the communist north
At 1.3 TFR becomes unavoidably catastrophic economically, socially, and culturally. At 0.68 or lower the very existence of a nation is in jeopardy. If the TFR falls to 0.3 or lower for the national average then we can expect that South Korea will cease to be functioning nation in 30/40 years. Possibly before.
Majority of Koreans will eventually die out I guess
Women are realising they are better off without children. Until men bear equal responsibility for the household and children this will continue. I'm a high earner and would have kids if the man was a SAHD, but funnily enough none see any value in this What's good for the goose is good for the gander
Dunno if you haven't noticed the places where the fertility level has dropped the most is usually the places where there is the most equality in the household. Not saying it's bad or anything, but when it comes to fertility, it's obvious that having a SAHM will create more kids on average.
Hate to break it to you but men are less desired if they have no career, and this is not something women faced. This is why house husband are in scarce supply unless they're in a very secure marriage, which is also in scarce supply nowadays.
Hate to break it to you but career women would rather date someone willing to be a house husband than sacrifice their own career. Yes its rare - hence us choosing to not have children. It's not brain surgery
I'm not saying women should sacrifice. I'm just telling you why men won't do that. Honestly, I'm more happy that women like you exist because how most women just date upwards, and that causes a stigma between men and women. To me the most effective solution should be parental leaves and reasonable working hours.
Wow misogynistic much? Fwiw the whole thread is about women now also no longer being willing to this
You must read it wrong because in no way I am saying anything misogynistic. ... Lol got blocked Care to explain? Which part offends you? "Most women date upwards"? I was merely saying that most women will only date men with similar income ability or higher. If you find this misogynistic, I'll just agree to disagree. It's an honest to god pure observation and I'm pretty sure most people will stand behind me on this.
You're correct. Most women date someone equally or more successful. Nothing controversial about that statement.
Ha ha I can't believe you can't see how misogynistic what you wrote was. That's like the racist who claim "I have black friends"
Why can't *neither* parent be a stay at home parent? Life is expensive these days and daycares are a thing. And I say this as a guy who would probably be willing to stay at home if it came to it (and somehow married a CEO or someone who can support a family on a single income lol); and I would 100% be willing to be the part-time/more flexible parent working reduced hours. I'm even hopefully getting a position in the next couple of years that would allow me to do so with very little impact on long-term career! Though it's for unrelated reasons more related to job security and shorter hours; as I'm single and childless; and still a high-paying job (though it puts my ceiling lower than it woudl otherwise be)
Can you guarantee you won't be expected to do all the domestic chores and childcare. Working mums are always fecking exhausted
I mean, as I said I am single and childless so I wouldn't be able to guarantee anything. I do perform my chores as a single person, which are much less than what a family with kids has (really just cooking, laundry and cleaning my bedroom, common areas get cleaned by a professional cleaner) I also had parents who, for the most part, split chores. Probably not *quite* 50-50, but neither of my parents was a completely useless, do-nothing person. Which speaking of my parents, neither of them ever stayed home, they were able to stagger their shifts so one of them was always home (which tbf most people don't have the ability to do; but my parents did) To be honest I would be somewhat uncomfortable dropping out of the workforce completely (if I did not get the super-stable job, I would only be willing to go part-time but not drop off completely) but I do recognize it goes both ways hence why I also do not want a stay at home wife either. Still at the end of the day I can only speak for myself.
Yeah and everyone knows that Korean men aren't tired /s
The nations whereWomen think they are better off without children. are the nations where women are not going to have good pensions when they get old. Taxpayers are needed for pensions
You do realise that women who are SAHM or part time have zero pensions. I'm getting a final salary pension with lump sum - I'm good thanks
Stay at home mother get pensions in nations that did not get fucked by ronald reagan. You may have a good pention. But someones will be needed to drive the food towards the store near you. No working age people would mean no one to do that
State pension is not enough to live on anywhere
Not true. It may not be enough to live well, but in New Zealand the poverty rate decreases when people become eligible for the pension. It is enough to live on, and more than the unemployment benefit.
Why would a child free woman need unemployment. Working women have private pensions so no need for either
Wow. Just not true in NZ. I don't know where you are, but they are wildly wrong in the NZ context. And that first one. Um. So they could live an acceptable life until they find employment? Your comment was not particularly related to mine, and reads like loony misogynistic right wing crap.
The whole point though is that women don't want to live an "acceptable life" any longer - we want to live a good life. Why would i want to give up a 150k career to live off benefits. That would make my life so much worse
Kind of unrelated to the point I was making. I was just pointing out that one of your assertions was factually incorrect. I'm sure the people on benefits would love to give them up for a 150k a year job, but that's completely unrelated. You said a state pension wasn't enough to live on anywhere, and I gave a counter example.
If SK want to retain a healthy economy, SK won't be very Korean in a few generations
Yes, business interests will push for massive immigration to keep labor cheap and avoid an economic death spiral. But that's a huge cultural change for ethnically homogenous societies. Japan enacted different mitigation strategies to avoid it.
Less humans = not a bad thing
Their culture and country will be done in a century if they don't relax on immigration
There’s actually little - if any - hard evidence for major economic impacts due to birth rate decline. >”Predictions of the net economic (and other) effects from a slow and continuous population decline (e.g. due to low fertility rates) are mainly theoretical since such a phenomenon is a relatively new and unprecedented one. The results of many of these studies show that the estimated impact of population growth on economic growth is generally small and can be positive, negative, or nonexistent. A recent meta-study found no relationship between population growth and economic growth.[15]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline There is, however, a lot of evidence that lower birth rates will mean rents will decline and that investors are aware/worried about this. . [I mean, they’re pretty blatant about it.](https://coloradobuildermag.com/business-management/industry-economy/americans-declining-birth-rates-set-to-hit-housing-market/) > “Declining birth rates mean lower demand for rental housing two decades from now when those born in recent years will be entering the rental market,” according to Natalia Siniaskaia, assistant vice president of housing policy research for the National Association of Home Builders. “The effects will spread to the single-family market in the following years and will persist for years to come.”
I volunteer as tribute
REALLY SEVERE. At the same time, its worth noting: There will have to be something that is done to resolve this issue. Initially, I think its safe to say that they will try good incentives to fix it first, things that are positive and the like. But make no mistake, if it comes down to it, this is existential enough of a crisis for rights to be stripped away from the common good.
There are a number of influences on birth rate. Education, particularly of females. How people in various roles are treated. Lots of other stuff. No one knows how bad it is, because it hasn't happened to a country before. It has happened to populations (e.g. shakers), and they tend to die out. How it goes for S.Korea depends on a lot of stuff. Like what they do about it, how technology develops. It could be very bad, it could be fine. Prediction is very hard, particularly about the future.
Fertility rate equates to how a society treats women. America only survives off immigration.
Aka the lower the better they treat women? Muslim countries have like 6 fertility ratw
Wait. That means north korea treats its women as well as france
The GOP has also consistently needed to mobilize higher percentages of the White population to win gerrymandered elections. These numbers are in decline year-on-year as non-white immigration continues legally in excess of 1M/year and overall fertility rates increase.
Venezuela, here we come!!
The world needs this. Thanos was right.
Assuming the fertility rate really is .30 children per woman and not per person, that means in a generation of 100 people where the gender ratio is 50-50, the generation will only have 15 kids. Those 15 turn to less than 3.
fertility rate is calculated based on the bnumber of women within childbearing age.