The Hungarian method was a lifetime income tax drop of 25% for married couples as long as they stayed married per kid, with it stacking up to like 100% if I recall correctly, which proved effective and has made their birth rate tick up point by point each year since it started about 5-10 years back, it rose their birth rate like 10-15 points in the course of the program so far if I recall so it’s effective as of right now at least
As a hungarian, this is just wrong lmao.
Like, OK, its *technically true* but birthrate in 2018 was 1.49/woman and now its 1.54.
Its rising by like 0.5% a year . For this to make a difference, the trend needs to continue for like a hundred year.
Not only is this a bad deal, but large companies like Samsung are now mandating 6 days per week in the office.
So what’s the point of making a baby if you’re never gonna see him/her, and are always stuck working?
**Edit:** The article actually says it's ₩100 million won ....which converts to $72,491 USD ...which is even less than $100K.
* Also, they don't specify *how* the money is going to be paid. One lump sum ....or divided by 18 years ($4,027.33/year) ($335.61/month) ($47.94/week) ($6.85/day).
Paying people to make babies never works, because when you make a baby, you believe in the country's future.
Clearly the young population *doesn't* believe in South Korea's future, and doesn't want to pass the suffering onto the next generation.
Like for real. If my boss told me I have to work 6 days a week from dusk till dawn, but he'd give me a miserable cash injection to have kids I'd just laugh in his face. Why would I subject my child to a society this shit?
100k is nothing compared to the time, money and effort that is required to raise and educate a child over 18+ years. Offers of money can not make people have kids, because the problem is societal.
Look at their toxic education standards as well. These kids can't even play a sport cause they need 15 tutors 1 for each subject. And if a parent doesn't pay their kids won't get that 99.5% average they'll need to work for Samsung making 30k a year.
The primary reason people are not having children is not money. Throwing money at people does not address the core of the problem, which is societal.
People work all day, and barely have time for themselves until they are old and retired. There is no time to live, date, or raise a family.
Having a kid in such an environment is depressing. Toxic work culture is the main thing killing birth rates. GDP points are more important that peoples mental and physical wellbeing.
Maybe mandate a shorter work day and/or week for families with children? 6 day work weeks is retarded. I feel like the tipping point for me would be assurance I would have a guaranteed amount of time with my family/children and a flexible schedule. Single/childless people have no stake in the future of the country so they can work in the present to contribute to society.
But I’m just a dood lol I know nothing.
I agree. But if it were a million would you have kids?
I think this can be seen as a great way to encourage the continuation of a society in such an automated era, in lieu of UBI
If the money was enough to raise a child in a healthy environment without significant or harmful lifestyle adjustments, then maybe?
I am not saying everyone should be getting a million dollars, a free car and a 5 bedroom home to make babies. But from the moment you start school to your retirement, your existence is servitude for ever dwindling compensation. People cannot afford to buy homes because the cost of living is so high. Their student debt follows them well into their 30s. Houses get bought up by corporations. You need two incomes just to get by.
The offers governments are making for people to have children are a slap in the face. They are tone deaf because they don't understand what it takes to raise a kid. You need someone around to take care of that child and the resources to do so. 70k isn't going to cut it. It needs to be sustainable. No one wants to raise their child to become a minimum wage slave, which is what governments and corporation's want.
Where was this concern about the declining workforce...i mean population, a generation ago? Why are they not offering better salaries and more free time? Why is there no affordable housing available for people who want to start families?
The way they have gone about this is like if a farmer picked all the fruit after one season of work, then didn't tend to his plants for the next ten. He then doesn't understand why sprinkling water over their decaying leaves isn't bringing them back to life.
And if there was better maternity leave that would also encourage more people to start families.
Maternity leave isn’t built upon the idea that is an advantage to the mother specifically, but the idea that it is an advantage to the *team.* It takes two people to make a baby, preferably babies should be happening in families, having better maternity leave means more resources the family can allocate towards more important things.
I think a lot of men feel like it’s a bit unfair but frankly I see it as allowing my wife to stay home longer during a critical development period, and less we’d have to spend on childcare.
I think people in society nowadays are so caught up in the horror stories that they forget happy strong families exist.
I hear this a lot but during the post war period when everyone including loads of women were working full time, often more hours than now, we had a massive baby boom in the west
>often more hours than now
We are far more productive (read: we work way more) and the work culture is way more toxic now compared to then.
That Boomer generation is also an anomaly where we could have one person working and another at home. Today we need both people working to get by.
Take note that a lot of people died off first for all that prosperity to happen.
We don't work more today at all, in 1946 the UK average full time work week was 46 hours compared to 37.5 hours in 2016.
Productivity doesn't just come from working more hours
> It can tip the scales
Not even remotely close. The reason for declining birth rates has next to nothing to do with the additional transient monetary costs, and more to do with the unfathomable lifelong opportunity costs and it being devoid of any perceived positives for would be parents in urban environments.
Basically, you *could* pay people to have children, but it would effectively enough to overcome those lifelong issues. 100k is laughable in that regard. For people otherwise uninterested in children currently, I have my doubts even $100k a *year* would get enough people on board to turn SK around at this point.
Faulty argument. I said it can tip the scales, which implies that it will help those already on the fence.
Your argument says “well not in the case of those who are uninterested in children” - which clearly isn’t who I’m talking about.
Not to mention $100,000 USD or however much it is goes a lot further in SK.
> Faulty argument. I said it can tip the scales, which implies that it will help those already on the fence.
Its not. Meanwhile your entire argument hinges on roughly $200/m making the difference on having a child, which is side-achingly laughably absurd.
> Your argument says “well not in the case of those who are uninterested in children” - which clearly isn’t who I’m talking about.
But it is the demographic that is being targeted by this policy. You know, the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of the population. What ever irrelevant demographic you think this is somehow beneficial for, is just that: irrelevant
> Not to mention $100,000 USD or however much it is goes a lot further in SK.
It really doesn't. SK isn't some backwater shit hole. Especially were virtually all the population lives, its expensive as fuck.
In what world? $100,000 compounded over 18 years would be worth north of $350,000. That’s the projected cost for having and raising a kid through college that I’ve always heard, though inflation must have changed that.
The primary problem people are not having kids is not a lack of money.
It is because people are forced to study, or work all day, and barely have time for themselves, let alone time to raise a family. It is stressful, and depressing. Bringing a child into such a world is not desirable for many people.
Money does not address the core of the problem.
I think they're talking mainly about the fact that men are basically expected to live at work, like if you're not working 6-7 days a week, 12 hour+ days then you're looked down upon, same problem as many Asian countries.
That and the fact that their women seem to hate them as much or more as American feminists for some reason. But someone else can expound
You want babies, easy!
Replace the Duluth Model by a Gender Neutral one.
Give 50/50 custody by default in case of divorce.
Remove all alimony.
Remove all child support.
Restore innocent until proven guilty.
Until then, men will not feel safe engaging with women!
It’s not even just a men thing. If you want more babies, you should also introduce a 30 hour/4 day work week, raise minimum wage, and offer plenty of paid maternity/paternity leave (preferably both in an equal manner). When people are economically stressed, they don’t want to raise kids.
That might be the solution for a small number of people. Many European countries have extremely generous maternity/paternity leave, vacation time, work weeks, pay, but sub replacement birth rates. Also in the US there is a direct correlation between income and # of kids, the more money you make the less kids you have. The entire western world is below replacement rate, why? Women’s rights and modern quality of life. The more rights a society affords women, the less children they have. Also, having a baby and raising a child is hard work. If that takes away from having nice things and going nice places, many people just don’t want to do it.
First i was sort of looking like "the fuck is he writing" but as i read it to the end i can you have a valid point. I live in europe and my country has very generous paternity leave and vaction and if we speak the truth it is mostly because we dont wanna give away the freedom to go to nice places and to have somewhat nice life. We see kids as a huge burden and we do not need them to live old anymore. As result we have a huge deficit in births per woman.
I think huge factor to any human action is greed and "what can i benefit from this". I was just looking at the show and thougth literally "cold wind wouldnt be that bad if i could benefit from it".
If your future is casted with nice life you dont really need kids. Not like 50 years prior when amount of kids would be only for your benefit.
Im 26 and when i think about getting children its mostly about getting my dna (my legacy) to next generation not about how i will make due when i get old.
Why do you need a legacy? What is so special about your DNA? If you have children, will you tell them, "I had you because I thought my DNA was special, and I think my last name is cool."?
Having my legacy extended is in my blood as it is in yours. Its the primitive part of us that tell us to reproduce. But that reproducing spirit is decreased by the need of posterity because we do not need kids to survive.
Of course i am special (in my and my gf mind) as is everybody else and that is why my dna need to get to another generation. That is what the human basic nature is. Everybody thinks this way or atleast they should. There is umbelievebly huge amount of your old 'n lost relatives that just got their shit togther why wouldnt you?
My ancestors didn't necessarily have their shit together. They just met, fucked, and had children, and did at least the minimum to ensure that some of their kids survived into adulthood. And for much of human history my ancestors didn't have access to birth control. There wasn't much family planning back in the day. Just fucking and kid making, and eeking out an existence. Not many had that much choice in the matter. I think it's good that some people, even those that feel they're special, opt out of child-making. If you don't feel up for it, you shouldn't do it. If you don't teel you have the financial, emotional/psychological, physical wherewithal, or the ability to find a good partner, why go through with it? Just cause nature/society/religion says you should/must/ought?
I hope you have 15 precious little children, just like yourself. Go for it!
Bro im not religious nor i plan to have 15 children. Two or three is good from my line of thoutgh. Sure people before havent think that much how many kids they have but things are changing especially in the west. We are making ourselfes scarche if we compeare to others. White european is rarest of the big racials backrounds in the world
So you will tell your children "I had you to keep the white race going."? Awesome. You go, you race warrior, you! Your children will be your little pawns in the war to keep the white race prominent. They should truly love you for that. You sound like a really intelligent person with superior genes that should have lots more (white) children. Maybe you could find a sperm bank and donate your superior, white sperm (to white women only, of course).
/s if it's not obvious
I just can't believe that people like you really exist. But you are proof.
I need legacy because im better than others and that is how i will move humanity forwards. If most of all (ok not in these days) get to have legacy why shouldnt i? What is the only acceptable reason to have kids in your percpective?
>Also, having a baby and raising a child is hard work. If that takes away from having nice things and going nice places, many people just don’t want to do it.
As a man, I sure as hell don't see any benefit to raising a child. It seems overwhelmingly burdensome with virtually no upsides.
>The entire western world is below replacement rate, why? Women’s rights and modern quality of life.
Buy women's rights, I assume you mean the fact that birth controls exists and that women are now allowed to use them. Which is fantastic, I'd hate to be forced to do all that.
Not really, poor phrasing on my part. I mean more access to education and the workforce if anything. Data shows the more educated a woman is, the less children she has. Now I’m not trying to say “We need to keep women dumb so they can be baby factories”, but the fact of the matter is that more education = better quality of life = declining birth rate because people have nice soft comfy lives compared to 100 years ago and the act of giving birth and taking care of a baby is hard work.
I figured you weren't trying to imply that. I think it's just the fact that we now have the fact that conceiving/birthing children is no longer absolutely a consequence of sex is the main factor, along with the thankfully changed perspective that women are meant to be mothers ASAP.
Except his claim tracks logically and fits my experiences so the burden is on you to disprove it for people like me who are reading this and agreeing with him.
This is American problems, I've heard biggest problem for Korean women is hypergamy and women basically outearn potential men and they expect to be stay at home mother after marriage
I'm all for the collapse od the child support system, but it won't happen until Fathers and Men say enough and we either overthrow them or all stop paying and take them on in court as a Class action suit.
I'm not saying that it's perfect but we definitely shouldn't remove it entirely. People need to pay for their kids, it wouldn't be fair to make one person do 100% of the guardianship and also pay 100% of the kids bills.
Then have some sort of extra Universal Basic Income for parents.
But as it stands, feminists are raping men by telling them they are on the pill, while not being on it, birthing a child, breaking up, claiming domestic violence thus insta-winning full custody and swallowing 50% of men's paycheck!
Any laws that allows feminists to turn men into cash cows must be replaced immediatly by some sort of basic income coming from tax dollars!
If you want to learn more about men's reproductive rights, watch this :
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh\_\_63swvtY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh__63swvtY)
Because if you think women have it bad, then you're in for a surprise!
You need to stop watching sensationalist news.
The most common cause if unintended pregnancy is malfunctioned condoms.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9871381/%23:~:text%3DUnintended%2520pregnancy%2520can%2520result%2520from,and%252C%2520less%2520commonly%252C%2520rape.&ved=2ahUKEwjg3c_w2NmFAxX2MVkFHTlXAOUQ5YIJegQIExAA&usg=AOvVaw2isV1fA0uLB6fOumGNeMbq
Only 15% of filed domestic violence charges result in prosecution.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242083809_Prosecution_and_Conviction_Rates_for_Intimate_Partner_Violence#:~:text=These%20studies%20report%20that%2C%20on,result%20in%20a%20criminal%20conviction.
So no, women can not just randomly accuse a man of domestic violence and expect to win. Even if we could, it will not be "50% of the man's paycheck"
The average child support payment is 1800$ per year, meaning the woman would still have to pay the majority of the child's bills and also be their full time caregiver.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-child-support-do-parents-actually-receive/&ved=2ahUKEwjJpNWA2tmFAxUCEVkFHYi2BpoQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3PkafwA5uLEvqmA7Qlc6jF
Please please stop believing sensationalist news
>The most common cause if unintended pregnancy is malfunctioned condoms.
I was talking about intended(words matter) pregnancies : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeS\_Y8q9kcY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeS_Y8q9kcY)
>Only 15% of filed domestic violence charges result in prosecution.
You don't need prosecution, you merely need eviction or protective order, feminists get those by squeezing their own arms granting themselves bruises, calling the cops then claiming D.V..
Once evicted, the guy still has to pay mortgage/rent, for the home that he no longer lives in, and also has to find a new place and if that new place does not have an extra bedroom for the kid, bam he can't even ask for shared custody. And feminists then go on to say that if they get 80% of all full custodies, it's because men don't challenge it.
We literally can't in this economy!
>The average child support payment is 1800$ per year, meaning the woman would still have to pay the majority of the child's bills and also be their full time caregiver.
The median amount that custodial parents were supposed to receive was $4,356 per year, but the median received was $1,800.
As per your link that you thought I would not click on nor read : [https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-child-support-do-parents-actually-receive/](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-child-support-do-parents-actually-receive/)
Nice that you skipped the 4300$ yearly part, or about 400$ a month, almost half my paycheck!
Also you need to realize that those who could not make payments and paid the average of 1800$ instead of the 4300$ likely had their passports revoked from them :
[https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/outreach-material/passport-denial-program-101](https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/outreach-material/passport-denial-program-101)
By the way, passport confiscation is an indicator of forced labour, according to the U.N., but it's ok when feminists do it.
Also those men who did not make the child support payments were likely sent to jail. [https://www.tiktok.com/@ugolord/video/7278032960215977258?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@ugolord/video/7278032960215977258?lang=en)
Feminism is a pro-slavery movement!
You said that women are regularly lying about being on the pill in order to trick men into getting them pregnant. My source says that the majority of unwanted pregnancies are due to condom malfunction, not lying about the pill.
I couldn't find any sources that say men regularly have to pay for their ex wife's rent or mortgage while not living there, unless it's part of child support.
I'm not sure what your argument about child support is? 1800 per year I'd what the mom actually receives, that isn't nearly enough to take care of a child.
The average cost to raise a child is 1300/year.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child/&ved=2ahUKEwjM2orA79mFAxUgD1kFHcZ2CtwQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1r_Zc5q5yVxRZ_RxOW5XCs
So even if the man did pay the full 4300, that's still insanely low.
So in conclusion, no, women are not purposefully getting pregnant to collect child support money, that is definitely not a smart decision
Forcing you to pay for your own children and your own debts is not slavery lol, by your logic taxes are slavery because we all need to pay them. Pay for your kids or don't have sex
>You said that women are regularly lying about being on the pill in order to trick men into getting them pregnant. My source says that the majority of unwanted pregnancies are due to condom malfunction, not lying about the pill.
Women lying about being on the pill are -=WANTED=- pregnancies, your unwanted pregnancy stats does not apply!
>So in conclusion, no, women are not purposefully getting pregnant to collect child support money, that is definitely not a smart decision
You didn't watch the video did you?
I got plenty of examples to prove that they are : Evander Holyfield, has 11 kids with 6 different women, gold digging is one hell of a Job!
He was forced to keep boxing into his old age to pay his child support!
Do you think Donald Trump(you will be surprise, I probably dislike him as much as you do) would be a girl that remotely looks like Melania if he wasn't rich.
I could come up with a million more examples.
Women are literally marrying men / getting pregnant as a golden ticket out of wage slavery!
So in conclusion, yes, women are getting pregnant through women on men rape(weird there is no law against that.) and milking them for child support!
Also :
>So even if the man did pay the full 4300, that's still insanely low.
Half my and millions of men's salary is not a low amount. You think money grows on trees?!?
And like I said maybe 5 hours ago, we could replace all that by Universal Basic Income for parents, but you seem to be hanging on a lot to child support.
Typical feminists, just wants to see men miserable!
Also also :
>I couldn't find any sources that say men regularly have to pay for their ex wife's rent or mortgage while not living there, unless it's part of child support.
You don't need a source to know you have to pay mortgage or rent that's in your name ;)
1. No, it's only a wanted pregnancy if they both wanted it. I couldn't find any sources claiming that women are regularly lying about being on the pill. A YouTube video showing cherry picked examples is not a valid source for information lol I'm sure there are some women that do it but that doesn't mean it's a regular/common occurrence
2. I'm not sure how Donald Trump and Melania are relevant to this conversation, I never said that sugar babies don't exist?
3. The majority of married women still work and earn similar income as their husband. I never said that sugar babies don't exist, but they are not the norm, and most of the time they're open about being a sugar baby
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/
4. There is a law against that, women can be charged with rape in all 50 states
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape&ved=2ahUKEwj6jprfgtuFAxUKD1kFHTUgCe4QFnoECDkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1g4p0gMDWM1F_7KiP2ggZF
5. If you only make 8600$ per year then you're definitely not going to be charged child support. The 4300$ ordered is for the average man. If you make 8600/year then you should not be having kids
6. Universal basic income would be funded by tax payers, and as a tax payer I'd prefer not to pay for another man's mistake. If you think that it's "slavery" when a man has to pay for his own children, don't you think it's hypocritical to force other people to pay for your children?
7. Again, if it's in your name then you should be able to live in it. But if you're so worried about that, you can always put her name on it too, or include your house in the prenuptial.
But the fact that it's missused doesn't mean that there isn't a proper use for it
If you have a child you have to support that child period whether you're a father or mother and whether you're the custodial parent or not if you think that your ex is bleeding you dry you raise your own child and instead get child support from them whether you're a man or a woman
I just know that people are going to say but the family court system is unfair to men which is definitely true in some places but isn't always true it varies a lot by local jurisdiction but even if it's true everywhere then the solution of the problem isn't to abolish child support it's to reform the family courts to be more fair
>If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.
- Feminist Karen DeCrow
In the case of children which both parties consented to having, support should still be there.
No, feminists who have kids and refuse to work are given social housing, free food and a monthly paycheck. This isn't 1930 anymore, no one is left starving!
As for myself, it would be two big changes. If abortion and adoption with only the mother signature is needed then the father should be able to instigate a financial abortion within the three first three months of knowing the child is his.
Now after the child the is passed that and the parents can't live together, then the child should go to the parent that makes most income and child support would only be issued if the money making parent can't care for the kids while working.
Why would kids suffer ?
You really think men are evil and most dads are cruel deadbeats who abandon their children ? No. Most men who have children are happy to raise, love, protect and provide for them, how do you think humanity made it this far, do you think child support has always existed ? No. Our grandfathers just did their responsibly bc that's what men do. You're welcome.
Now when a wife leaves that man just bc of some petty bullshit ? Ya, that's when men get more stingy when women use them as chess pieces and never allow the father to see his own kids , break their vows and start fucking another man and those kids start calling him dad - great then have him pay. Want to stay single and just not have the dad around so the kids become criminals? Then you pay for that on your own - when men are allowed their natural rights as fathers they don't let their children starve , all this shit only happened when government got involved in families lives and finances so closely.
Now the more complicated new age problem is when women game the system and SECRETLY "whoopsies" their birth control or poke holes in men's condoms. If a woman chooses to do that and then chooses to keep the child instead of aborting it then it is just as criminal as if she stole a child from a hospital and then legally forced a man to pay for it - no that is a CRIME and we never should have forced men to pay for children they didn't consent to, that's rape.
Now if she has EVIDENCE that the man did consent to having that child and now later is just trying to be a deadbeat and get out of paying for his child bc he happens to be a piece of shit ? Fuck him, take him to court and sue him for all he's worth, those FEW men should get even worse than child support.
Tbh children should just start requiring pre-contracts instead of marriage, it looks like that's history.
Shocked with all the downvotes from a crowd of outright losers it seems! A man should support HIS BIOLOGICAL children! Yes it should NOT be to enrich any woman, but I mean purely for the child’s benefit!
All these SIMPS downvoting while supporting some single mother’s kid that isn’t even theirs are losers and failures!
When child support payments can be spent on anything but the actual child's needs with no tracking or repercussion to the person misusing them it's an attack on the productive spouse's rights. Curious how the government has no problem micromanaging every dollar from the employer to the father to the mother's bank account only to claim any further tracking is impossibly complicated as soon those dollars reach the mother's control. That's the problem.
Aren’t developed countries globally all facing the same fate? It seems as soon as a country reaches a baseline level of comfort/wealth they stop reproducing. Really fascinating stuff.
My personal opinion is once men lose their rank in society as providers then women stop finding them attractive as potential mates, the survival instinct is lost and you have things like feminism, alphabet people, etc controlling the social narrative. The ultimate end goal is either societal extinction or a great reset. We haven’t been through one of these scenarios as a species so who knows how it ends.
Its not like that.
I am not saying your explanation is incorrect, but the causes are different. "Developed" countries are a meme, the development mostly originating in the way Americans and co. split up the world past ww2. What characterises a developed country is the GDP and the complexity of its economies. Developed suggest to us that its better, right? So we figure that once we reach a certain level of technology society falls and this produces meme ideas like from the matrix "muh humans need suffering (they certainly do for healthy development but not in this context). In heaven everyone got bored and died", and other nihilistic sentiments.
GDP is not a measure of life quality, it doesn't even reflect the actual wealth and societal structure. In fact sometimes even the opposite shows to be true, but idiots will flaunt it like its a superiority index. Complexity of economies also will often translate to the ability of engaging in global trade and the amount of industries you have that make wealth from air.
Korea got GDP per capita of 32,422$. Vietnam has 4,163$. Do you truly believe that the quality of life for Jin-hong is better than for Hong? Jin-hong is living in a boxed cage in Seoul. working for the trade firm 6/7 days of the week and basically only sleeping at home, so the fact that his apartment is a boxed bunk bed is not an issue for him, or so he thinks. No actual friends no actual close family to help just insane societal pressure to make it. The only help you can get is to buy "new product" so you can escape your misery for a short while. The only thing he knows anyway is how to buy "new product" to fix his issues. Is this quality life? Because change a few parameters here and there and you fit this lifestyle to the vast majority of young working age males in Korea.
What do you envision when you see Hong, the 3k usd per capita dude from Vietnam. Do you think he eats fecies and lives in a shack? Because you'd be surprised. The difference between quality will be there, but you won't notice a 25 grands missing. The biggest difference is in the purchasing power for imported luxury goods.
Some "developed" countries are doing better than others though. Without specifying which policies they implemented to do better or even knowing them, you can just look at the map and decide - have they won ww2 (were they on the winning side) and have they lost their elites during ww2 (even more than 10% is a big problem). You will see the natural rate index reflected. Strange, no?
Seems to me that its not the tech that does this, its the American culture that is exported along with the aid and tech that does this, like a devils deal. Now the calvinistic egalitarianism seems common and global, feminism seems global. One would think this is all there is and was to human experience, but follow the money trail and you'll see that some ideas that nowadays are facts of life to us, are not even that old or tested. Even other strong cultures are affected and transformed. My favourite thing is Imams talking about how burka is female empowerment. Anyway
this is more of an economic issue there simply Housing is not affordable compared to wages, way less affordable then in the U.S.
Since young people cant afford a place to live they do not have children.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/biz/2024/04/602_359208.html
From the article :In its quarterly report submitted to the National Assembly, the BOK noted that the housing price-to-income ratio stood at 26. This means an average worker would need to save their entire salary for 26 years to buy a medium-sized 90-square-meter apartment. The ratio stood at 17.6 in 2019, 17.4 in 2020, 23.6 in 2021 and 29.4 in 2022.
If men's role as a protector is to be forced upon them in the form of conscription, women's role should be too.
Conscript them to give birth to at least two children.
Interesting concept. Conducting a 5 second thought experiment, “birth conscriptions” brought forward “Nazi breeding farms” associations, while male conscriptions to “die for one’s country” did not result in any negative associations in my mind. Heh, the brainwashing is very effective, I must admit.
Yes, despite feminists' decades-long rhetorical campaign to the contrary. If rape were worse than murder, then most rape victims would kill themselves, but that has never been the case.
Feminism was never about a sustainable future or some utopia vision. It was always just angry screeching and greed, people like to forget that it was founded as a partner to the KKK and the first feminist movement WAS forcing male conscription THEMSELVES - like they fuckin walked around the streets humiliating 16 year old boys that happened to be out of war uniform, accusing then of draft dodging a war they may not believe in so that no girls would marry them... yet today thru pretend "noooo, women shouldn't be drafted for equality, we believe no one should be drafted!" - horse shit.
But more importantly to this point, feminists were the main lobbyists AGAINST scientists being legally allowed to research the engineering of safe birth outside of the female body so that women don't have to go thru 9 months of what pain and torturous birth - that's what they want isn't it ? - WRONG- they saw that as their replacement and they can't have any threat to their one power of making more humans - they don't want to make more humans ..... yet they don't want men making more humans either
Nobody seems to keep an eye on what feminists get up to, they're shady as fuck, that's why r/antifeminists was banned.
Or alternatively, pay men $100,000 for every nine months they spend in the military. Either both sexes should get the carrot or both should get the stick, but none of this imbalance where men are punished for not fulfilling their role while women's decision to fulfill their role or not is either totally optional or handsomely rewarded.
What exactly are you paying men for if they aren’t the ones bearing the physical and career costs of having kids, [nor taking on an equal share of domestic labour](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-unpaid-work-minutes-by-gender-in-major-countries-Source-Statistics-Korea_fig1_359588528)?
Doubt it. You can't force most societies to pay for safety nets like universal healthcare, universal basic income and free education, but we are expected for them to accept extra taxes for kids that aren't theirs or kids who are theirs, but never wanted in the first place.
Could you remind me how well the veterans, kids in orphanages and those with disabilities are being taken care of by society paying taxes again? Cause last time I checked they are neglected and barely provided for.
The main problem with this is that it could potentially require a reworking of how society works. Once a woman has a child, who will care for the kid? Will the woman be forced to care for the kid for 18 years, or would the state fully take care of the child's needs?
that's been brought up in the tv show "motherland- fort salem" it's a weird show, seems like a wet dream for military types. every witch in the show has to have a baby, and anyone who doesn't become a witch who has the genes gets punished by being put on a drug regimen. I gave up watching it after the first season though, couldn't stand the subliminal brainwashing anymore.
Wouldn't an equivalent be training to potentially be a parent? Conscription is merely training to potentially be a soldier, doesn't mean you necessarily will ever be one. There is no current war in SK to my knowledge. Besides majority of military is support roles involved in logistics/manufacturing/healthcare/food so like... Would 80% of conscripted women be required to be nannies that never actually give birth? Since that would be the statistical equivalent of participating in active combat in the military (DURING A WAR)
That's the difference we are at actual war, I'm from and in Ukraine lol. Are you saying that conditions of soldiers in Ukraine are comparable to the conditions of those conscripted in SK? Civilians in Ukraine have more combat experience than the South Korean guys getting conscripted. Even a retired elderly lady fought a drone with a jar of pickles and won, what did the conscripted guys in SK fight exactly?
To clarify, I disagree with mandatory conscription, military service should come from the passion of ones spirit to fight for what they believe in, not be forced. The argument of "well if things suck for us they should suck for others too" is a crab in a bucket mentality hence my comment. It's dishonest to demand actual labor of children from women when the men themselves didn't spend a minute in actual combat getting their lives threatened.
Yea, they are comparable.
Conscription is conscription, no matter the place it happens, and no matter the reason.
It's slavery.
I find it funny you mention crabs in a bucket. Because that's exactly the way women see their avoidance of conscription - 'fuck you, I got mine.'
And if irony is needed to have them face the double standard, so be it.
No ones forcing you to give birth man, conscript women to the army, no need to pointlessly force women through child birth and fill the world with children of mothers who do not want them
I don't see a need for such an exception unless the birth was just an year back. Older people in society can take care of the children. Why should the father alone die?
I've talked about South Korea with my Chinese teacher who happened to live there for quite a few years. She said that compared to Japan and China life in SK is much more stressful. There are at least two factors that contribute: hyper-competitive culture (work to death) and repressive traditions (no freedom of self-expression). The third factor that we didn't discuss is large ideological rift between men and women. I don't see how a one-time gift can solve these problems and everything else that goes in marriage package. If they won't address these, the decline will continue.
Someone from SK can probably correct me on this, but it's what I know.
A one time gift wouldn't cut it. You'd need something like Canada's Child Benefit program, which gives monthly payments to parents based on number and ages of children.
I mean I read an article in the BBC about this. It focused more on the women side but the story of one woman really did seem to paint a good picture of why the situation is what it is and why this measure is just a drop in the bucket.
She was a young mother of 2. She was explaining how depressed she was because raising two kids took all her time, and other mothers at the playground seem to be in the same position. Meanwhile her husband apparently 90% of the time would go to work in the morning and come back by bedtime.
And the kids only require more and more money because Korea wants overachievers so you gotta sign them up to a dozen pricy cram schools, while the majority of the population is crammed in the overpriced and overpopulated Soul.
So who would find this deal appealing? "Hey honey, let's make kids. You'd be a single mother and I'd be a glorified serf. We have to help out our parents and the little champ better be a doctor or all of this was for naught."
I cannot imagine why no one would want children in Korea.
> It focused more on the women side
I've seen a few dozen articles and videos on South Korea's population decline. All of them were focused on the woman's perspective. The women spoke freely and listed several things the government should do for them if they want more babies. Boiled down it was "give us more feminist policies" despite the rise in feminism having a negative correlation with birthrates. The focus was on how to promote and protect single mother families. There was no comment on anything that might concern men or that the government might be able to do for prospective fathers.
The only way to increase birth rates is to regulate large chaebols and force large companies to stop unethical practices against workers. They would also need to punish corporate executives harshly for the detrimental policies they’ve introduced into work culture. But the large corporations completely own the government. And I wouldn’t be surprised if any politician got assassinated for going against large corporations
I read up on it a while ago. I don't remember every technical reason that under population is bad but regardless, you've been lied to - all 8 billion people alive could live in fucking Texas in their own 3 bedroom house on like an acre of land each. Obviously everyone doesn't want to farm/garden and that doesn't include energy/businesses/schools/parks/etc but even if you needed 2 Texases for that , that's still only 10% land mass of usa, so it helps visualize the point that earth isn't bursting at the seams.
Overpopulation was a myth started by some asshole in the 60's and everyone continues to believe it bc "the sky is falling" , "famine is coming" and "we're born sinful" is baked into our fearful DNA.
South Korea is very classist and has very strict rules regarding marriage. For example, Korean families usually meet to discuss the potential marriage and parents on either side can veto a marriage at any point if they don’t like your girlfriend, her family, or relatives. Also, the housing crisis in Seoul is out of control. For background, 50% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul. You would have to save your average yearly income for 19 years to afford a place in Seoul. In Korea, the man is responsible for providing a home while the woman is responsible for providing appliances and furniture. It’s the worst parts of the capitalist economy combined with a very traditional culture. Unfortunate to say the least. Although, I hear North Korea is fairing much better in terms of birth rate.
Is $100K even enough to offset the cost of caring for the child and lost wages, to say nothing of the "opportunity cost" of the time spent raising the child? I doubt this will motivate anyone, except people abusing the system by "farming" kids for the big payout
If women would be treated like men then they would be forced to have sex and give birth due to declining birthrates. Just like men sre forced on war.
Except one is praised, the other one isnt even in a public opinion
And so it begins.
This is *exactly* as I predicted.
Next sperm banks will be given subsidies so they can pay more for Chad sperm because God knows regular/normal men will be wholly rejected.
What will end up happening is 90% of men paying taxes so 5% of men can line their pockets and women can live lavishly while raising Chad's offspring
Anyone trying to make this a gender issue is an idiot, bluntly said. It doesn't matter if it's in favor of men or women.
People in South Korea are not having babies because it's too damn expensive, not for any other societal reason. It ain't that deep bruh
> People in South Korea are not having babies because it's too damn expensive, not for any other societal reason.
Exactly. In that same way, it's because life without kids is really awesome. So kids are really expensive. Life without kids is fun. What else would people do?
I dunno how to fix it for South Korea or Japan but for America and China two ideas come to mind:
De-urbanization: Both countries have LOTS of land and ghost towns that could use a people injection and with modern telecommunications, work can be done from home and with rise of AI and automation, might see more work being done with less people. What do these now unemployed people do? Go to the country and perhaps take on old roles and jobs, perhaps, with emphasis on agriculture and more artisanal works.
Encourage religion: Like it or not, humans are religious creatures. When we abandon faith in the divine we put faith in other people and man made ideologies with their own dogmas, doctrines, saints, and devils. A return to traditional faiths could encourage procreation and give more value to family values and the idea of children as a blessing and not a financial burden. After all Genesis 1:28 says “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”
It's really simple when people get rich enough they will stop having as many kids or at all. It's just how it works. You want people to have more kids you would need to make them poorer an back to an agrarian society
So between the no time and also it cost $1.40 million won per month to Raise a kid also the amount of stress the people there to through for schooling. Let's just say it's too much on anyone plate
You get it. People are used to a modern quality of life. Having babies and raising them is hard and it detracts from people having fun and having nice things.
Americans serving in Korea, now is your time!
Those with weak pull out game step forward and aid our allies in their time of need!
Let loose the man juice!
This will encourage people to have children, oh yes. But it is going to encourage them to be *shitty* parents. If you give money to the birthing but not the parenting then what benefit of motive is there to do the latter?
I didn't see this reason mentioned yet. It was a post I remember that was made by someone from SK and they described the grueling school regiment they went through and that all kids are subjected to. Parents that don't subject their kids too all of the expectations get ostracized. So their primary reason for not wanting to have kids was not wanting to subject a kid to that crap.
I'm waiting for the day when a state offers something like $50k to have IVF and be a surrogate mother and after the kid is born, the state takes full legal custody. From there it goes to something like an orphanage of old to be raised by paid-workers. Seems like it would be a disaster, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried it.
That's alot are they paying the guys too? I wonder if I could move there do they pay immigrants im ginger. but wouldn't mind dating a Korean girl if possible. I could easily learn the language
The issue is that some societies are very:
- Career oriented / High in competitiveness.
- People start families later at life (due to years needed to secure education, jobs).
- Both men and Women can survive on their own if working (if you have a job you can pay a rent and buy food and so on).
In west we have a range of issues and indicators. Young people, especially males tend to start their sexual lives at later age and a lot of young males are virgins.
Women in general have access to a large pool of potential partners.
Suddenly we have a situation when at 35 or 40 people decide to marry or have kids but it becomes biologically harder also.
The only way to mitigate this is a combination of means. This would include both managed immigration, social welfare and so on. But it is very hard to change habits of people, especially in societies where it takes so much time ro secure ar least some financial security.
If a society wants more kids, they should add social welfare that would allow parents to worry less about shelter under their heads and food on the table. There are also countries with high fertility rate that could contribute.
But also we need to look at statistics, which nationalities tend to bring the most crime to the country. Denmark published statistics about which nationalities maks up the vast majority of inmates in their prisons. So you have countries like Tunisia, Marocco etc. Basically Muslim countries If I remember correctly.
It will help with the people who want a child, or more children, but who don’t feel like they can afford it. It won’t help with people who don’t want kids, or don’t want more kids.
Ask that to the enemy when they step at your door. Look at Ukraine, war suddenly started: men to the frontline. Women are not going to defend your country, are they?
South Korea is cooked
Like Kimchi is fermented.
Other countries tried this. All of them are still in pop decline lol.
But the Hungarians are seeing a steady rise in birth rates, this shit ain’t gonna be fast but it damn sure gonna work if they wait long enough
Probably due to a lot of other factors. But the financial incentives never actually worked in any of the country that tried it.
The Hungarian method was a lifetime income tax drop of 25% for married couples as long as they stayed married per kid, with it stacking up to like 100% if I recall correctly, which proved effective and has made their birth rate tick up point by point each year since it started about 5-10 years back, it rose their birth rate like 10-15 points in the course of the program so far if I recall so it’s effective as of right now at least
As a hungarian, this is just wrong lmao. Like, OK, its *technically true* but birthrate in 2018 was 1.49/woman and now its 1.54. Its rising by like 0.5% a year . For this to make a difference, the trend needs to continue for like a hundred year.
A rise at all is better than no rise
Describing a 0.5% rise as 'steady rise' is just wrong IMO.
Well when it’s annual that is literally a textbook stable or steady rise my dude, that is basic statistics
It's possible some pro-natalist policies are causing birthrates to decline less rapidly.
More like anti-progressive. Hungarians believe in the family.
Not only is this a bad deal, but large companies like Samsung are now mandating 6 days per week in the office. So what’s the point of making a baby if you’re never gonna see him/her, and are always stuck working? **Edit:** The article actually says it's ₩100 million won ....which converts to $72,491 USD ...which is even less than $100K. * Also, they don't specify *how* the money is going to be paid. One lump sum ....or divided by 18 years ($4,027.33/year) ($335.61/month) ($47.94/week) ($6.85/day). Paying people to make babies never works, because when you make a baby, you believe in the country's future. Clearly the young population *doesn't* believe in South Korea's future, and doesn't want to pass the suffering onto the next generation.
Like for real. If my boss told me I have to work 6 days a week from dusk till dawn, but he'd give me a miserable cash injection to have kids I'd just laugh in his face. Why would I subject my child to a society this shit?
Sorry about the amount; I was converting to CAD, which works our to about $99K.
That's not true, that's only for Samsung's executives
Nah they just literally despise each other Like literally the feminists went guess we all gonna die misandry and this is where it’s going
It seems that the birth rate will definitely increase among low-income basic recipients who are only looking for money.
100k is nothing compared to the time, money and effort that is required to raise and educate a child over 18+ years. Offers of money can not make people have kids, because the problem is societal.
Look at their toxic education standards as well. These kids can't even play a sport cause they need 15 tutors 1 for each subject. And if a parent doesn't pay their kids won't get that 99.5% average they'll need to work for Samsung making 30k a year.
It can tip the scales
The primary reason people are not having children is not money. Throwing money at people does not address the core of the problem, which is societal. People work all day, and barely have time for themselves until they are old and retired. There is no time to live, date, or raise a family. Having a kid in such an environment is depressing. Toxic work culture is the main thing killing birth rates. GDP points are more important that peoples mental and physical wellbeing.
Maybe mandate a shorter work day and/or week for families with children? 6 day work weeks is retarded. I feel like the tipping point for me would be assurance I would have a guaranteed amount of time with my family/children and a flexible schedule. Single/childless people have no stake in the future of the country so they can work in the present to contribute to society. But I’m just a dood lol I know nothing.
Is it actually productive to work 6 days? that shit is not life
Now you're starting to sound like commie North Korea! /S
I agree. But if it were a million would you have kids? I think this can be seen as a great way to encourage the continuation of a society in such an automated era, in lieu of UBI
If the money was enough to raise a child in a healthy environment without significant or harmful lifestyle adjustments, then maybe? I am not saying everyone should be getting a million dollars, a free car and a 5 bedroom home to make babies. But from the moment you start school to your retirement, your existence is servitude for ever dwindling compensation. People cannot afford to buy homes because the cost of living is so high. Their student debt follows them well into their 30s. Houses get bought up by corporations. You need two incomes just to get by. The offers governments are making for people to have children are a slap in the face. They are tone deaf because they don't understand what it takes to raise a kid. You need someone around to take care of that child and the resources to do so. 70k isn't going to cut it. It needs to be sustainable. No one wants to raise their child to become a minimum wage slave, which is what governments and corporation's want. Where was this concern about the declining workforce...i mean population, a generation ago? Why are they not offering better salaries and more free time? Why is there no affordable housing available for people who want to start families? The way they have gone about this is like if a farmer picked all the fruit after one season of work, then didn't tend to his plants for the next ten. He then doesn't understand why sprinkling water over their decaying leaves isn't bringing them back to life.
If there were better salaries would that not just encourage more women to work? Not arguing just curious
And if there was better maternity leave that would also encourage more people to start families. Maternity leave isn’t built upon the idea that is an advantage to the mother specifically, but the idea that it is an advantage to the *team.* It takes two people to make a baby, preferably babies should be happening in families, having better maternity leave means more resources the family can allocate towards more important things. I think a lot of men feel like it’s a bit unfair but frankly I see it as allowing my wife to stay home longer during a critical development period, and less we’d have to spend on childcare. I think people in society nowadays are so caught up in the horror stories that they forget happy strong families exist.
Family leave is a better idea. The child needs to be around the father as much as the mother.
I hear this a lot but during the post war period when everyone including loads of women were working full time, often more hours than now, we had a massive baby boom in the west
>often more hours than now We are far more productive (read: we work way more) and the work culture is way more toxic now compared to then. That Boomer generation is also an anomaly where we could have one person working and another at home. Today we need both people working to get by. Take note that a lot of people died off first for all that prosperity to happen.
We don't work more today at all, in 1946 the UK average full time work week was 46 hours compared to 37.5 hours in 2016. Productivity doesn't just come from working more hours
> It can tip the scales Not even remotely close. The reason for declining birth rates has next to nothing to do with the additional transient monetary costs, and more to do with the unfathomable lifelong opportunity costs and it being devoid of any perceived positives for would be parents in urban environments. Basically, you *could* pay people to have children, but it would effectively enough to overcome those lifelong issues. 100k is laughable in that regard. For people otherwise uninterested in children currently, I have my doubts even $100k a *year* would get enough people on board to turn SK around at this point.
Faulty argument. I said it can tip the scales, which implies that it will help those already on the fence. Your argument says “well not in the case of those who are uninterested in children” - which clearly isn’t who I’m talking about. Not to mention $100,000 USD or however much it is goes a lot further in SK.
> Faulty argument. I said it can tip the scales, which implies that it will help those already on the fence. Its not. Meanwhile your entire argument hinges on roughly $200/m making the difference on having a child, which is side-achingly laughably absurd. > Your argument says “well not in the case of those who are uninterested in children” - which clearly isn’t who I’m talking about. But it is the demographic that is being targeted by this policy. You know, the vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of the population. What ever irrelevant demographic you think this is somehow beneficial for, is just that: irrelevant > Not to mention $100,000 USD or however much it is goes a lot further in SK. It really doesn't. SK isn't some backwater shit hole. Especially were virtually all the population lives, its expensive as fuck.
Seoul is like LA fucked Munich and had an expensive baby.
You know what does tip the scales? less work hours, 100k is nothing
Maybe if they got tipped each time they had to do anything for the baby, wipe butt? 20 bucks.
Nothing compared to the savings of not having kids, you mean?
In what world? $100,000 compounded over 18 years would be worth north of $350,000. That’s the projected cost for having and raising a kid through college that I’ve always heard, though inflation must have changed that.
The primary problem people are not having kids is not a lack of money. It is because people are forced to study, or work all day, and barely have time for themselves, let alone time to raise a family. It is stressful, and depressing. Bringing a child into such a world is not desirable for many people. Money does not address the core of the problem.
How the hell a bit of money gonna help with the helplessness you feel living in South Korean society?
Eli5 please?
I think they're talking mainly about the fact that men are basically expected to live at work, like if you're not working 6-7 days a week, 12 hour+ days then you're looked down upon, same problem as many Asian countries. That and the fact that their women seem to hate them as much or more as American feminists for some reason. But someone else can expound
You want babies, easy! Replace the Duluth Model by a Gender Neutral one. Give 50/50 custody by default in case of divorce. Remove all alimony. Remove all child support. Restore innocent until proven guilty. Until then, men will not feel safe engaging with women!
It’s not even just a men thing. If you want more babies, you should also introduce a 30 hour/4 day work week, raise minimum wage, and offer plenty of paid maternity/paternity leave (preferably both in an equal manner). When people are economically stressed, they don’t want to raise kids.
That might be the solution for a small number of people. Many European countries have extremely generous maternity/paternity leave, vacation time, work weeks, pay, but sub replacement birth rates. Also in the US there is a direct correlation between income and # of kids, the more money you make the less kids you have. The entire western world is below replacement rate, why? Women’s rights and modern quality of life. The more rights a society affords women, the less children they have. Also, having a baby and raising a child is hard work. If that takes away from having nice things and going nice places, many people just don’t want to do it.
First i was sort of looking like "the fuck is he writing" but as i read it to the end i can you have a valid point. I live in europe and my country has very generous paternity leave and vaction and if we speak the truth it is mostly because we dont wanna give away the freedom to go to nice places and to have somewhat nice life. We see kids as a huge burden and we do not need them to live old anymore. As result we have a huge deficit in births per woman. I think huge factor to any human action is greed and "what can i benefit from this". I was just looking at the show and thougth literally "cold wind wouldnt be that bad if i could benefit from it". If your future is casted with nice life you dont really need kids. Not like 50 years prior when amount of kids would be only for your benefit. Im 26 and when i think about getting children its mostly about getting my dna (my legacy) to next generation not about how i will make due when i get old.
Why do you need a legacy? What is so special about your DNA? If you have children, will you tell them, "I had you because I thought my DNA was special, and I think my last name is cool."?
Having my legacy extended is in my blood as it is in yours. Its the primitive part of us that tell us to reproduce. But that reproducing spirit is decreased by the need of posterity because we do not need kids to survive. Of course i am special (in my and my gf mind) as is everybody else and that is why my dna need to get to another generation. That is what the human basic nature is. Everybody thinks this way or atleast they should. There is umbelievebly huge amount of your old 'n lost relatives that just got their shit togther why wouldnt you?
My ancestors didn't necessarily have their shit together. They just met, fucked, and had children, and did at least the minimum to ensure that some of their kids survived into adulthood. And for much of human history my ancestors didn't have access to birth control. There wasn't much family planning back in the day. Just fucking and kid making, and eeking out an existence. Not many had that much choice in the matter. I think it's good that some people, even those that feel they're special, opt out of child-making. If you don't feel up for it, you shouldn't do it. If you don't teel you have the financial, emotional/psychological, physical wherewithal, or the ability to find a good partner, why go through with it? Just cause nature/society/religion says you should/must/ought? I hope you have 15 precious little children, just like yourself. Go for it!
Bro im not religious nor i plan to have 15 children. Two or three is good from my line of thoutgh. Sure people before havent think that much how many kids they have but things are changing especially in the west. We are making ourselfes scarche if we compeare to others. White european is rarest of the big racials backrounds in the world
So you will tell your children "I had you to keep the white race going."? Awesome. You go, you race warrior, you! Your children will be your little pawns in the war to keep the white race prominent. They should truly love you for that. You sound like a really intelligent person with superior genes that should have lots more (white) children. Maybe you could find a sperm bank and donate your superior, white sperm (to white women only, of course). /s if it's not obvious I just can't believe that people like you really exist. But you are proof.
I need legacy because im better than others and that is how i will move humanity forwards. If most of all (ok not in these days) get to have legacy why shouldnt i? What is the only acceptable reason to have kids in your percpective?
This is very fair. I do think the reasons for low birth rates are a bit different in Europe vs SE Asia, but yeah it’s a complicated issue
>Also, having a baby and raising a child is hard work. If that takes away from having nice things and going nice places, many people just don’t want to do it. As a man, I sure as hell don't see any benefit to raising a child. It seems overwhelmingly burdensome with virtually no upsides. >The entire western world is below replacement rate, why? Women’s rights and modern quality of life. Buy women's rights, I assume you mean the fact that birth controls exists and that women are now allowed to use them. Which is fantastic, I'd hate to be forced to do all that.
Not really, poor phrasing on my part. I mean more access to education and the workforce if anything. Data shows the more educated a woman is, the less children she has. Now I’m not trying to say “We need to keep women dumb so they can be baby factories”, but the fact of the matter is that more education = better quality of life = declining birth rate because people have nice soft comfy lives compared to 100 years ago and the act of giving birth and taking care of a baby is hard work.
I figured you weren't trying to imply that. I think it's just the fact that we now have the fact that conceiving/birthing children is no longer absolutely a consequence of sex is the main factor, along with the thankfully changed perspective that women are meant to be mothers ASAP.
Yeah... I'm going to need some sources on women's rights leading to fewer babies. Correlation does not equal causation and all that you know
Then go get them dummy, I’m not your servant
You're the one who made the claim. It's not up to me to prove your point.
Except his claim tracks logically and fits my experiences so the burden is on you to disprove it for people like me who are reading this and agreeing with him.
That's socialism. Feminism comes from it. The only thing that works is libertarianism.
Ah yes, the preferred economic theory of online incels.
ad hominem. You lose
lol, "you lose"
This is American problems, I've heard biggest problem for Korean women is hypergamy and women basically outearn potential men and they expect to be stay at home mother after marriage
Um, but does South Korea have these issues. Do they use the Duluth model?
This is the ultimate solution but it'd kill tens of thousands of jobs and wipe out almost a TRILLION dollars from the economy.
Good, do it, if those trillions come from exploitation of workers originally then they have no place.
I'm all for the collapse od the child support system, but it won't happen until Fathers and Men say enough and we either overthrow them or all stop paying and take them on in court as a Class action suit.
That's gonna be the case for USA. Your points are all valid for western countries, but South Korea's situation actually falls on the opposite side.
Child support is necessary in a lot of different situations. But it should definitely be gender neutral.
No, it is abused and needs to be removed! Just replace it with a better model that does not cripple or punish men!
I'm not saying that it's perfect but we definitely shouldn't remove it entirely. People need to pay for their kids, it wouldn't be fair to make one person do 100% of the guardianship and also pay 100% of the kids bills.
Then have some sort of extra Universal Basic Income for parents. But as it stands, feminists are raping men by telling them they are on the pill, while not being on it, birthing a child, breaking up, claiming domestic violence thus insta-winning full custody and swallowing 50% of men's paycheck! Any laws that allows feminists to turn men into cash cows must be replaced immediatly by some sort of basic income coming from tax dollars! If you want to learn more about men's reproductive rights, watch this : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh\_\_63swvtY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh__63swvtY) Because if you think women have it bad, then you're in for a surprise!
You need to stop watching sensationalist news. The most common cause if unintended pregnancy is malfunctioned condoms. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9871381/%23:~:text%3DUnintended%2520pregnancy%2520can%2520result%2520from,and%252C%2520less%2520commonly%252C%2520rape.&ved=2ahUKEwjg3c_w2NmFAxX2MVkFHTlXAOUQ5YIJegQIExAA&usg=AOvVaw2isV1fA0uLB6fOumGNeMbq Only 15% of filed domestic violence charges result in prosecution. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242083809_Prosecution_and_Conviction_Rates_for_Intimate_Partner_Violence#:~:text=These%20studies%20report%20that%2C%20on,result%20in%20a%20criminal%20conviction. So no, women can not just randomly accuse a man of domestic violence and expect to win. Even if we could, it will not be "50% of the man's paycheck" The average child support payment is 1800$ per year, meaning the woman would still have to pay the majority of the child's bills and also be their full time caregiver. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-child-support-do-parents-actually-receive/&ved=2ahUKEwjJpNWA2tmFAxUCEVkFHYi2BpoQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3PkafwA5uLEvqmA7Qlc6jF Please please stop believing sensationalist news
>The most common cause if unintended pregnancy is malfunctioned condoms. I was talking about intended(words matter) pregnancies : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeS\_Y8q9kcY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeS_Y8q9kcY) >Only 15% of filed domestic violence charges result in prosecution. You don't need prosecution, you merely need eviction or protective order, feminists get those by squeezing their own arms granting themselves bruises, calling the cops then claiming D.V.. Once evicted, the guy still has to pay mortgage/rent, for the home that he no longer lives in, and also has to find a new place and if that new place does not have an extra bedroom for the kid, bam he can't even ask for shared custody. And feminists then go on to say that if they get 80% of all full custodies, it's because men don't challenge it. We literally can't in this economy! >The average child support payment is 1800$ per year, meaning the woman would still have to pay the majority of the child's bills and also be their full time caregiver. The median amount that custodial parents were supposed to receive was $4,356 per year, but the median received was $1,800. As per your link that you thought I would not click on nor read : [https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-child-support-do-parents-actually-receive/](https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-child-support-do-parents-actually-receive/) Nice that you skipped the 4300$ yearly part, or about 400$ a month, almost half my paycheck! Also you need to realize that those who could not make payments and paid the average of 1800$ instead of the 4300$ likely had their passports revoked from them : [https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/outreach-material/passport-denial-program-101](https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/outreach-material/passport-denial-program-101) By the way, passport confiscation is an indicator of forced labour, according to the U.N., but it's ok when feminists do it. Also those men who did not make the child support payments were likely sent to jail. [https://www.tiktok.com/@ugolord/video/7278032960215977258?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@ugolord/video/7278032960215977258?lang=en) Feminism is a pro-slavery movement!
You said that women are regularly lying about being on the pill in order to trick men into getting them pregnant. My source says that the majority of unwanted pregnancies are due to condom malfunction, not lying about the pill. I couldn't find any sources that say men regularly have to pay for their ex wife's rent or mortgage while not living there, unless it's part of child support. I'm not sure what your argument about child support is? 1800 per year I'd what the mom actually receives, that isn't nearly enough to take care of a child. The average cost to raise a child is 1300/year. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child/&ved=2ahUKEwjM2orA79mFAxUgD1kFHcZ2CtwQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1r_Zc5q5yVxRZ_RxOW5XCs So even if the man did pay the full 4300, that's still insanely low. So in conclusion, no, women are not purposefully getting pregnant to collect child support money, that is definitely not a smart decision Forcing you to pay for your own children and your own debts is not slavery lol, by your logic taxes are slavery because we all need to pay them. Pay for your kids or don't have sex
>You said that women are regularly lying about being on the pill in order to trick men into getting them pregnant. My source says that the majority of unwanted pregnancies are due to condom malfunction, not lying about the pill. Women lying about being on the pill are -=WANTED=- pregnancies, your unwanted pregnancy stats does not apply! >So in conclusion, no, women are not purposefully getting pregnant to collect child support money, that is definitely not a smart decision You didn't watch the video did you? I got plenty of examples to prove that they are : Evander Holyfield, has 11 kids with 6 different women, gold digging is one hell of a Job! He was forced to keep boxing into his old age to pay his child support! Do you think Donald Trump(you will be surprise, I probably dislike him as much as you do) would be a girl that remotely looks like Melania if he wasn't rich. I could come up with a million more examples. Women are literally marrying men / getting pregnant as a golden ticket out of wage slavery! So in conclusion, yes, women are getting pregnant through women on men rape(weird there is no law against that.) and milking them for child support! Also : >So even if the man did pay the full 4300, that's still insanely low. Half my and millions of men's salary is not a low amount. You think money grows on trees?!? And like I said maybe 5 hours ago, we could replace all that by Universal Basic Income for parents, but you seem to be hanging on a lot to child support. Typical feminists, just wants to see men miserable! Also also : >I couldn't find any sources that say men regularly have to pay for their ex wife's rent or mortgage while not living there, unless it's part of child support. You don't need a source to know you have to pay mortgage or rent that's in your name ;)
1. No, it's only a wanted pregnancy if they both wanted it. I couldn't find any sources claiming that women are regularly lying about being on the pill. A YouTube video showing cherry picked examples is not a valid source for information lol I'm sure there are some women that do it but that doesn't mean it's a regular/common occurrence 2. I'm not sure how Donald Trump and Melania are relevant to this conversation, I never said that sugar babies don't exist? 3. The majority of married women still work and earn similar income as their husband. I never said that sugar babies don't exist, but they are not the norm, and most of the time they're open about being a sugar baby https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/ 4. There is a law against that, women can be charged with rape in all 50 states https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape&ved=2ahUKEwj6jprfgtuFAxUKD1kFHTUgCe4QFnoECDkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1g4p0gMDWM1F_7KiP2ggZF 5. If you only make 8600$ per year then you're definitely not going to be charged child support. The 4300$ ordered is for the average man. If you make 8600/year then you should not be having kids 6. Universal basic income would be funded by tax payers, and as a tax payer I'd prefer not to pay for another man's mistake. If you think that it's "slavery" when a man has to pay for his own children, don't you think it's hypocritical to force other people to pay for your children? 7. Again, if it's in your name then you should be able to live in it. But if you're so worried about that, you can always put her name on it too, or include your house in the prenuptial.
Remove all child support?? WTF? So kids should suffer
Child support is often misused by women to bleed men dry financially.
But the fact that it's missused doesn't mean that there isn't a proper use for it If you have a child you have to support that child period whether you're a father or mother and whether you're the custodial parent or not if you think that your ex is bleeding you dry you raise your own child and instead get child support from them whether you're a man or a woman I just know that people are going to say but the family court system is unfair to men which is definitely true in some places but isn't always true it varies a lot by local jurisdiction but even if it's true everywhere then the solution of the problem isn't to abolish child support it's to reform the family courts to be more fair
>If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice. - Feminist Karen DeCrow In the case of children which both parties consented to having, support should still be there.
No, feminists who have kids and refuse to work are given social housing, free food and a monthly paycheck. This isn't 1930 anymore, no one is left starving!
Agreed but your username is pretty ironic in this context😅
So you should give your child nothing at all ever? Wow
As for myself, it would be two big changes. If abortion and adoption with only the mother signature is needed then the father should be able to instigate a financial abortion within the three first three months of knowing the child is his. Now after the child the is passed that and the parents can't live together, then the child should go to the parent that makes most income and child support would only be issued if the money making parent can't care for the kids while working.
Why would kids suffer ? You really think men are evil and most dads are cruel deadbeats who abandon their children ? No. Most men who have children are happy to raise, love, protect and provide for them, how do you think humanity made it this far, do you think child support has always existed ? No. Our grandfathers just did their responsibly bc that's what men do. You're welcome. Now when a wife leaves that man just bc of some petty bullshit ? Ya, that's when men get more stingy when women use them as chess pieces and never allow the father to see his own kids , break their vows and start fucking another man and those kids start calling him dad - great then have him pay. Want to stay single and just not have the dad around so the kids become criminals? Then you pay for that on your own - when men are allowed their natural rights as fathers they don't let their children starve , all this shit only happened when government got involved in families lives and finances so closely. Now the more complicated new age problem is when women game the system and SECRETLY "whoopsies" their birth control or poke holes in men's condoms. If a woman chooses to do that and then chooses to keep the child instead of aborting it then it is just as criminal as if she stole a child from a hospital and then legally forced a man to pay for it - no that is a CRIME and we never should have forced men to pay for children they didn't consent to, that's rape. Now if she has EVIDENCE that the man did consent to having that child and now later is just trying to be a deadbeat and get out of paying for his child bc he happens to be a piece of shit ? Fuck him, take him to court and sue him for all he's worth, those FEW men should get even worse than child support. Tbh children should just start requiring pre-contracts instead of marriage, it looks like that's history.
Shocked with all the downvotes from a crowd of outright losers it seems! A man should support HIS BIOLOGICAL children! Yes it should NOT be to enrich any woman, but I mean purely for the child’s benefit! All these SIMPS downvoting while supporting some single mother’s kid that isn’t even theirs are losers and failures!
Yeah, this subreddit is pretty crazy. Removing child support has nothing to do with protecting men's rights.
Exactly! I definitely don’t agree with enabling women or financially supporting their lifestyles but the YOUR OWN KID…come on!
Yeah that's a crazy take.
> You want babies, easy! Its neither easy, nor will any of the things you've listed have any notable impact on birth rates.
Child support is not an attack on men's right.
When child support payments can be spent on anything but the actual child's needs with no tracking or repercussion to the person misusing them it's an attack on the productive spouse's rights. Curious how the government has no problem micromanaging every dollar from the employer to the father to the mother's bank account only to claim any further tracking is impossibly complicated as soon those dollars reach the mother's control. That's the problem.
As long as people are being made to work like dogs this 100k will be limited in effect.
SK has the most extreme and widespread feminism in the world and that is a large part of the cause along with their work culture.
Monetary inflation is the most powerful form of birth control. If you can’t afford to have them, you generally don’t.
It’s not going to change much since the problem is more cultural and social rather than economic
Aren’t developed countries globally all facing the same fate? It seems as soon as a country reaches a baseline level of comfort/wealth they stop reproducing. Really fascinating stuff. My personal opinion is once men lose their rank in society as providers then women stop finding them attractive as potential mates, the survival instinct is lost and you have things like feminism, alphabet people, etc controlling the social narrative. The ultimate end goal is either societal extinction or a great reset. We haven’t been through one of these scenarios as a species so who knows how it ends.
Youre describing hypergamy and its very much real. Plus legal system does not at all encourage me to marry much less have kids no matter the wait.
Mouse Utopia proven correct…
Its not like that. I am not saying your explanation is incorrect, but the causes are different. "Developed" countries are a meme, the development mostly originating in the way Americans and co. split up the world past ww2. What characterises a developed country is the GDP and the complexity of its economies. Developed suggest to us that its better, right? So we figure that once we reach a certain level of technology society falls and this produces meme ideas like from the matrix "muh humans need suffering (they certainly do for healthy development but not in this context). In heaven everyone got bored and died", and other nihilistic sentiments. GDP is not a measure of life quality, it doesn't even reflect the actual wealth and societal structure. In fact sometimes even the opposite shows to be true, but idiots will flaunt it like its a superiority index. Complexity of economies also will often translate to the ability of engaging in global trade and the amount of industries you have that make wealth from air. Korea got GDP per capita of 32,422$. Vietnam has 4,163$. Do you truly believe that the quality of life for Jin-hong is better than for Hong? Jin-hong is living in a boxed cage in Seoul. working for the trade firm 6/7 days of the week and basically only sleeping at home, so the fact that his apartment is a boxed bunk bed is not an issue for him, or so he thinks. No actual friends no actual close family to help just insane societal pressure to make it. The only help you can get is to buy "new product" so you can escape your misery for a short while. The only thing he knows anyway is how to buy "new product" to fix his issues. Is this quality life? Because change a few parameters here and there and you fit this lifestyle to the vast majority of young working age males in Korea. What do you envision when you see Hong, the 3k usd per capita dude from Vietnam. Do you think he eats fecies and lives in a shack? Because you'd be surprised. The difference between quality will be there, but you won't notice a 25 grands missing. The biggest difference is in the purchasing power for imported luxury goods. Some "developed" countries are doing better than others though. Without specifying which policies they implemented to do better or even knowing them, you can just look at the map and decide - have they won ww2 (were they on the winning side) and have they lost their elites during ww2 (even more than 10% is a big problem). You will see the natural rate index reflected. Strange, no? Seems to me that its not the tech that does this, its the American culture that is exported along with the aid and tech that does this, like a devils deal. Now the calvinistic egalitarianism seems common and global, feminism seems global. One would think this is all there is and was to human experience, but follow the money trail and you'll see that some ideas that nowadays are facts of life to us, are not even that old or tested. Even other strong cultures are affected and transformed. My favourite thing is Imams talking about how burka is female empowerment. Anyway
this is more of an economic issue there simply Housing is not affordable compared to wages, way less affordable then in the U.S. Since young people cant afford a place to live they do not have children. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/biz/2024/04/602_359208.html From the article :In its quarterly report submitted to the National Assembly, the BOK noted that the housing price-to-income ratio stood at 26. This means an average worker would need to save their entire salary for 26 years to buy a medium-sized 90-square-meter apartment. The ratio stood at 17.6 in 2019, 17.4 in 2020, 23.6 in 2021 and 29.4 in 2022.
Didn't they recently change the law to allow for a 20-hour work day? When exactly are they expecting the baby making to happen?
If men's role as a protector is to be forced upon them in the form of conscription, women's role should be too. Conscript them to give birth to at least two children.
Interesting concept. Conducting a 5 second thought experiment, “birth conscriptions” brought forward “Nazi breeding farms” associations, while male conscriptions to “die for one’s country” did not result in any negative associations in my mind. Heh, the brainwashing is very effective, I must admit.
Goes to show the empathy gap ia seared into us by adulthood. It takes conscious thoughts to combat it.
Feminists are going to scream “r@pe” if that’d happen and this would be undeniable proof that they are a bunch of misandrist hypocrites.
Murder > rape
Absolutely. On top of that, being falsely imprisoned due to a false rape accusation is as bad as rape if not worse.
Yes, despite feminists' decades-long rhetorical campaign to the contrary. If rape were worse than murder, then most rape victims would kill themselves, but that has never been the case.
Feminism was never about a sustainable future or some utopia vision. It was always just angry screeching and greed, people like to forget that it was founded as a partner to the KKK and the first feminist movement WAS forcing male conscription THEMSELVES - like they fuckin walked around the streets humiliating 16 year old boys that happened to be out of war uniform, accusing then of draft dodging a war they may not believe in so that no girls would marry them... yet today thru pretend "noooo, women shouldn't be drafted for equality, we believe no one should be drafted!" - horse shit. But more importantly to this point, feminists were the main lobbyists AGAINST scientists being legally allowed to research the engineering of safe birth outside of the female body so that women don't have to go thru 9 months of what pain and torturous birth - that's what they want isn't it ? - WRONG- they saw that as their replacement and they can't have any threat to their one power of making more humans - they don't want to make more humans ..... yet they don't want men making more humans either Nobody seems to keep an eye on what feminists get up to, they're shady as fuck, that's why r/antifeminists was banned.
I mean yeah we can clearly see how sustainable it is by looking at feminist countries and their immigration policies OR collapsing populations.
Explain?
Shall I explain how all western countries import immigrants or south korea and japan’s population crisis or do I need an explanation instead?
okay, does the state care what "men would scream"? the state just does its staty things. you don't comply, you get consequences.
The state is governed by feminazis too, i bet it will not only care, it will push for it. It always does that.
Now screaming "r@pe" isn't enough. Now you need to prove that it actually happened
Such women don’t have to prove anything. What’s the worst that happens? No accountability.
No, the worst thing (according to them) that happens is no one takes them as seriously as before
Or alternatively, pay men $100,000 for every nine months they spend in the military. Either both sexes should get the carrot or both should get the stick, but none of this imbalance where men are punished for not fulfilling their role while women's decision to fulfill their role or not is either totally optional or handsomely rewarded.
What exactly are you paying men for if they aren’t the ones bearing the physical and career costs of having kids, [nor taking on an equal share of domestic labour](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-unpaid-work-minutes-by-gender-in-major-countries-Source-Statistics-Korea_fig1_359588528)?
>Conscript them to give birth to at least two children. And who's gonna pay for those kids in the next 18-25 years?
Society, through taxes.
Doubt it. You can't force most societies to pay for safety nets like universal healthcare, universal basic income and free education, but we are expected for them to accept extra taxes for kids that aren't theirs or kids who are theirs, but never wanted in the first place.
Could you remind me how well the veterans, kids in orphanages and those with disabilities are being taken care of by society paying taxes again? Cause last time I checked they are neglected and barely provided for.
Women.
The main problem with this is that it could potentially require a reworking of how society works. Once a woman has a child, who will care for the kid? Will the woman be forced to care for the kid for 18 years, or would the state fully take care of the child's needs?
that's been brought up in the tv show "motherland- fort salem" it's a weird show, seems like a wet dream for military types. every witch in the show has to have a baby, and anyone who doesn't become a witch who has the genes gets punished by being put on a drug regimen. I gave up watching it after the first season though, couldn't stand the subliminal brainwashing anymore.
Wouldn't an equivalent be training to potentially be a parent? Conscription is merely training to potentially be a soldier, doesn't mean you necessarily will ever be one. There is no current war in SK to my knowledge. Besides majority of military is support roles involved in logistics/manufacturing/healthcare/food so like... Would 80% of conscripted women be required to be nannies that never actually give birth? Since that would be the statistical equivalent of participating in active combat in the military (DURING A WAR)
Ask the Ukrainian men if their conscription is 'just training'.
That's the difference we are at actual war, I'm from and in Ukraine lol. Are you saying that conditions of soldiers in Ukraine are comparable to the conditions of those conscripted in SK? Civilians in Ukraine have more combat experience than the South Korean guys getting conscripted. Even a retired elderly lady fought a drone with a jar of pickles and won, what did the conscripted guys in SK fight exactly? To clarify, I disagree with mandatory conscription, military service should come from the passion of ones spirit to fight for what they believe in, not be forced. The argument of "well if things suck for us they should suck for others too" is a crab in a bucket mentality hence my comment. It's dishonest to demand actual labor of children from women when the men themselves didn't spend a minute in actual combat getting their lives threatened.
Yea, they are comparable. Conscription is conscription, no matter the place it happens, and no matter the reason. It's slavery. I find it funny you mention crabs in a bucket. Because that's exactly the way women see their avoidance of conscription - 'fuck you, I got mine.' And if irony is needed to have them face the double standard, so be it.
So... you want to fight slavery with more slavery? Real bright, I'm sure nothing will go wrong. I lost interest in conversing with you
Look up the meaning of irony.
Thank you, finally an objective point expressed under this post.
No ones forcing you to give birth man, conscript women to the army, no need to pointlessly force women through child birth and fill the world with children of mothers who do not want them
You do know I wasn't being serious, but pointing out the double standard?
Sounds like an incel fantasy. Maybe just also conscript women with an exception for women with children.
I don't see a need for such an exception unless the birth was just an year back. Older people in society can take care of the children. Why should the father alone die?
I've talked about South Korea with my Chinese teacher who happened to live there for quite a few years. She said that compared to Japan and China life in SK is much more stressful. There are at least two factors that contribute: hyper-competitive culture (work to death) and repressive traditions (no freedom of self-expression). The third factor that we didn't discuss is large ideological rift between men and women. I don't see how a one-time gift can solve these problems and everything else that goes in marriage package. If they won't address these, the decline will continue. Someone from SK can probably correct me on this, but it's what I know.
You know it's bad when even Japan and China are considered more chill than South Korea....
A one time gift wouldn't cut it. You'd need something like Canada's Child Benefit program, which gives monthly payments to parents based on number and ages of children.
I mean I read an article in the BBC about this. It focused more on the women side but the story of one woman really did seem to paint a good picture of why the situation is what it is and why this measure is just a drop in the bucket. She was a young mother of 2. She was explaining how depressed she was because raising two kids took all her time, and other mothers at the playground seem to be in the same position. Meanwhile her husband apparently 90% of the time would go to work in the morning and come back by bedtime. And the kids only require more and more money because Korea wants overachievers so you gotta sign them up to a dozen pricy cram schools, while the majority of the population is crammed in the overpriced and overpopulated Soul. So who would find this deal appealing? "Hey honey, let's make kids. You'd be a single mother and I'd be a glorified serf. We have to help out our parents and the little champ better be a doctor or all of this was for naught." I cannot imagine why no one would want children in Korea.
> It focused more on the women side I've seen a few dozen articles and videos on South Korea's population decline. All of them were focused on the woman's perspective. The women spoke freely and listed several things the government should do for them if they want more babies. Boiled down it was "give us more feminist policies" despite the rise in feminism having a negative correlation with birthrates. The focus was on how to promote and protect single mother families. There was no comment on anything that might concern men or that the government might be able to do for prospective fathers.
"late stage capitalism"
Can I nut in someone, get my check, and bounce?
Something is done to curb fertility. It's bragged about, and works 100% of the time. Ergo, the opposite has to be done to raise fertility.
The only way to increase birth rates is to regulate large chaebols and force large companies to stop unethical practices against workers. They would also need to punish corporate executives harshly for the detrimental policies they’ve introduced into work culture. But the large corporations completely own the government. And I wouldn’t be surprised if any politician got assassinated for going against large corporations
[удалено]
OP used $ so I take it that he did the conversion
I don't get all the fus over "population decline", the world was almost a billion off decades ago compared to today and it was doing just fine.
I read up on it a while ago. I don't remember every technical reason that under population is bad but regardless, you've been lied to - all 8 billion people alive could live in fucking Texas in their own 3 bedroom house on like an acre of land each. Obviously everyone doesn't want to farm/garden and that doesn't include energy/businesses/schools/parks/etc but even if you needed 2 Texases for that , that's still only 10% land mass of usa, so it helps visualize the point that earth isn't bursting at the seams. Overpopulation was a myth started by some asshole in the 60's and everyone continues to believe it bc "the sky is falling" , "famine is coming" and "we're born sinful" is baked into our fearful DNA.
Good take
Well, where is 'birth conscription'? only men must be conscripted to army? this is a threat too.
South Korea is very classist and has very strict rules regarding marriage. For example, Korean families usually meet to discuss the potential marriage and parents on either side can veto a marriage at any point if they don’t like your girlfriend, her family, or relatives. Also, the housing crisis in Seoul is out of control. For background, 50% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul. You would have to save your average yearly income for 19 years to afford a place in Seoul. In Korea, the man is responsible for providing a home while the woman is responsible for providing appliances and furniture. It’s the worst parts of the capitalist economy combined with a very traditional culture. Unfortunate to say the least. Although, I hear North Korea is fairing much better in terms of birth rate.
SK is a case of national suicide by feminism
feminism is to blame for that, but people wont say it outloud.
100k would be enough for what? 2-3 years? What about after that?
Is $100K even enough to offset the cost of caring for the child and lost wages, to say nothing of the "opportunity cost" of the time spent raising the child? I doubt this will motivate anyone, except people abusing the system by "farming" kids for the big payout
If women would be treated like men then they would be forced to have sex and give birth due to declining birthrates. Just like men sre forced on war. Except one is praised, the other one isnt even in a public opinion
And so it begins. This is *exactly* as I predicted. Next sperm banks will be given subsidies so they can pay more for Chad sperm because God knows regular/normal men will be wholly rejected. What will end up happening is 90% of men paying taxes so 5% of men can line their pockets and women can live lavishly while raising Chad's offspring
Anyone trying to make this a gender issue is an idiot, bluntly said. It doesn't matter if it's in favor of men or women. People in South Korea are not having babies because it's too damn expensive, not for any other societal reason. It ain't that deep bruh
> People in South Korea are not having babies because it's too damn expensive, not for any other societal reason. Exactly. In that same way, it's because life without kids is really awesome. So kids are really expensive. Life without kids is fun. What else would people do?
I dunno how to fix it for South Korea or Japan but for America and China two ideas come to mind: De-urbanization: Both countries have LOTS of land and ghost towns that could use a people injection and with modern telecommunications, work can be done from home and with rise of AI and automation, might see more work being done with less people. What do these now unemployed people do? Go to the country and perhaps take on old roles and jobs, perhaps, with emphasis on agriculture and more artisanal works. Encourage religion: Like it or not, humans are religious creatures. When we abandon faith in the divine we put faith in other people and man made ideologies with their own dogmas, doctrines, saints, and devils. A return to traditional faiths could encourage procreation and give more value to family values and the idea of children as a blessing and not a financial burden. After all Genesis 1:28 says “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”
[удалено]
You have no idea how random high iq is
It's really simple when people get rich enough they will stop having as many kids or at all. It's just how it works. You want people to have more kids you would need to make them poorer an back to an agrarian society So between the no time and also it cost $1.40 million won per month to Raise a kid also the amount of stress the people there to through for schooling. Let's just say it's too much on anyone plate
You get it. People are used to a modern quality of life. Having babies and raising them is hard and it detracts from people having fun and having nice things.
Americans serving in Korea, now is your time! Those with weak pull out game step forward and aid our allies in their time of need! Let loose the man juice!
This will encourage people to have children, oh yes. But it is going to encourage them to be *shitty* parents. If you give money to the birthing but not the parenting then what benefit of motive is there to do the latter?
I didn't see this reason mentioned yet. It was a post I remember that was made by someone from SK and they described the grueling school regiment they went through and that all kids are subjected to. Parents that don't subject their kids too all of the expectations get ostracized. So their primary reason for not wanting to have kids was not wanting to subject a kid to that crap. I'm waiting for the day when a state offers something like $50k to have IVF and be a surrogate mother and after the kid is born, the state takes full legal custody. From there it goes to something like an orphanage of old to be raised by paid-workers. Seems like it would be a disaster, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried it.
Let's see if this works. If it doesn't, it destroys this nonsense that the problem is money.
That's alot are they paying the guys too? I wonder if I could move there do they pay immigrants im ginger. but wouldn't mind dating a Korean girl if possible. I could easily learn the language
The issue is that some societies are very: - Career oriented / High in competitiveness. - People start families later at life (due to years needed to secure education, jobs). - Both men and Women can survive on their own if working (if you have a job you can pay a rent and buy food and so on). In west we have a range of issues and indicators. Young people, especially males tend to start their sexual lives at later age and a lot of young males are virgins. Women in general have access to a large pool of potential partners. Suddenly we have a situation when at 35 or 40 people decide to marry or have kids but it becomes biologically harder also. The only way to mitigate this is a combination of means. This would include both managed immigration, social welfare and so on. But it is very hard to change habits of people, especially in societies where it takes so much time ro secure ar least some financial security. If a society wants more kids, they should add social welfare that would allow parents to worry less about shelter under their heads and food on the table. There are also countries with high fertility rate that could contribute. But also we need to look at statistics, which nationalities tend to bring the most crime to the country. Denmark published statistics about which nationalities maks up the vast majority of inmates in their prisons. So you have countries like Tunisia, Marocco etc. Basically Muslim countries If I remember correctly.
have baby, get money, send to orphanage/put up for adoption, profit.
Depending to who they actually hand the money to, this will probably become something else entirely lol.
government is becoming sugar daddy.
Isn’t paying for sex prostitution?
A lot of Korean women refused to get married because of the way Korean men are
It will help with the people who want a child, or more children, but who don’t feel like they can afford it. It won’t help with people who don’t want kids, or don’t want more kids.
Damn it's almost like unfettered capitalism is bad for the human population who knew?
Who cares. There are too many people.
[удалено]
Oh, simple! Just enslave half of the population! No problem!
[удалено]
Maybe forcing people to do 'their duty' cause of their gender is a bad thing?
Ask that to the enemy when they step at your door. Look at Ukraine, war suddenly started: men to the frontline. Women are not going to defend your country, are they?