SK is committing demographic suicide though, so whatever you think of its success, it has a pretty fatal disease. It has the lowest birthrate in the world.
This is going to cause significant economic problems quite soon, or they will have to open up massive immigration which will completely change the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_birth_rate_in_South_Korea
How does the developed world pull out of this type of tailspin? Japan and other nations are also facing this exact same issue and we seem to be not paying attention to it.
The core issue is that in most of the developed world, people do not have enough children. And even immigrants in their second generation and beyond also do not have enough children, as such it appears to be a cultural/way of life/society norms problem. It is as if the developed modern world is currently designed as a population sink.
This is going to be one of the grand challenges of the 50 years.
Not really. Immigration has become an issue lately because a human (or a bare-human) is worth much less.
1.000 years ago a bare illiterate human had some considerable value. He could work in the field or he could fight. More humans, more food and production. More humans, more manpower to fight your enemies.
Now a bare semi-educated human is a liability. Which is why most countries are refusing their entrance. Times have changed. In a near future where wars will be fought with robots and drones, you need less manpower (and their wives/kids); and thus you need much less of your general population; and much more of a few specialized people to achieve your goals.
We are getting there, whether we are self-aware of it or not.
This is inaccurate. More people, even low skilled ones are still a huge benefit to your society. They buy goods and services in the local economy increasing demand and work tax paying jobs. Immigrants children grow up to greatly out earn their parents pay way more in taxes than they their parents. The only immigrant group that could be considered a liability are older low skilled workers who have passed the age to have kids and live a couple of decades of working years. The reason certain countries donāt like immigration is because a conservative faction wants to keep society in place.
Maybe we have to rethink our economic system so that producing more humans just to create new customers is a perverse incentive.
Less humans means less demand means less work. In our current paradigm, this is a problem. In a healthy paradigm, it is a solution.
Less people? Rebalance human development with nature. Less consumption of resources? Wonderful. Less jobs? Great, let's all work less and live more.
Many would call this utopia, I call it sanity. I'd also say that couple not reproducing or doing so at increasingly old age, is the ultimate sign of how our economic system doesn't even support one of the most natural things there are: to form a family. It is openly hostile to this option.
And we want do double down on that? The trend of economic security is going to be even less, not more.
> The reason certain countries donāt like immigration is because a conservative faction wants to keep society in place.
This is so simplified that it is basically false. There are a range of reasons for not supporting immigration, but basically no one wants to "keep society in place". I will note that the USA had historically low immigration in the post-war period that was associated with rapidly rising wellbeing[0].
[0]: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Ann...
Their point is that is becoming less and less true and will likely be false soon. Most labor simply isn't worth as much as it used to be. This is evident in stagnant wages and the view of large families not as assets but as liabilities.
You can try to spur local demand by expanding your population (via birth or immigration) but what we really care about is GDP per capita. Most very populous countries are not wealthy.
> They buy goods and services
the wonder of economic development is that as a country's quality of life and wealth increases, consumption increases.
the typical american probably consumes about 4000x as much energy as the typical DRC. we still have a long, long way to go before we can accommodate the whole world living like an american.
even as population growth stalls, or even reverses course, the ability of humans to keep expanding its appetite for the finer things in life can never be quelled.
There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
And as retirees continue to make up a larger portion of the popular vote - they'll continue to demand more from a shrinking workforce.
At some point (I imagine in my lifetime) - the straw will break the camel's back.
> And as retirees continue to make up a larger portion of the popular vote - they'll continue to demand more from a shrinking workforce.
Sure, if you fail to outsource to other countries; or automate your economy enough.
> There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
For most countries, you can get access with a job offer. Countries are not against people who can get employment where they have shortages.
But a "bare human" is barely employable which is how he turns into a liability. ie: immigrating more people (randomly) will generate a negative return at least in the short-term.
>> juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce
On the assumption that the economy is based on a workforce. An economy can be based on paper assets. An "innovation nation" that makes GDP out of intellectual property assets, banking and offshore investments could sustain itself without the need for an ever-growing labor force. SK isn't Luxembourg, but nor is it India.
> There's only so much juice you can squeeze out of a shrinking workforce, though.
For the developed world, where a lot of the wealth coming in is capital returns from global corps whose ability to generate wealth isnāt constrained by local population size, that just means you need to tap that more effectively. Itās a problem for the payroll tax model of social support funding, perhaps, but unless you are emotionally attached to that model, I don't see that as a big cost.
Automation is progressing faster than new 'types' of jobs are created. In many sectors they'll be poised to be oversaturated with workers. Owners are happy to remove the human element wherever reasonably possible.
This is nihilistic and terribly misinformed. A LOT of foundational economic activity is what we derisively call "unskilled labor," performed by the very "semi-educated humans" you're talking about.
In the US alone, we literally import seasonal workers to prop up our agriculture industry. We pay them just enough to survive, give them few rights and little stability, and generally tread them as an underclass.
People like this undergird the whole of the modern global economy.
Every child born is a "bare illiterate human". Are you also making an argument against having children?
If you want to be really draconian about it, immigration can select for people with skills where the home populate will always have the same average of innate abilities.
Children have a lifetime ahead to learn and grow, as opposed to illiterate adults who are handicapped at that since they are past their prime neurological and societal plasticity.
> going to be one of the grand challenges of the 50 years
Iām sceptical of this claim. Demand per capita grows unabated. Working lives are lengthening. A smaller population living well is economically indistinguishable, in the aggregate, from a large one living poorly. Maybe post-industrial civilisations settle into a lower-population steady state than ones requiring lots of unrefined labor.
Yes, dependency ratios will mean re-jiggering the skewed benefits almost every country provides its old at the expense of the young. But that, too, isnāt a bad thing, particularly if it encourages labor force participation.
(There is another comment arguing demographic the dividendās inverse is a myth. I donāt go that far. I just think itās a manageable problem versus a catastrophe.)
> A smaller population living well is economically indistinguishable, in the aggregate, from a large one living poorly
I'm sceptical of this claim. Young people and old people are biologically different, in the aggregate. Obvious differences in physical capabilities aside, arguably even more impactful for the future of a given nation are their psychological differences; i.e. innovation and risk-taking invariably comes more from the younger generations.
Perhaps if you're only considering dollars being circulated in a domestic economy, an abundance of wealthy old folks can potentially offset the lack of youthful societal members. But the developmental direction such a demographic structure pushes its society is unlikely to be good for sustaining itself in the long run.
I am very much looking forward to a lower-birthrate future in which fewer people live better and more sustainably.
The problem is in the short/medium term, figuring out how to pay for all these checks that politicians have been writing over the last 50 years.
The problem isn't that "the young" have to support "the old", it's that a lot of promises were made on the assumption of indefinite growth.
So strange to me that when UBI is discussed, pervasive automation is right around the corner to pay for it, but when birth rate decline is discussed, the only solution on the table is open borders. I wonder why that could be?
Unfortunately, low fertility rate is not a one-time problem of boomer generation followed by a stable plateau. It leads to a perpetual spiral of gerontocracy, high dependency ratios, under-investments and general vitality being sapped out of the populace. It's no coincidence that Italy and Japan, once vigorous and creative, are not exactly bursting with enthusiasm in the past ~20-30 years
One factor that needs to be considered is that in Korea, as in many Asian regions, people are expected to look after their parents when they get old. Society and social security have been build around this assumption.
That's been changing very rapidly in SK. Almost everyone in their 40s and 50s today have been putting money into public pension plans as well as a multitude of private options. When they retire, they won't be economically dependent on their children. Nor can they expect to, because their children's generation is by all means poorer than their own.
Whether those public funds and private options will be enough, of course, is a different question.
>> Demand per capita grows unabated.
I don't see that. Demand for what? Consumption? Increasing the flow of "stuff" from store/Amazon to the landfill? If we account for inflation, what's increasing?
>If we account for inflation, what's increasing?
GDP per capita growth is still growing a few percent (accounting for inflation).
> SK is committing demographic suicide though, so whatever you think of its success, it has a pretty fatal disease. It has the lowest birthrate in the world.
Its kind of amazing how often people make judgements based on extrapolating demographic trends over much longer terms than there is any reason to think that they will hold, and then as soon as they fail turn around and do the same thing based on the new demographic trend.
Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
OTOH, most of the arguments Iāve seen for it actually being important (in the near term) are the kind where you scratch the surface and underneath is pure racism, so Iām not all that concerned.
It is actually quite hard to raise the birth rate, Japan has been trying for years (see https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/Tokyo%E2%...). The real impediment is that it is now too costly to raise more than 1-2 children and also not enough time.
UN 2015 report on Japan's birth rate policy attempts: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/pdf... To summarize, they've started policies and measures since 1992-1994 but UN reports and I quote: "Despite these efforts, Japanās family policy so far appears to have been largely ineffective."
There are other news opinion articles from Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/04/editorials/u...
There's trying and then there's trying. Japan is doing the first kind, where you put some effort in, but it's kind of limp.
The other kind of trying is when you put vigorous effort into making it easier to have children. Dramatically ramp up childcare support. Strongly enforce anti-discrimination laws, particularly in the case of discrimination against mothers. Forbid employers from requiring more than 40h of work per week under certain (very high) compensation thresholds. Provide direct payments to parents that substantially offset the costs of additional children. Align housing policy with the need for larger dwellings for larger families, but still with decent commutes. Etc.
> It is actually quite hard to raise the birth rate, Japan has been trying for years
Not...really.
> UN report on Japan's birth rate policy attempts:
And details defects in the specific policies (notably, these defects are, one who is familiar with policies of the type will notice, ways they fall short of the support policies in many European countries that aren't even specifically trying to boost birth rates.)
E.g., a paid family leave policy with low payments and lacking legal force, so many employers haven't actually implemented it.
This is a government making a pro forma show of ādoing somethingā about a problem, not a serious policy effort.
as if Japan is gold standard to compare lol. See how disfunction Japan is at this Olympics first and think more.
> OTOH, most of the arguments Iāve seen for it actually being important (in the near term) are the kind where you scratch the surface and underneath is pure racism, so Iām not all that concerned.
Can you go into more detail on that? In some respects "demographic suicide" solved with immigration has many (but not all) of the characteristics of colonization, and I think it's a reasonable speculation that colonized and diminished cultures would be unhappy with more than just the coercive aspects of their colonization, and that a non-racist person could have reasonable anxieties about their culture becoming diminished and dying out in the future. Though I suppose racists probably see an opportunity to exploit those anxieties to spread their racist ideology.
> Can you go into more detail on that?
A typical example is a two-step argument equating race/biological heritage with culture and/or ethnic identity coupled with appeals to an imperative to preserve culture and/ot ethnic identity.
Something like this:
> Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
Yes it is. The only first-world nation with replacement birth rates is Israel.
Caucescu famously tried to increase the birthrate and that backfired spectacularly. Sweden tried to do a lot of stuff, still doesn't work. Japan also tried.
CeauČescu. And he did achieve it for quite a while, ergo "decreČeii":
Encouraging births isn't hard if a government decides its important.
Got an example of a successful encouragement of more births? Plenty of countries have tried.
One core issue is housing. And the core issue with housing is that prices are an arms race where everyone always wants more. Most people would have two or three kids if they felt like they could afford it.
The second core issue is modern dating. That one I don't know how to fix, but the essential issue there is the dynamics of dating not requiring commitment coupled with financial security for women mean long term pair bonding happens at a lower rate and later in life.
I don't know about South Korea, but looking at some other asian countries, there are a couple of things, I think the housing part falls into number 3 but is only a small part of the whole:
1. Having children without being married has a bunch of problems, and in some countries like singapore gets punished for it in lack of certain social services
2. Most of these societies expect women to work or have their husband take care of them. Maternity leave is in some aspects as bad as or worse than in the US.
3. Having children is expensive and the education stress that follows for over a decade after giving birth is even more straining. The subsidies people get in Asia hardly even make up for the cost of a c-section. Sure the same might be true for the USA, but we know it's not a good place to compare things to. But birth and housing are also a fraction of the long term pain of raising a child in those societies.
Other people have mentioned dating. I think modern societies in general have had a break down in social structures, where people used to get their partners from.
> Having children is expensive and the education stress that follows for over a decade after giving birth is even more straining.
This times 100. The US education system has a lot of flaws, but for the most part, school placement is usually based on geographical location (which comes with its own set of problems), the SAT and ACT are not terribly difficult, and more importantly those college exams can be retaken multiple times a year.
East Asian education is extremely competitive with competition for spots starting as early as pre-K (age 3). Japanese media often shows how students get their grades ranked and posted outside of the classroom. The college exams are more comprehensive than the American ones; the South Korean Suneung is scheduled to take 9 hours. The Suneung (and Chinese gaokao, Japanese Center Test, Singaporean GCE) are only held once a year, so if you want to retest you have to wait the whole year.
And then there is the problem of school bullying: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/metoo-style-reckoning-ove...
> āA lot of the people used to say bullying matters in school were merely immature scuffles between teenagers,ā she said. āSome would even blame the victims, saying that it is their problem that they cannot fit in.ā
> Two decades ago, her daughter was beaten by a dozen schoolmates and spent five days in a coma. Yet, when Jo attempted to hold the students accountable, the wider community viewed her as a troublemaker, and her family was forced to move to another area.
I wonder if we need UBI to stabilize the birthrate. Basically if people have some assurance that their kids can be supported and have decent prospects in life then perhaps they will have more kids.
Also, our big cities have evolved to serve adults vs children. We have a proliferation of services for adults: sit in restaurants, cafes, coffeehouses, etcā¦ Just look at turnstiles to the subway and the stairs you need to ascend/descend. Good luck trying to push strollers or drag children around in our urban areas.
>2. Most of these societies expect women to work or have their husband take care of them. Maternity leave is in some aspects as bad as or worse than in the US.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, looks like Korea has a year, just split into maternity and parental, and Japan has a year off for both mother and father, although the father seldom takes it. Which countries are comparable to the US?
I'm not sure that dating "not requiring commitment" is the issue.
It's difficult to commit to dating when you are time-poor and struggling to even get close to the financial trajectory that your parents were on.
It's too easy to blame the kids or whatever, without considering that the kids had and have it harder in many ways than the old people did. Being a millennial in the '00s was pretty good, being a millennial after '08 has not been good (unless you happened to get a sweet high-paying tech job in the '10s).
This is actually part of what I'm talking about. The sweet high-paying tech jobs went to a group of people that can comfortably afford to live without marrying off. They date around because they can. I know, because I got that sweet job in 2008 just at the start of the tech wave and I dated around quite a bit and the pressure to get married for financial reasons wasn't there and the social pressure to get married for its own sake wasn't either. This isn't how it looked like in the 1950s or earlier. Most people didn't date 100 different women or wait until they were 35 to start a home with someone. It's partially financial and partially societal.
At the other end of the spectrum the increasing gap between rich and poor pushed a lot of men completely out of the dating pool because they can no longer afford basic housing for themselves, so even if they would be willing to commit they don't have options.
I think one of the biggest issues facing modern dating is the collapse of various socialization activities outside of work. Religion is on a decline so people don't meet at church. Hobby groups are all online now.
Simultaneously movements like MeToo is growing. People tend to avoid relationships with coworker a bit.
Neither of these apply to Japan, especially Japan decades ago when their birthrate fell to around the current rate. So thatās a pretty strong data point against these theories being key factors.
What?
1. Yes, obviously Japan housing prices have fallen from their insane 90s peak, but housing is still very expensive in Japan, and especially in urban areas where most Japanese (especially younger Japanese) live, space is famously at a premium.
2. I can barely count the number of times I've read articles on the reasons Japanese women don't want to get married. Unlike some Western nations, there is still a cultural expectation in Japan that women do a ton of housework and childrearing with little help from men, to the point that famously elaborate childrens' bento boxes are a source of stress. Many Japanese women with careers easily see marriage as a net negative, obviously different than decades past.
My wife is South Korean so I'm biased. But I've been to Japan and South Korea and if you're looking for one of the most modern nations in the world, I strongly recommend you go to Korea. The only comparable country I've been to is the Netherlands or maybe Denmark.
In contrast, the US and Japan seem to be somewhat falling apart with a peak in infrastructure and buildings a few decades ago. It's not that bad of course but relative to countries like South Korea and the Netherlands I think you'll agree.
Also, in my experience Korea was way more ready to handle English speakers than Japan was. I was surprised how I felt so lost in Japan not being able to read or speak Japanese. (Of course I don't expect to go to another country and be catered to. It's just that I was spoiled by Korea. And I wanted to address any reasonable concern that Japan might be friendlier for tourists than Korea.) In contrast in Korea there was a lot already in English and all the service workers I met spoke English well.
I'm sorta surprised by your statement. I've lived in Seoul, Tokyo, and NYC for various periods of my life and I'd definitely say Tokyo feels the most "modern" when you scratch beneath the surface.
For example, I'd say the basic subway system between Seoul and Tokyo are pretty similar but you also have the advantage of a vastly superior rail network that serves Greater Tokyo and the rest of Japan. KTX and SRT in Korea are improving every year but don't really compare yet. Additionally, the new subway stations in Seoul are quite nice (Line #9) but you also have really old lines (Line #1) where many of the stations are so badly maintained they feel inferior to their counterparts in Tokyo (Ginza, Hibiya).
I can't really speak to the english speaking issues in South Korea, but in Tokyo I never really had any issues even though I don't speak Japanese. Most places in Tokyo will have english menus because it's a tourist centric city. Neighborhood family owned dives probably don't speak english very well but they wouldn't in Seoul either.
The thing that makes Seoul fall short for me is the standard of building maintenance. Although things are changing, it was generally the case that for several generations of building maintenance they just expected to tear them down and rebuild. Tokyo has a similar problem, necessitated by constant building damage and updated building codes from earthquakes, but the biggest difference is that a lot of these buildings in Seoul are 10+ stories tall. Most of Tokyo's building stock is <10 stories. It's become cost prohibitive in Seoul to actually tear these buildings down and rebuild them.
One of the worst things for me is how car centric Seoul is. It's rare in Tokyo to have 3+ lane roads that aren't toll road/expressways. They're all over Seoul and the side roads are packed full of "valet" parking for restaurants that don't actually have parking lots. The entire car culture feels way more chaotic there than Tokyo. In Tokyo, you can't buy a car unless you prove you have a registered parking spot. In Seoul, you just double park your neighbor and put your phone number in case you need to move your car.
Lastly the air quality in Seoul is way worse than Tokyo. Feels like you constantly have to stay indoors for weeks during the bad "yellow dust" season.
Upvoted for the opposing observations.
I have taken KTX but I have not taken (non-subway) rail in Japan. The KTX train I took was similar in quality to German inter-city rail or American regional rail lines. That is to say, it wasn't that special.
The air quality issues are a huge pain for sure.
I think there are pros/cons of car culture and systems in both countries.
Japan's car-ownership experience is rather hostile. Expensive tolls, Shaken inspection, and higher price tags than SK. In a way, this benefits tourists because streets are cleaner, cars are newer, and people tend to drive less.
In Korea, it's flipped. It's great place for car ownership. But from tourists POV, it's chaos.
As much as I love Japan, I'd prefer to live in Korea while visit Japan as tourist. Seoul isn't so bad once you go outside from central Seoul to new cities. Everything is more spread out, cleaner, and very modern.
Almost everywhere in Japan is accessible without a car. Car-ownership doesn't make sense for most people.
The yellow dust is commonly thought to come from China. Itās not good but isnāt an issue South Korea can address alone.
South Korea, Taiwan, and China all developed their infrastructure relatively recently, so it makes sense that their skyscrapers and subway systems are gleaming.
Fast forward 50 years (once the demographic collapse has fully hit Asia and Europe), and we'll see if their infrastructure continues to be so modern.
Yes but compared to Japan? All of Asia started from scratch after WW2 and Korea was only 10 years behind Japan due to their war.
But Tokyo infrastructure felt basically as old as NYC infrastructure to me (a totally qualitative impression).
That said, Tokyo is massively cleaner and nicer than NYC even if some of the infrastructure seems old. There is no question it is nicer than NYC.
I live in Tokyo - on the surface certain lines have dated exteriors on their trains and stations, but they are maintained so much better and built with much more care to the surrounding environment that it's impossible for me to compare with NYC.
NYC's trains are constantly late, always go out of service, are deafeningly loud, incredibly slow, filthy, don't have great coverage outside of the Manhattan core and generally unreliable. Tokyo's are always on time, very clean, pretty silent, have incredible coverage of the entire metro area especially in combination with the bus networks (which also are efficient, clean, and don't hold lower-class stigma), and are super fast.
The lines that aren't underground in NYC tend to be depressing under the tracks and pretty unlivable around them, leading to tons of urban blight; the over-ground lines in Tokyo, thanks to their thoughtful design and reasonable noise level, are often full of shops, restaurants, bars, and walking paths that people actually use, positively contributing to their neighborhoods.
The main thing that feels "old" about Tokyo's trains is just that they look like they were decorated a long time ago or are kinda plain; but from a functional perspective they outclass practically any system on the planet, especially when taking into account the integration into the broader Shinkansen network. They have the best safety record of any rail system anywhere and are economically sustaining. The only major complaint I have is that it's relatively expensive fare-wise, especially considering transfers between different rail companies' lines/buses.
Also, it's worth checking out the pre-Olympics revamp of some lines - for instance Ginza Line (Shibuya station especially) and Odakyu Line (Setagaya Daita-Shimokitazawa in particular) got a lot of station and neighborhood renovations that give them that sparkly new shine.
Aside, I've also lived in Shanghai before - the rail network in China is something to watch, their high speed rail stations and urban networks are very nice as of late, although they need more express lines within city limits (Shanghai/Beijing are enormous so crossing the city by rail takes a long time).
> But Tokyo infrastructure felt basically as old as NYC infrastructure to me
In part because it is, most of Tokyo's major subway lines were built in the 1960s to 1970s. Ginza line was built before WW1 and was the first subway in Asia.
The highways were all built soon after the war too.
Thus part of the issue is age. Japan stabilized much sooner than Korea and built up faster.
A bigger component though is Japan's preference to build new then let sit. Maintenance for visual reasons is rare. Thus combined with the high humidity stuff rusts and molds. You can see rust on iron beams waiting at the JR platform in Shibuya! Literal rust on one of the most high traffic stations in the world with gleaming skyscrappers as your backdrop.
In part Japan feels like a retired country. All the heavy lifting has been done. The mortgage paid. I joke with friends we are young people in an old country. Everything around us is going into the night, and we are just now waking up.
I like it, but I can see why others would prefer a newer country.
> All of Asia started from scratch after WW2 and Korea was only 10 years behind Japan due to their war.
The Seoul subway [1] opened its first line in the mid-1970s (8km of line 1). Most of their subway growth opened in 1995 and later, a huge amount post-2000.
The first Tokyo subway line [2][3] opened in 1927, with only 3 new lines since the late 1970s (and barely even any line extensions in the 2000s)
It feels newer in SK because it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul_Metropolitan_Subway
> Also, in my experience Korea was way more ready to handle English speakers than Japan was.
One of the key problems is that Japan has a huge domestic market and does not 'need' English to survive. Korea, on the other hand, is a lot more dependent on its external connections and a push for better English proficiency makes a lot of sense.
Having visited all the countries mentioned within the last few years - definitely agree. Seoul is an incredible, modern city, unlike any other. Tokyo largely feels like it was frozen in time.
Parts of Amsterdam have that sort of feel, but itās definitely more mixed. Not crumbling, but old and making do since itās fine.
> Tokyo largely feels like it was frozen in time.
Economically, Japan has been in stagnation since the late 80s.
Economically, Japan's GDP per capita (measured in 2010 US$) was 39,240 in 1991 and grew to 49,000 in 2019, a 25% increase. Yes, it's slower growth than before, but slow growth is still growth, not stagnation. For comparison, New Zealand was at 38,345 in 2019: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2020... (also threw in the graph for South Korea)
> stagnating
That's a nice way to put it, it's been actually decreasing clearly over time since 1989, with ups and downs on the way: https://mebfaber.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/japan.jpg
It has been in stagnation since the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades_(Japan)
I don't think Amsterdam is what is meant by the Netherlands.
Amsterdam is basically a super old village built in a swamp that it interesting for its history, architecture, culture, and so on. Or for the red light district and weed shops, if you prefer that. It's not a display of infrastructure.
The Netherlands has some of the best developed infrastructure nation-wide: roads, railways, and most famously its massive water management systems, as half the country is below sea level.
It is also very well developed economically (punching far above its tiny weight), technically, and socially (hybrid welfare system).
By comparison, many parts of the US feel like a 3rd world country.
"well developed economically (punching far above its tiny weight)"
I am being a nitpicker here, but I think there is no correlation between country size and level of economic development. Many of the richest polities in the world are quite small. Places like Singapore & HK come to mind.
I think bigger countries, even if they are "1st world," can sometimes look rather rough, because there is a lot of variation between different regions / municipalities / neighborhoods. It can be surreal sometimes, but it is what it is.
> By comparison, many parts of the US feel like a 3rd world country.
That's because you're comparing small nations to a nation that is better compared to the EU in size and diversity. The EU has dozens of third-world ghetto zones and the bottom 10% of the EU is exceptionally poor by first world standards.
The poorest areas of France also look like and function like the third-world, the quasi ghettos on the outskirts of eg Paris. It's more rare for large nations to not suffer from such poverty problems, and few accomplish that (Germany and Japan get close).
The largest population nations: Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, China, India, US, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico
Do I need to point out the condition of the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 in most of those nations?
Ever read up on how the bottom quarter in Russia - Europe's largest nation by population - are faring the past decade (it's beyond dire, to put it politely)?
It's a small miracle the US isn't far worse off than it is.
"Indeed, South Korea is the only country that successfully made its transition from a former colony to an advanced economy."
This is not right. Each of the following meet the same criteria, including the author's caveats - Taiwan (also Japan), Greece (Ottoman), Finland (Swedes), Ireland (British), numerous Central European nations (Soviet Union). Some others that are debatable - Cyprus, Malta, Israel, Singapore, Chile. At the time of their handovers, Hong Kong and Macau would each have met the definition.
> One could say that Australia or Canada, along with the United States, used to be a colony. Nonetheless, what is distinct about South Korea is the fact that it was colonized by former imperial Japan by coercion
They say this and then move on. The distinct thing is that it was Imperial Japan rather than Imperial England? Iām not saying those empires were similar, but it seems to me that they made the distinction just so they could ignore the aforementioned countries.
And Taiwan is ignored because the UN doesn't even consider it a country.
> South Koreaās rise to a middle power status comes without much historical baggage
The kingdom of Joseon was annexed entirely by Japan in 1905. Modern Korea (nevermind the North/South prefix) would not exist had the US not enter WWII. The 35-years under Japan is a major flashpoint in Japan-Korea relation, it's a joke that the thing that unites North and South is their common hatred of Japan. I'm surprised there's not a more nationalistic jingoistic attitude from South Korea, given their economic state today. Historians agree that the costly outcome of the Russo-Japanese war led to the rise of militaristic Japan and their entry into WWII.
The article seems to be saying that since Korea never conquered and/or colonized other states, there's less EMOTIONAL baggage, allowing Korean culture to spread more easily.
Iām sure the US military presence and support plays a big part in keeping the lid on major conflict between South Korea and Japan. There is significant historical baggage from Japan colonizing Korea.
> Historians agree that the costly outcome of the Russo-Japanese war led to the rise of militaristic Japan and their entry into WWII.
There was an awful lot going on in Japan during the Taishou era tho.
There are many news between Korea and Japan makes nationalism battle. Latest one makes Japanese rage is this. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/skorea-team-scr...
Their "screening" performing is unscientific (use air dosimeter for food, completely nonsense) so they are blamed because it seems to racism.
Korea is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Joseon but the thing is koreans carry the spirit of Hell Joseon wherever they go and work with other koreans.
We (my wife is a korean) live in Europe and the same things that stressed my wife (and our korean friends) exist whenever you have to work with other koreans and their companies.It's not as bad as in Korea but it's still something that I can easily notice.
I'd be curious to see a Slate Star Codex piece on this. One of his classic pieces was "Meditations on Moloch" https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ ( and related: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage... )
It seems like the similar thing here - literally everyone sees how agonizing, exhausting, detrimental, and counterproductive the current system is. No one likes it. But yet, despite that, there's some gradient it goes against that prevents clearly better alternatives from emerging. I wonder what that case is in Korea, the subject OP, Japan, Taiwan, and other countries.
It's very simple actually.Koreans hate the working culture and long working hours but at the same time require convenience that can only be achieved by maintaining this hellish working culture.
With all due respect, this analysis is grossly reductive and only touching the surface of a complex phenomenon. Long working hours can be found in many East Asian countries not limited to just Korea. Sure, love of convenience is partly to blame, but let's not ignore the history and cultural elements behind it. It goes without saying, but without the long working hours, Korea would not have become the "middle power" that it is today either. The "hell joseon" article you linked is an interesting phenomenon especially because no other East Asian country is so critical of its own culture and conditions. S. Korea is unique in that its people are almost always looking to criticize and change their ways to compete on the world stage.
at the same time require convenience that can only be achieved by maintaining this hellish working culture.
That's a core problem for every industrialized country. We've become addicted to the cheap goods that NAFTA has allowed us. And it may end up eating societies alive.
Funny how the article doesnāt mention that Korea is a divided country technically still at war.
Besides the development of modern South Korea out of a brutal military dictatorship is largely parallel to that of other Asian countries: Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and China.
The article title explicitly calls out South Korea.
The country is also recognized as sovereign nation by more than 188 countries, having a seat in the United Nations as well.
Territorial disputes are common even in Europe, as well as developments out of brutal dictatorship. I honestly do not get your point :)
OP was explicitly referring to South Korea too. If you are not aware of their extremely brutal past, here are few links to get you started (these articles just skim the surface, much deeper study is needed if you really want to get into the details).
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/05/south-korea-park-chung-he...
https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-korea-owns-up-to-brutal-p...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/the-forgotten-history-of-sou...
The brutal past exists in Europe as well. Portugal had a colonial war up to 1974 with records of mass executions in Africa. Franco's Spain had it's own dark history with mass graves still being uncovered. Franco' regime ended even later and the country still has staunch Franco supporters. Do you not consider Salazar or Franco's regime up to par to South Korea? If not what is the criteria?
Also to answer the other comment, Russia has repeatedly toyed with the idea of a nuclear bombing to Warsaw as well as invading the baltic. The baltic states are more than within range for a ground invasion. Poland has a border with the Kaliningrad enclave as well. Now you might say, that Russia would not dare... Well ask any baltic state how scared shitless they were with how easy Russia imposed itself on Ukraine. I honestly do not see how Korea is in a much different scenario.
There are no territorial disputes in Europe that involve nuclear powers threatening total annihilation on neighbors. Seoul is within easy artillery range of the North, and the badly misnamed DMZ (or, rather, both sides outside the zone itself) is among the most militarized places on the planet.
You must have somehow missed the ongoing war in East Ukraine.
On a tangent, I moved to Korea in 2016 when I was 23 to take advantage of the government's push for global startups.
I wrote a post about it here https://www.jacobjacquet.com/blog/building-a-global-startup-...
Anything related to Korea's startup ecosystem, feel free to ask
I don't see anyone mentioning this so I'll take a gander with my "modern jackass" [1] solution based on my own personal observations of the reasons why I don't want kids:
I have so much I still want to do with my life and I want to sink what time free from work into dinners and trips with my wife. Given the extant threat modern nations face, why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children? They'd be raised by professional caregivers with educations in pedagogy, surely an in-aggregate higher quality of childcare than that given by stressed out, first-time parents. Mine did a terrible job of raising me. I think if Denmark or South Korea wants a higher birthrate they should offer to step in.
I've been around my friends' kids, it's not pleasant. There's a very "big ego thing" going on and sudden tantrums that threaten to topple the softest evening.
Just my 2 cents but I have a hard time understanding why none of these governments have proposed such a system. I'm sure there'd be a big uptake. Open to being schooled here but please be nice.
[1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/a-little-bit-of-knowled...
Many countries already invest substantial resources towards caring for children in the form of subsidized daycares, public schooling, subsidized food, etc. I expect demographics will force many countries to become even more generous in this regard.
If you're referring to the government or other entity taking primary guardianship of children that does already occur in the foster/adoption system, but I don't understand why you think that would boost the birth rate. Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born?
I suppose the closest example I can think of to something like that would be joining a commune or kibbutz and avoiding the childcare chores, but I understand that most of those groups have a whole other set of demographic/retention issues.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
> Would it motivate you to have children if the government offered to take them off your hands after they're born?
Yes, I'd give them all the babies int the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born. "Kibbutz" was the word that sprang to my mind when I wrote my first comment.
I'm curious, too, if the state could professionalize birthing: a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term and the child's care would be taken over by an intimately sized kibbutz. My understanding of the failure of orphanages is that it is both the origin of trauma that haunts its orphans and the poverty of resources and caregivers allocated to them.
> I'd give them all the babies in the world if they offered to take them off my hands after they were born
Assuming you have not already done so, perhaps becoming a surrogate or donating sperm would be an option for you? While it's not exactly handing a baby to the state, there are many couples who would be interested in raising children but are not biologically capable.
At least of the parents I know, I am skeptical that simply offering to take additional children off their hands would incentivize them to continue giving birth to more children.
> a woman would be paid a hefty sum to bear a child to term
In the US the market has determined that sum to be $25,000 on average.[1] I don't know whether you would consider that hefty, but it's at least an order of magnitude lower than what it would take to incentivize me to bear a child.
[1] https://surrogate.com/surrogates/becoming-a-surrogate/being-...
> why aren't they offering to care for and raise our children?
But they do. You'd be surprised how many crucial skills are taught in kindergarten.
But there's also the question of scale - for certain things infants and children need their caregivers' undivided attention. Otherwise you end up with something akin to an orphanage, and there are plenty of data points suggesting that going in this direction is a very bad idea.
Overall some things are already being done, other don't scale, so it's up to the parents to do that and the government's role to make it as easy as possible.
I love my kids, itās everyone elseās I canāt stand. :)
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.
