Its always amazing to me that South Korea is economically and politically much more successful and in that result it "won" the cold war of the last 50 years with its Northern counterpart. But its population is going to disappear so not much of a victory.
Even a birth rate as South Korea's does not mean the population will disappear over night. It will shrink. It will mean things will change. Infrastructure will be overprovisioned and housing will be cheap. It will mean other things will be prioritized by politics (such as kindergardens and work life balance).
In any case it won't be a catastrophy as life in North Korea.
A good analogy might be the Black Death: it didn’t destroy Europe, it changed priorities, freed the serfs, started valuing labor more, and ultimately led to a stronger Europe in the future.
Same thing is happening to most counties in Europe but they’re “fixing it” with immigrants. But the Germany filled with Germans will be disappearing just as South Korea is.
All countries will eventually experience population decline, it’s just the speed of each that is different [1]. Global fertility rate already appears to be below replacement rate. Even China appears to be below 1 at this time [2]. India and Africa will arrive there likely in the next ~5-10 years, depending on rate of empowerment of women.
They'll do anything but pay their workers, and not overwork them. Almost like when you need to use 80% of your paycheck to pay rent that people can't think much farther than next month.
If you follow much of the USSR, you’d be aware that the nations surrounding Russia were the most heavily invested in, at least those that were front facing.
Estonia for example had quite a lot of investment, you’d be surprised what a regime will invest in to ensure that the optics are positive.
Not saying that happened here, but it is something that has happened.
South Korean politics is an absolute disaster, there's a non-zero possibility that 30 years from now, long after the Kims, people will be fleeing to the North.
Japan's population was 44 million in 1900, it is 123 million now.
South Korea's population was 25 million in 1960, it is 54 million now.
We need to stop going over the top with claims of "population collapse". The 20th century to this day was abnormal at historical scale in that human population exploded like never before, and perhaps like never again and probably for the best considering how we have brought the planet to its knees.
Personally I think the culture has changed. It's got little to do with costs or insentives or support and everything to do with changing wants/desires. Rather than devote 20+ years of a person's life to kids, most people would rather socialize, party, dance, netflix-and-chill, youtube, tiktok, travel, game, raise a pet, hobbies, etc....
Many countries have tried giving every incentive possible. Cash bonuses, tax breaks, a year+ of mandatory child leave for both men and women, cheap child care, mandatory flexible hours, housing subsidies, cultural campaigns.
Some of them have a short term effect but none of them get the numbers up to replacement levels and the numbers keep going down.
It's hard to blame it on any one thing. Some might say "suburban car centric culture" but that doesn't explain Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc....
I can't personally imagine the numbers going back up.
>> Many countries have tried giving every incentive possible. Cash bonuses, tax breaks, a year+ of mandatory child leave for both men and women, cheap child care, mandatory flexible hours, housing subsidies, cultural campaigns.
Those incentives are usually meaningless. Like 100€ monthly cash bonus. Could cover food, but nothing more. A year of child leave is good, but what to do during next 5 years untill you can put kids into the school system?
And don't forget massive opportunity costs. Instead of having a single kid, woman can have few more years of advancing in career. Instead of putting all time into one kid, woman can upskill, get a degree, etc.
And with second child it's three times harder.
Also turns out, many baby boomers are not eager to be present in life of their grandkids. If you pregnant - you are screwed. You and the father-to-be will take a massive hit in every aspect of life.
Do you have sources of such countries? I know at least one case - russia (before the war) - where they gave out cash and really cheap mortgages and it caused a little baby boom so it worked. I have not heard of any such programs in the developed world…
I think the failure in extrapolation is that the numbers will absolutely go back up, eventually. Subcultures that incentivize high birth rates culturally will have more kids, and eventually come to dominate society.
If you want to see what culture will look like in a few hundred years, try and figure out what’s common between Mormons, Amish, and Muslims.
Shortterm, SKR probably the only country with culture of civil service, loathing for immigration, and enough gender drama for misandrist men to eventually roll out coercive family planning system onto females (that hate them) to force family formation.
TBH need someone to attempt very illiberal effort to make babies because every pro maternity policy has failed to bring TFR > replacement. At this point it should be abundantly clear that short of religion, carrot policies cannot reward their way to 2.1+ TFR. Or I guess embrace immigration.
Russia has been putting a lot of government effort into increasing the fertility rate for years now and it's still below replacement. Granted, the modern Russian government is incompetent in many ways so maybe that is not a good example, but are there any modern examples of specifically authoritarian but not full-on totalitarian policies significantly raising fertility rate? By specifically authoritarian, I mean policies that would not be possible in a liberal system. It seems that fertility rate laughs at mere authoritarianism. Now, full-on totalitarianism could clearly raise fertility rate through draconian measures, but at what cost? It would be horrible to live through.
> It seems that fertility rate laughs at mere authoritarianism
IMO the problem is fertility rate also laughs at everything "liberalism" and wealth has thrown and true authoritarian measures have not been taken. As in every liberal / pro natal policies (Nordics) have failed to raise TFR >2.1, usually settle at 1.7. I think more illustrative is wealthy MENA countries where culture, religion, resources align but those countries are either <2.1 TFR or declining to <2.1 TFR, i.e. if you have all the government subsidies and families regularly hire maids/nannies from ample cheap migrant workforce (something even most wealthy liberal societies don't have ubiquitous access too) then the carrot solution itself is not enough.
Stick policies, which only authoritarians or societies in extreme fertility stress can even start to contemplate, would be increased taxation / limited wealth transfers, i.e. if you want to inherit anything from your parents or grandparents (including real estate) you better have at least 2 kids. And in case of east asian societies, ban pets / AI relationships that's been eating at relationship formation. Peak authoritarian methods would be civil service that requires women to start making babies (in conjunction with massive support), state orphanage programs to basically raise new bodies and engineer/manage demographics (i.e. women don't have to keep kids but my spend 1-2 years doing state surrogacy). There's also increasing lifespan, i.e. workforce participation duration, but still hits ultimate limits of needing to replacement TFR.
Or again... engineer society to accept immigration.
>> every pro maternity policy has failed to bring TFR
Because that policies are bluff to say politicians support family without actually spending much of the budget.
Like give a 100€ rebate for a childcare while it costs 1000€ per month. And also it is closed for a month in summer, so you should care about the baby by yourself.
Real pro-maternity policies will be like this:
1. Free childcare.
2. Free healthcare, including all medicine and vaccination.
3. Free public transport for kids and adults with them.
4. Subsidized shops with items for kids: from nappies to clothes.
4. Subsidized costs of housing for families with kids.
5. Subsidized costs of sport activities.
6. Fully paid maternity leave untill children can be full day in daycare.
Even with generous European policies, having one kid is a huge hit to the lifestyle and savings. But we need to have 2-3 kids to keep the population.
Yes, I think even "real pro-maternity" policies not enough. I written more in comment below, but my gut feeling is to get enough family formation that has 2-3 kids rather than 1-2, you need... basically UBI + slave labour tier support. Think UAE/Qatar, 20% locals doing 30hr/week make shift jobs, access to cheap labour, i.e. living in maid. Their TFR still declining fast, 4->3 in last 10 years but there's a chance they'll settle above 2.1 / replacement. Short of that level of "abundance" I think most will choose less than 2 kids and societies stuck with backfilling with immigration.
> TBH need someone to attempt very illiberal effort to make babies because every pro maternity policy has failed to bring TFR > replacement. At this point it should be abundantly clear that short of religion, carrot policies cannot reward their way to 2.1+ TFR. Or I guess embrace immigration.
Frankly this is a wrong take.
For one the TFR of religious countries is also trending downward and below replacement.
Immigration is a zero-sum game that won't help for long term.
And the issue is carrot policies just don't give out enough carrots (do the math and you'll see that easily). A really generous family support that makes having children wortwhile compared to the alternatives will have the desired result.
IMO take so far data is showing no amount of generous policies will convince people to have more than 1-2 kids (hit replacement TFR) long term unless they're living life of leisure + ample subsidies AND help. At some point stress/obligation of child rearing is going to eat away at other commitments (i.e. work). Hence highlighting MENA countries where religion+resource coordinate but TFR still collapsing and trending below 2.1 TFR.
The statistic exception being being REALLY GENEROUS, Fully Automated Luxury Communism leisure tier support i.e. living in maids, nannies, drivers -> UAE Emiratis and Qataris where locals ex migrant worker pop still has declining TFR that _may_ settle beyond replacement (currently around 3.1, still down from 3.7 10 years ago). But that requires functionally UBI, optional work i.e. state setups 30hr per week "public sector" for locals while expat / cheap / slave labour handles everything else. The latter being key, need UBI tier to be able to cover hiring other humans to do domestic work, maid, nanny, cook, driver etc.
Maybe a do-able level of "abundance" if we look other way on exploitation, already lots of migrant labours in west, but we tend to keep them in factories or fields, not civic/domestic realm. PRC trying to build their army of care taking robots. But IMO that's the minimum, if you can't ensure that level of support (not just money but labour), positive policies won't get past replacement TFR. If Emrati/Qatari TFR stabilize below replacement in 10-20 years, then it's sign to ceiling on human willingness to have multiple kids, i.e. can't subsidize way for locals to reach replacement TFR.
Hyper-capitalist societies need some counterbalance with social safety programs, e.g., as seen in the Nordic states and the blue states in the U.S., otherwise people choose not to reproduce if their children won't get anything out of society like they did.
Besides that, at a cultural level personal worth and dignity and safety need to be divorced from monetary net worth as that makes it easier for someone to decide where is a comfortable place for them in their society, and then adjust their time between working and child-rearing.
That said, it's also hard to motivate some people to reproduce if there's no greater point to it than some basic primal instinct, which may not be that high in such people. It follows, I guess, that the more educated a populace gets, the less its participants are likely to thoughtlessly reproduce. Tax credits are helpful (said sarcastically).
> Hyper-capitalist societies need some counterbalance with social safety programs, e.g., as seen in the Nordic states and the blue states in the U.S., otherwise people choose not to reproduce if their children won't get anything out of society like they did.
Total fertility rates in Scandinavian countries (known for their very generous welfare) are falling as well -- not as catastrophic as South Korea's, but way below replacement rate nonetheless. E.g., Denmark's total fertility rate fell yet again in 2024 to 1.466. (Source: https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/fer...)
Yes, that's what I was alluding to in my last para. The blue states in the U.S. have relatively lower fertility rates than the red states. The second para is what I think would actually help with falling reproductive rates in such situations, but those conditions need to be met by social safety programs.
I think they do? They’re currently in decline due to both local and global pressures, so I guess that change in behavior is a response which leads to their fertility rate being a “sustainable” one.
That said, social safety programs aren’t just about money per se, but about freeing up parents from working and investing time in child-rearing. If life is expensive and requires at least two incomes to sustain a household, who has the time to get pregnant, give birth and raise a child? Maybe this is a problem that gets resolved if children can be safely incubated outside a womb, but that still doesn’t solve the problem of who’s going to do all the work that needs to get done on a daily basis to run a household with kids.
After reaching peak prosperity, both Korea and Japan have decided to evaporate into oblivion. Japan grudgingly allows in a few Filipino and Vietnamese, so there is that.
That "peak prosperity" thing is actually capitalism gone awry in my opinion. I'd include India too here - a common pattern that can be seen in all these three Asian countries is the unhealthy work-life balance. Couple that with the world-wide trend that two incomes are now necessary to raise kids in many of these "fast" growing or economically "prosperous" countries, most people are just choosing to have only 1 (or at most 2 kids), and there are some who are also opting not to have any kids. In India, the opposition leader has also lamented that we have already lost advantage of having a younger population because of poor economic planning and policies (by 2030, India will have the world’s largest youth population). Trump won, in large part, because many Americans are now struggling to feel secure with the wages that they earn - they can't afford to buy a house, which many feel is required to start a family. A course correction is required in the world economy, as, while capitalism-consumerism does seem to provide prosperity, it also seems to be consuming societies that adopts it.
Readit News
In any case it won't be a catastrophy as life in North Korea.
[1] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44851759
Current net immigration inflows into Germany are below 0.5% of population.
The big immigration waves of the last 20 years can be directly linked to devastating wars: Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine.
How many generations did it take for the Germans to become Americans in the US? Did it make Americans disappear?
Dead Comment
Estonia for example had quite a lot of investment, you’d be surprised what a regime will invest in to ensure that the optics are positive.
Not saying that happened here, but it is something that has happened.
South Korea's population was 25 million in 1960, it is 54 million now.
We need to stop going over the top with claims of "population collapse". The 20th century to this day was abnormal at historical scale in that human population exploded like never before, and perhaps like never again and probably for the best considering how we have brought the planet to its knees.
Many countries have tried giving every incentive possible. Cash bonuses, tax breaks, a year+ of mandatory child leave for both men and women, cheap child care, mandatory flexible hours, housing subsidies, cultural campaigns.
Some of them have a short term effect but none of them get the numbers up to replacement levels and the numbers keep going down.
It's hard to blame it on any one thing. Some might say "suburban car centric culture" but that doesn't explain Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc....
I can't personally imagine the numbers going back up.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-born-per-woman
Those incentives are usually meaningless. Like 100€ monthly cash bonus. Could cover food, but nothing more. A year of child leave is good, but what to do during next 5 years untill you can put kids into the school system?
And don't forget massive opportunity costs. Instead of having a single kid, woman can have few more years of advancing in career. Instead of putting all time into one kid, woman can upskill, get a degree, etc.
And with second child it's three times harder.
Also turns out, many baby boomers are not eager to be present in life of their grandkids. If you pregnant - you are screwed. You and the father-to-be will take a massive hit in every aspect of life.
If you want to see what culture will look like in a few hundred years, try and figure out what’s common between Mormons, Amish, and Muslims.
But it's getting there, now that dense cities are the only places with decent jobs.
TBH need someone to attempt very illiberal effort to make babies because every pro maternity policy has failed to bring TFR > replacement. At this point it should be abundantly clear that short of religion, carrot policies cannot reward their way to 2.1+ TFR. Or I guess embrace immigration.
IMO the problem is fertility rate also laughs at everything "liberalism" and wealth has thrown and true authoritarian measures have not been taken. As in every liberal / pro natal policies (Nordics) have failed to raise TFR >2.1, usually settle at 1.7. I think more illustrative is wealthy MENA countries where culture, religion, resources align but those countries are either <2.1 TFR or declining to <2.1 TFR, i.e. if you have all the government subsidies and families regularly hire maids/nannies from ample cheap migrant workforce (something even most wealthy liberal societies don't have ubiquitous access too) then the carrot solution itself is not enough.
Stick policies, which only authoritarians or societies in extreme fertility stress can even start to contemplate, would be increased taxation / limited wealth transfers, i.e. if you want to inherit anything from your parents or grandparents (including real estate) you better have at least 2 kids. And in case of east asian societies, ban pets / AI relationships that's been eating at relationship formation. Peak authoritarian methods would be civil service that requires women to start making babies (in conjunction with massive support), state orphanage programs to basically raise new bodies and engineer/manage demographics (i.e. women don't have to keep kids but my spend 1-2 years doing state surrogacy). There's also increasing lifespan, i.e. workforce participation duration, but still hits ultimate limits of needing to replacement TFR.
Or again... engineer society to accept immigration.
Because that policies are bluff to say politicians support family without actually spending much of the budget.
Like give a 100€ rebate for a childcare while it costs 1000€ per month. And also it is closed for a month in summer, so you should care about the baby by yourself.
Real pro-maternity policies will be like this: 1. Free childcare. 2. Free healthcare, including all medicine and vaccination. 3. Free public transport for kids and adults with them. 4. Subsidized shops with items for kids: from nappies to clothes. 4. Subsidized costs of housing for families with kids. 5. Subsidized costs of sport activities. 6. Fully paid maternity leave untill children can be full day in daycare.
Even with generous European policies, having one kid is a huge hit to the lifestyle and savings. But we need to have 2-3 kids to keep the population.
Yes, I think even "real pro-maternity" policies not enough. I written more in comment below, but my gut feeling is to get enough family formation that has 2-3 kids rather than 1-2, you need... basically UBI + slave labour tier support. Think UAE/Qatar, 20% locals doing 30hr/week make shift jobs, access to cheap labour, i.e. living in maid. Their TFR still declining fast, 4->3 in last 10 years but there's a chance they'll settle above 2.1 / replacement. Short of that level of "abundance" I think most will choose less than 2 kids and societies stuck with backfilling with immigration.
Frankly this is a wrong take. For one the TFR of religious countries is also trending downward and below replacement. Immigration is a zero-sum game that won't help for long term.
And the issue is carrot policies just don't give out enough carrots (do the math and you'll see that easily). A really generous family support that makes having children wortwhile compared to the alternatives will have the desired result.
IMO take so far data is showing no amount of generous policies will convince people to have more than 1-2 kids (hit replacement TFR) long term unless they're living life of leisure + ample subsidies AND help. At some point stress/obligation of child rearing is going to eat away at other commitments (i.e. work). Hence highlighting MENA countries where religion+resource coordinate but TFR still collapsing and trending below 2.1 TFR.
The statistic exception being being REALLY GENEROUS, Fully Automated Luxury Communism leisure tier support i.e. living in maids, nannies, drivers -> UAE Emiratis and Qataris where locals ex migrant worker pop still has declining TFR that _may_ settle beyond replacement (currently around 3.1, still down from 3.7 10 years ago). But that requires functionally UBI, optional work i.e. state setups 30hr per week "public sector" for locals while expat / cheap / slave labour handles everything else. The latter being key, need UBI tier to be able to cover hiring other humans to do domestic work, maid, nanny, cook, driver etc.
Maybe a do-able level of "abundance" if we look other way on exploitation, already lots of migrant labours in west, but we tend to keep them in factories or fields, not civic/domestic realm. PRC trying to build their army of care taking robots. But IMO that's the minimum, if you can't ensure that level of support (not just money but labour), positive policies won't get past replacement TFR. If Emrati/Qatari TFR stabilize below replacement in 10-20 years, then it's sign to ceiling on human willingness to have multiple kids, i.e. can't subsidize way for locals to reach replacement TFR.
Besides that, at a cultural level personal worth and dignity and safety need to be divorced from monetary net worth as that makes it easier for someone to decide where is a comfortable place for them in their society, and then adjust their time between working and child-rearing.
That said, it's also hard to motivate some people to reproduce if there's no greater point to it than some basic primal instinct, which may not be that high in such people. It follows, I guess, that the more educated a populace gets, the less its participants are likely to thoughtlessly reproduce. Tax credits are helpful (said sarcastically).
Total fertility rates in Scandinavian countries (known for their very generous welfare) are falling as well -- not as catastrophic as South Korea's, but way below replacement rate nonetheless. E.g., Denmark's total fertility rate fell yet again in 2024 to 1.466. (Source: https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/borgere/befolkning/fer...)
That said, social safety programs aren’t just about money per se, but about freeing up parents from working and investing time in child-rearing. If life is expensive and requires at least two incomes to sustain a household, who has the time to get pregnant, give birth and raise a child? Maybe this is a problem that gets resolved if children can be safely incubated outside a womb, but that still doesn’t solve the problem of who’s going to do all the work that needs to get done on a daily basis to run a household with kids.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Just like the UK, they would probably be better off with less people, geopolitical considerations aside.