But it’s not global warming that’s doing the damage, it’s the low birth rate. Old news? Yes. But new news is that it appears to be affecting the classrooms at a level that’s quantifiable. Yikes!
According to the to the National Statistical Office (NSO), Tuesday, the number of young people aged 6-21 totaled 10.2 million nationwide this year, down 29% from 14.4 million in 1980. In particular, children aged 6-11, who attend elementary schools, numbered 3.64 million, down 33.7 percent from 5.5 million 28 years ago.
Hummm… time to dust off that resume?
Anyway, Korea isn’t the only developed country with birth-rate problems. Japan is also in a similar boat, which may explain why both these countries are so interested in humanoid robotic technology. Western Europe’s birth-rate is at a point where Muslim immigrants (and their offspring) are becoming a sizable portion of the population. The U.S? Bienvenidos a MexAmérica!
22 Comments
Humanoid robotic technology is not going to solve the problems of demographic suicide. Neither is US-style immigration; multiculturalism is NOT for Korea and Japan.
Korea a developed country? I read that they weren’t quite rated as such as of yet.
I read a few months ago that the birthrate here has actually gone up in the last year.
The last thing an overpopulated country needs is more people anyway.
Why not Nutizen? The US allows people like you (Korean Ku Klux Klan members) to stay in America.
Don’t include Japan, it’s a much better place for expats than Korea, much better. Less of the us versus them, we’re victims so the world owes us everything mentality…unlike Korea.
It’s time for selfish Korea to give back something to the world for once.
Thanks Nutizen, your comment is one more thing to print off and show non-Koreans how the majority of you people think. Again, thanks!
The last thing an overpopulated country needs is more people anyway.
It’s not that simple. A country needs young people, as producers and consumers, to maintain its economy. It can either make them or import them. Demographics is destiny.
The argument for Korea as not being a developed country has always struck me as vaguely disingenuous, but to some extent it’s true. However, Korea has been an advanced economy for long enough for it to start to develop these problems.
Being generally in favour of both multiculturalism and a lower human population this news doesn’t really bother me.
Right, so the birthrate isn’t what it was in the 2 decades that followed the Korean War, which is also when the Korean economy was growing by leaps and bounds. What’s next, an study on the affects of the 1988 Olympics on the Korean economy?
SK is counted as an “advanced economy” by the IMF, as a “high income country” by the World Bank, and is #25 in the Human Development Index. By any objective rating, SK joined the ranks of the developed country more than 10 years ago.
I heard that the reason SK keeps harping the “developing country” angle is so that they can continue to take protectionist measures against imports without violating their WTO obligations. Sure, it takes a certain suspension of disbelief, but as long as SK can keep riding that camel, they probably will.
“The argument for Korea as not being a developed country”
Per the OECD, The IMF and the World Bank it’s developed. Per the CIA and the London based FSTE it’s not. Then again, the FSTE doesn’t consider Israel developed either.
# 6,
A lower birthrate from the past is understandable. THE LOWEST (or one of the lowest) birthrate in the OECD is not.
#9,
Yes it is. It’s linked to immigration.
Multiculturalism is going to happen to Korea, whether Nutizen Kyopo likes it or not. I haven’t heard that the Japanese men have been importing Southeast Asian brides to the extent Koreans have.
As far as demographics, anyone notice how beautiful the pictures of Korea in the 60s and 70s are? That’s because there was a much lower (and manageable) population, same with the U.S.
Those who continue to maintain that we need two young persons for everyone over 65 or whatnot, should look up the word “exponential” and realize that just as pyramid schemes don’t work in economics, they won’t work in demographics, either.
Congrats to Korea for biting the bullet and slowing down its birth-rate.
Has anybody drawn up any numbers regarding the gender inbalance and correlations to low birthrate? I was taught that a population increases (or decreases) based on its number of females, with the number of males being statistically irrelevant.
Aside from the number of male Koreans pissed off because they can’t find a Korean girl (and subsequently all the more pissed at me because I can), will a preference for girls result in a downward spiraling birthrate? Or will it just increase the number of imported brides?
dogbert: most people aren’t arguing that a birthrate of 3 or more is good, just that it’s better to have a birthrate that is a slightly below replacement level rather than a birthday that is WAY WAY below replacement level.
Personally I’d like a birthrate of 1.8-1.9 or so for the foreseeable future.
Granfalloon — The preference for male children appears to have subsided, at least at the level of the first child born. Sex-selective abortions no longer are producing the skewed gender ratios that prevailed as recently as 1995. These days it’s pretty well normal.
I’ve done my part — two girls.
Brendon:
I haven’t seen anything about a leveling off, but alot of my info is a little old. Thanks for the tip, and I hope you are correct.
i’d like to see sources for that. i had just come across some recent research noting that the preference for boy babies in asian american families mirrors the preference in asia, which is pretty interesting. china’s currently at about 120:100. what is it in the respective koreas? where could i find reputable sources?
How about the New York Times:
“According to a study released by the World Bank in October, South Korea is the first of several Asian countries with large sex imbalances at birth to reverse the trend, moving toward greater parity between the sexes. Last year, the ratio was 107.4 boys born for every 100 girls, still above what is considered normal, but down from a peak of 116.5 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990. “
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12.....ref=slogin
The article by Choe San-hun also appeared in the IHT.
here’s the link to the actual report. it does indeed look like a decrease with less beta from 98-05. as for the “trend in intensity of son preference”, there appears to be correlation. however, i’ll be much more interested to see the korean national stats from 2006-2010 as well as the 2010 census to see actual sex ratios.
to judge judy:
http://joongangdaily.joins.com.....id=2889434
ah, Sonagi’s been reading the Times already. Forget Joongang, then.
forget about both of the papers-that’s not where the data is. go to the report and look at their methodology and conclusions if you’re really interested in this.
from the report: