South Korea in demographic crisis as many stop having babies

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14776207

by rntn • 4 years ago

40 145 4 years ago

asahi.com

sanp• 4 years ago

This will not change unless housing is fixed.

seanmcdirmid• 4 years ago

Technically speaking, fewer people will fix housing, like it did in Japan.

jorblumesea2• 4 years ago

S. Korea isn't just having housing problems, the root cause is complex.

kitsunesoba4• 4 years ago

Housing is a factor yes, but I think it's just a symptom of the larger problem of cost of living outpacing compensation.

Not only do parents need to pay for housing, but also for more food, more clothes, child care, sometimes school, and depending on the country extra wear and tear on a car or if it's a multi-child family, a larger vehicle like a minivan. And that's just the financial cost… good parenting also requires more time than can be alotted in modern industrialized society which require one's job to be their life.

It's possible for many to just barely scrape by on their wages with kids in tow, but why would anybody subject themselves to that struggle if they don't have to? If one is serious about having kids it's better to wait until both parents-to-be have achieved higher salaries and saved up significant financial padding to help mitigate disaster. Problem is, many people will never make that kind of money, and thus will never have kids. Others who would find themselves facing fertility issues brought on by age by the time the means is available.

danaris• 4 years ago

cost of living outpacing compensation

Another way to word this is "the very wealthy increasingly consolidating all wealth to themselves."

locutous5• 4 years ago

why would anybody subject themselves to that struggle if they don't have to?

It's a fundamentally selfless action to raise children. It is also part of the core purpose of all living creatures.

nr2x3• 4 years ago

I really don't see this as a problem, humans are using resources at an unsustainable rate, we need fewer people, not more.

threatripper• 4 years ago

We also need to maintain a balance in military power or else the country with more "firepower" will take over their geriatric neighboring country.

f6v2• 4 years ago

Yes, US-Mexican war was terrible.

nradov• 4 years ago

The era of mass armies ended decades ago. Military power is now more a function of GDP than population size.

For South Korea, the only significant neighboring countries they might need to worry about are North Korea, China, and Japan. All of those have similar demographic problems.

ram4jesus2• 4 years ago

This is a Malthusian attitude that does not really encourage problem solving and collaboration; it's antihumanist to the core.

We should not retreat from our problems but solve them creatively - how do you do that? By solving's people's needs and enabling them to do what they want without worrying about poverty.

yesenadam2• 4 years ago

Seems to me that glibly throwing labels at people like that - Malthusian, antihumanist to the core - really doesn't "encourage problem solving and collaboration".

f6v2• 4 years ago

The world population is still growing. There’s going to be significantly more people wanting to jump into lower middle class and consume even more. Koreans not reproducing changes nothing.

AbrahamParangi• 4 years ago

I think it’s wrong to say that we need fewer people when one actually means we need fewer other people.

This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible.

Klinky5• 4 years ago

I think it's still perfectly defensible, so long as you're equitable to all, and "other" isn't code for being a racist. Everyone should have access to birth control, family planning and advanced life opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a sustainable fulfilling life. That's often not possible if you're born into poverty, born to parents who didn't want you, or socially/culturally pressured into having children young.

The solution is better education, better contraceptive access & more sustainable economies that don't rely on endless growth that grinds human lives away for a pittance.

rajin444• 4 years ago

This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible.

Why is that less defensible? Any other stance will see the end of your people and culture. And if that's desirable, why are you practicing a culture you wish to see end?

Or we could all come together, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

krisoft• 4 years ago

You twist what was said and then you say it is not defensible. Not cool.

There are two ways one can understand what you said and both are terrible takes.

You might imagine that everyone is somehow secretly racist/nationalistic/egoistic and somehow when they say we need fewer people they secretly mean that fewer of other “kind of” people. This is not true. When I say we need fewer people I include “my people” in that too, for whatever arbitrary grouping you would deem “my” people.

The other possible take is that you think everyone who thinks there should be fever people should commit suicide, or if they don’t they clearly mean “fewer other people”. This is also silly. In this context nobody proposes that we should get fewer people by killing anyone. People die. If you just stop making so many of them we will end up with less of them.

nr2x3• 4 years ago

I had one kid, I'm purposefully shrinking the human population, I walk the walk.

jorblumesea2• 4 years ago

The problem is that population growth/reduction isn't even. African nations will not stop having kids because S. Korea is having less.

AlexandrB5• 4 years ago

Sure they will[1]. Their declining birth rate just lags SK's by a few decades. Birth rate is generally inversely proportional to development and educational attainment in a country. As "global south" countries catch up on these metrics their birth rates will likely decrease.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/birth-rate

homonculus1• 4 years ago

There aren't going to be fewer people as a result of this, there are just going to be fewer South Koreans in South Korea. When developed nations pursue non-procreative social policies and lose their demographics, they get internally replaced from undeveloped nations. The global population continues to grow.

AlexandrB5• 4 years ago

The growth of the global population is slowing[1]. Undeveloped nations are developing, and as they do their birth rate drops as well.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate

mitthrowaway22• 4 years ago

For a demographic pyramid, just like a car accident, it's the acceleration that does the damage. If this happened more gradually it wouldn't be as much of a problem for the worker/retiree ratio.

nr2x3• 4 years ago

I've got no pity for the retirees who caused a lot of the environmental crisis in the first place.

trasz2• 4 years ago

Fertility isn’t a problem, insufficient immigration is.

hombre_fatal• 4 years ago

Immigration just delays the fertility problem, so it’s still a fertility problem.

j245• 4 years ago

insufficient immigration

I was told they were stealing our jobs.

idlehand6• 4 years ago

Immigrants still revert to native sub-fertility after a generation, or two at most.

Immigration may be a solution for countries in the Anglosphere, as there are countless educated English speakers who want to immigrate.

Countries in the rest of Europe and in East Asia do not have the luxury of educated, native-language speakers in the millions wanting to immigrate. Those who do want to come to us instead of the Anglosphere, either lack marketable skills or lack the language skills necessary to be a part of society. This imposes considerable costs, and our pension systems are not equipped to handle people working here for 20-30 years and then living off a government pension for another 20.

julianeon• 4 years ago

To me this is the clear downside of having a competitive, efficient society: it is so competitive, and so efficient, that people correctly calculate that by bypassing kids, they can save more & lose less time.

That's where the the economic pressure (which societies seem to want, lest people become 'lazy') pushes the next generation. When that's what you incentivize, that's what you get - not just in Korea but all over the modern world.

seydor9• 4 years ago

So people are optimizing. Why should they optimize for maximum population?

simlevesque• 4 years ago

Well, demographic crunches are not really enjoyable.

shitpostbot• 4 years ago

If it would be better for the society, then the society should be incentivising it, or at least making the calculation sensible. Hence the discussion

spicyusername• 4 years ago

At a minimum optimizing for "replacement" theoretically allows a population to continue to exist as it is (assuming all kinds of things like everyone backfills the jobs that are already filled, etc, etc)

A shrinking population is terrible as there are less and less people to support existing institutions like social services, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

A very simple example is social security. It is a net wealth transfer from working age people to retirement age people.

If there's not enough working age people then there is not enough to support the retirement age people.

deltree72• 4 years ago

I'm not a religious nut, but you have to admit that religion which typically prioritizing lots of babies got this one right

gloryjulio4• 4 years ago

By having ppl indoctrinated to accept being at lower caste to produce babies and contributing, where the ppl at top of the pyramid are sucking all the blood from the bottom. Yeah that would work out

kitsunesoba4• 4 years ago

Depends on if one values quality of life for the children, in my opinion. Birthing lots of kids into circumstances that are easily turned desperate seems undesirable in my eyes, particularly if we're aiming for a society composed of mentally healthy adults.

kspacewalk22• 4 years ago

No, it didn't. Having lots of babies is terrible for all sorts of reasons, and generally holds poor countries back and keeps them poor. Much like with money inflation, a human inflation target of 2% seems wise. Higher or lower than that leads to trouble.

hnbad3• 4 years ago

That's a funny way of saying that people are so economically desperate (whether due to low income, lack of savings, job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc) that they delay having children.

I wonder what the % of people currently in a long-term relationship looks like. Those also don't tend to do well under economic duress.

dmix2• 4 years ago

South Koreans are richer than ever, so if that's the problem why aren't they having more kids?

due to low income, lack of savings, job insecurity, weak familial ties, etc

Almost every couple I know who is not having kids makes good $$. It's my friends who make less and are more working class (and work longer hours at that) are the ones having kids. So that sounds like the opposite of what you're suggesting.

kspacewalk22• 4 years ago

South Korea is richer and more successful than most countries on earth. If "economic desperation" was an actual, as opposed to a stated, reason for South Koreans to have fewer babies, the vast majority of humanity would have fewer children still, since their "economic desperation" is objectively much worse.

akira2501• 4 years ago

I have a hard time rectifying the idea that Korea's economy is highly state managed and largely operated by monopolies with a society "so efficient and competitive" that people are opting out of humanity in order to compete and store money.

I almost think you have it entirely backwards. In a society where competition and choice is so severely limited you see people adopt these strategies because there is far less room to make a mistake or to engage with economically sub optimal decisions like having a child.

I think you're seeing this effect creep into the US as well, as we've allowed more mergers and acquisitions financed by cheap interest from the Fed that people are effectively feeling this same squeeze here. Plus, I don't think people are at all effectively factoring in the consequences of the lock downs and crash of small businesses that were associated with it.

This is a government monopoly problem, not a lazy population problem.

nugget• 4 years ago

Children have value in the hyperefficient society you describe, but it's emotional rather than monetary. It's hard to compare abstract, future emotional upside to dollars spent on diapers and sleepless hours lost to infant childcare in the here and now. Society does a poor job helping young people understand how to balance investment into children, friends, family, and community against investment into professional work which often results in more immediate and measurable results.

toomuchtodo2• 4 years ago

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-murder-and-the-m...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610397057

nine_k• 4 years ago

It very much depends on how the society (your peer group, your parents, etc) defines success.

In societies, having many kids is seen as a sign of success; ideally not just the number but also their prosperity.

In other societies, personal consumption and personal display of wealth and influence prevail; likely it's the case of the urbanized part of the SK society.

For obvious natural reasons, the trait of not having kids is self-eliminating. Those who don't care that their culture will end with them will be outnumbered and eventually replaced by those who do.

yongjik• 4 years ago

If it were actually efficient we'd see less issues. I'd say the Korean economy is hyper-competitive but fairly inefficient. Lots of social problems because people who secured a nice, well-paying job don't want competitions and will do everything to block others from getting the same job. All the way from lawyers limiting the number of lawyers, to doctors doing the same thing, to full-time factory workers discriminating against part-time workers in the same factory.

So (1) there are fewer and fewer decent jobs, and (2) once you fall off the "correct career path" for any reason, there's no way to get back, or at least that's the universal perception. So everybody fights tooth and nail to keep whatever they already have, which further distorts the market, and the cycle continues.

Disclaimer: have been living in the US since 2011, so my understanding is from reading news and stuff.

skissane2• 4 years ago

If it were actually efficient we'd see less issues. I'd say the Korean economy is hyper-competitive but fairly inefficient.

I remember once visiting the head office in Seoul of a major South Korean firm – they had a rather large development team working on some rather quotidian internal corporate needs (identity management, corporate intranet/portal, etc). And yet, they were being subjected to the kind of limitations one would expect only on some classified national security project – e.g. Internet access blocked so they couldn't access StackOverflow/etc, personal electronic devices had to be put in lockers at the building security desk, etc. The restrictions were very obviously impeding their productivity. It appeared that the company's management was very paranoid about corporate espionage, to a degree which seemed out of place given the actual business this company did.

A Korean colleague told me that a lot of South Korean companies were like that. His theory was that senior management at many firms is dominated by retired military officers, who take from their military background a culture of secrecy which may well be justified in the military, defence contractors, super-high-tech firms such as leading-node semiconductor fabrication, etc–but isn't appropriate for your average business, and this particular firm wasn't doing anything like that. What do I know, but his theory seemed plausible to me.

gaterin• 4 years ago

Cultures that are self sustaining will exist into the future. If the Korean culture isn't one of them, so be it.

oifjsidjf• 4 years ago

Self-culling of self-destructive cultures.

There probably were many cultures like modern Korean throughout history.

And since they collapsed they...well don't exist anymore obviously.

Natural selection.

idlehand6• 4 years ago

Unfortunately it seems that cultural aspects like accepting homosexuality, allowing women to run their own lives and valuing higher education and a scientific mindset are correlated with not prioritizing the reproduction of their culture to the next generation.

I'd like the average human in a 100 years to be a bit more like me and a bit less like the average human today. But the rest of the Western world doesn't seem to see it that way.

cercatrova4• 4 years ago

So will every country eventually. Usually countries solve this with immigration but Asian countries (as opposed to Western ones) are quite xenophobic based on personal experience and those of talking with others. As such, they don't let in many people and those that do find a hard time becoming a citizen (Japan's resident foreigner population is 2.29% according to Wikipedia).

There is also not a huge reason to have children, I think many are finding. The societal pressure from decades or centuries past is simply not there much anymore. They already have jobs, are making money, so why spend it on raising a child which can be very expensive? Or they're not making enough money to raise them (see rising rent prices and stagnating wages), so again, why spend all that money they don't have on raising a child?

steele2• 4 years ago

South Korea is not xenophobic

decafninja• 4 years ago

I wouldn't describe SK as xenophobic, but it's definitely far, far, closer to being a homogenous society than a melting pot.

Those not of Korean ancestry are treated as outsiders. This doesn't necessarily mean disrespectfully, though in some cases it does.

teej• 4 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_South_Korea

steele2• 4 years ago

I guess I should clarify that South Korea is not xenophobic to people that don't carry themselves as obvious sex pests

colechristensen3• 4 years ago

I think a lot of people want children but can’t afford them so they’re delaying. Living in a tiny apartment in a questionable neighborhood makes people say later and not being able to afford help and having to dedicate every moment to attending your child just isn’t that appealing.

AlexandrB5• 4 years ago

Living in a tiny apartment in a questionable neighborhood makes people say later

I think people had more kids in far worse conditions than this in the past. So it's not unthinkable. But I think what we're seeing is a decline in living standards in relative terms. People want their kids to have a life at least as good as their own childhood and that's becoming out of reach for many as housing, healthcare, and education become unaffordable.

rayiner7• 4 years ago

Are Asian countries xenophobic, or do they not want the cultural changes that come from immigration? Those are two completely different things.

I’m a south Asian with a beard, and apart from racial profiling at the airport, I’ve been treated uniformly pleasantly in Tokyo. But they would object to millions of south Asians moving there and bringing their differing cultural attitudes. They would have to say goodbye to spotless Tokyo streets and everyone patiently walking two blocks to get to a cross walk instead of jaywalking! If a New Yorker wouldn’t want a million Appalachians moving to their city and changing the culture, that wouldn’t be xenophobia. Same thing for Asian countries who don’t want different cultural groups in their country.

cercatrova4• 4 years ago

Well either that or their population continues to decline. I'm not sure what the alternative is.

tptacek2• 4 years ago

From friends who live in Tokyo, my understanding is: xenophobic and racist. Like, there are schools mixed-race kids can't get into?

pvg• 4 years ago

If a New Yorker wouldn’t want a million Appalachians moving to their city and changing the culture

New ethnic enclaves with their own cultures form in New York with some regularity, old ones disappear, etc. Most people like that about New York.

EE84M3i• 4 years ago

I live in Japan, and IMO Japan is very easy to immigrate to - if you are educated and can find someone to hire you.

The second part is difficult for many that want to move here, because almost all jobs require some level of Japanese proficiency.

hunglee2• 4 years ago

Interestingly, DRPK, at 1.86 births per woman, has a significantly higher birthrate than ROK at 0.84. Should these trends continue, we might see the two halves of Korea diverge into rich, old, low population south vs poor, young, high population north.

codekansas2• 4 years ago

1.86 births per woman is still shrinking, just not as quickly

bhouston5• 4 years ago

I think that the commonality in places that are having falling birth rates are:

- expensive housing

- very expensive to raise kids, e.g. day care.

- women expected to remain in the workforce, or they need to remain in the workforce because of the cost of living.

This makes kids seem incredibly inconvenient and also it isn't clear your kids will have a better life than yours. Kids are not a joy, but a burden.

I think we need to let the primary caregivers of children, women or man, not have to have a stressful a full-time job while raising kids.

Also we need affordable housing and affordable child care.

Big cities are not setup for this - the bigger the city the more expensive and inconvenient raising kids are. Thus the remote work trend may be part of the solution to this. I also think that living in rural areas is pro-fertility (for these same reasons) and given that this tends to trend Republican, there is likely a Republican pro-fertility advantage over the long term, at least in North America.

BTW any notice that Elon Musk says we need more kids while at the same time has cut parental benefits and also killed work at home at his companies? Also he pushes "hard core" hours that would annoying any parents. That guy doesn't make sense to me.

seydor9• 4 years ago

People keep saying economic factors dont matter, but having a comfortable home is key. It was the norm for most of human history; you could simply build one by yourself. It is probably still true in dirt-poor places with high-fertility rates. Family is conceptually proportional to a person's property and the tiny or temporary 21th century spaces just don't leave a lot of space for "let's have a kid"

(I think that 's the reason why the US has higher fertility that europe: bigger homes)

bhouston5• 4 years ago

Large houses also feel empty, and then you want to fill it. Also a large house lets you get away from the kids when you or they need it, which leads to happiness. And having a yard or a street where they can play with friends is also amazing. I'd be so paranoid about my kids safety if I lived in a crowded downtown core.

idlehand6• 4 years ago

Half the Swedish population lives in apartments, but 70% of the children live in houses.

As our cities grow larger, chasing higher concentration and productivity, the costs of owning a house within reasonable commuting distance soar. So instead we cram into little shoeboxes where we do not even have enough space for ourselves, let alone children.

Urban populations have historically never been able to maintain their population without people moving in from elsewhere. But this century we are going to see 80% of humanity live in cities. There won't be enough people elsewhere to fill up the empty apartments left by childless city-dwellers.

idlehand6• 4 years ago

Cities have been places where people come to work, live, and die without continuing their line for millennia.

Cities generally vote Democrat, but minorities do too and they have higher fertility than rural whites, who are predominantly Republican.

But I would be wary of drawing any conclusions for future voting patterns from current demographic trends. Politics and the trends can change in mere months or years, the impact of the trends on politics takes decades to emerge.

Elon Musk has probably realized that wealthy white people like him will become a smaller and smaller part of the global population if they cannot reproduce their numbers. Naturally he doesn't include his employees in this important group.

An aristocrat worried about the nobility dying out wouldn't encourage the peasantry to reproduce.

bhouston5• 4 years ago

Cities have been places where people come to work, live, and die without continuing their line for millennia.

Has it? Interesting. I didn't know what.

But I would be wary of drawing any conclusions for future voting patterns from current demographic trends. Politics and the trends can change in mere months or years, the impact of the trends on politics takes decades to emerge.

Can you explain more?

AlexandrB5• 4 years ago

An aristocrat worried about the nobility dying out wouldn't encourage the peasantry to reproduce.

Well-stated. And it makes me wonder why anyone wants to work for the guy.

seydor9• 4 years ago

Just a bit ahead of the rest of the world

rayiner7• 4 years ago

Culture is a powerful thing. My dad spent his career in public health, exporting to Asian countries contraception and the idea that children are a burden to economic and social development. And it was amazingly effective. In our home country of Bangladesh, the total fertility rate has dropped from 5.7 kids per woman the year I was born to under 2 in 2020. But the new cultural attitudes towards having kids seem entrenched now, and it seems like we will overshoot the targets and go well below replacement levels all across Asia.

The economic consequences of that aren’t going to be pretty. Japan and Korea face many economic headwinds, but among them is the fact that there will be fewer consumers in 50 years. Immigration isn’t a solution to that either. The culture you can create with a homogenous population where everyone is socialized in the same norms from birth just can’t be replicated in an immigrant nation. London and Toronto are fine, but Tokyo and Kyoto are remarkable and different and I doubt they can be maintained in that state by non-Japanese.

hackeraccount• 4 years ago

Tokyo and Kyoto are remarkable and different but not like they were 50 years ago or 100. The U.S. is remarkable and different in way that's not like it was before a 100 years of immigrants came here. There's a thru line though - a path dependence in the U.S. that takes immigrants and changes them as much or even more then it's changed by them.

There's a world culture homogenization which is unfortunate in some ways but immigration is only part of the story. I don't think it's even a big part of it.

rayiner7• 4 years ago

There's a thru line though - a path dependence in the U.S. that takes immigrants and changes them as much or even more then it's changed by them.

Apparently not as much as we think: https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=35594 (“Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth. And the cultural traits migrants bring to their new homes have enduring effects upon a nation's economic potential.”)

Cultural homogenization due to mass media and the internet is of course unavoidable. But Tokyo is the product of more durable attitudes. There is an orderliness to it that comes from it being populated by Japanese people who were raised by Japanese parents who were raised by Japanese grandparents—even if they watch American movies.

As you acknowledge, immigration changed America, destroying the republic as originally conceived and making it something different. Italians and Irish didn’t come to America and assimilate into the small government Anglo-Americanism. They retained their statist orientation and voted in FDR (who would have won without them), whose judicial appointments rewrote the Constitution. Whether you think it’s better or worse, it’s hard to deny it’s different. And it’s quite reasonable for people in any country to want to resist such changes that immigration can cause.

colechristensen3• 4 years ago

The political issue for 2040 is going to be countries in demographic crises pretty much everywhere trying to drastically change housing, employment, and childcare to try to get their populations to reproduce.

The rent seeking which has made so much of people’s lifetime income dedicated to housing which is getting progressively smaller makes investing or just affording children unreasonable to very many people.

Society will need to reorganize itself so that people can have children younger and afford the space to raise them in comfortably which means working parents who can hire childcare so that they can have lives outside of only raising children.

This doesn’t happen with high density city property development which is about the only thing people advocate for.

We need zoning in cities that forces the presence of big spaces for people that actually want them including parking for vehicles and significant tax penalties for vacancy.

Housing needs to be a bad investment.

Facebook ads seem to think I’ma real estate investor and one of the ads I’m seeing a lot is bragging about sixty percent returns on property development projects. That is not adding value and charging appropriately for it, it’s just theft.

burlesona• 4 years ago

I think you're very confused about how development in cities works. It's the parking requirements, large lot requirements, large size requirements etc., plus the general absurd difficulty of getting any kind of permit to build anything anywhere, that makes housing so expensive in the first place.

If we took a pro-development attitude and made it easy to build everything by relaxing requirements, the market would respond with a much broader variety of housing options, including some large family-oriented spaces but also a lot of small single-person oriented spaces.

As you say "housing should be a bad investment," I think that's true to a degree, but the best way to make that happen is to relax the rules and make it an extremely competitive market with abundant supply. Then the price of housing would be mostly determined by the cost of construction, which would be much cheaper than the current market where prices are driven by scarcity to societally damaging heights.

idlehand6• 4 years ago

Absolutely right. Unfortunately, this won't come to pass. Housing is the one point of leverage my parents generation have over my generation. It will be the leverage of my generation over my children's generation.

By keeping homes scarce, we create an asset class that old people naturally have more of, since they bought in earlier.

And we will need all the leverage we can get when every working age person has to support one or more retired people.

codekansas2• 4 years ago

Building housing should actually be a great investment, owning housing should be a bad investment. The problem is that with construction being so mired in inefficiency and red tape, there has to be an expectation of many years of great returns in order for anything to be built.

mytailorisrich2• 4 years ago

We've just passed the 8 billion mark and that is unsustainable.

So what's happening in Korea, and also in other countries, needs to happen everywhere for a while.

Then, humanity will be able to enjoy life in a sustainable way without worrying about the impact of every action, food choice, travel.

polski-g• 4 years ago

Countries trying to raise birth rates are like fat people trying to lose weight: "we've tried nothing and it didn't work!"

davesque• 4 years ago

I think all these modern societies are finding out that you need to make civil life about more than just extracting the maximum effort from people for the least possible compensation. If that's the way things are set up, then it's only a matter of time before the machinery of the economy leaves no space for everyday life to occur.

alienalp• 4 years ago

There are obviously not enough healthy marriages in culturally corrupted (in a bad or good way depends on how you see it) countries. Obviously marriage is not likely in a big swinger party.

locutous5• 4 years ago

At this rate there won't be a South Korea before too long. The future belongs to the fertile.

South Korea in demographic crisis as many stop having babies

Related Stories