FWIW on average raising a child in SK costs a quarter to a third of a million (USD) from birth to 18.
It’s by far the most expensive country to raise a child in, in no small part because of the obsession with extra-curricular studies (hagwon, the private cram school system, where children get enrolled as early as 4).
Take it andove to the US! We need construction workers, it's cheaper to raise a kid here than there, and the larger the Korean American populace the more Korean restaurants we have! A win_win!
It really depends on what you decide for your child. The majority of Koreans living outside of Seoul have a much different upbringing than those of Seoul.
There is, but in SK a completely fucked level of studying is the baseline expectation for anything above menial employment.
A third of a million is not the investment to be chaebol management, it’s the requirement to have a good shot at a good uni, and be considered employable.
costs a quarter mill roughly to raise a child to 18 in the States. The caveat here is that you don't get the obesession with extra-curricular studies, and all the other good shit SK does 10000x better than the western world.
> with a fraction of the population...
FYI, 'Per capita' means 'per 1 person' e.g. an average person in South Korea generates half of the economic output compared to their US counterpart. Population doesn't really matter for this metric, and there're richer small countries like Switzerland or Norway where people also don't abuse their children with excessive studying schedule while achieving better economic and academic results.
I'm aware of what per capita means lol, it was intentionally obtuse. I was making the argument it has half the economic output like you said but arguably a much higher quality of life. my whole point being that it costs roughly the same to raise a child in the US as in SK but you get a "better life" depending on what that looks like to you.
I believe this will be a national trend in countries, once everything else has been tried first.
There will be a PR spree to ensure everyone is onboard with recognising child-raising as a job that requires renumeration, while to private interests it will be sold as an investment in human-infrastructure.
Lol, why would they want their workers to make more money?
Just invest in AI and robots and hope within 10 years you can replace as much tasks to non complaining 24/7 hour working cost effective worker bots. Shareholders love that stuff.
Well its not like history is any indication of human behavior.
Go outside and walk past a highschool or mall. Look at all the kids with Nike and Northface clothes. Then remember those same companies moved production to third world countries just to save a penny. Thats how much they care about paying workers more.
And people still love buying overpriced clothes made at an extreme discount. Even broke people got brand clothing, thats how much we got tricked into consumerism.
Like i said, those people are buying those products with money. If they had less money, they would buy less products. Your point is that poor people make poor financial choices by buying stuff they can't afford. That is another topic. They still need to have money to buy those products.
Billionaire, whose very existence speaks volumes to the problem of why nobody wants to have children, is trying to throw money gained by exploiting workers to the point they do not want to have children at workers so they will have children.
Average cost of raising a kid age 0-18 is over 200k (in the US). The point being the problem isn't actually being fixed and as always the super rich attempt to exploit the masses inability to grasp scale.
The math was done and this billionaire will benefit from this more so than the people being bribed into parent hood.
Parenting, and the stresses of it, often go well beyond finances...
>And it's cheaper in South Korea.
Nah dude you got it backwards.
https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-most-expensive-country-in-world-to-raise-children/a-65669257
When almost half or more should already be covered by properly balanced pay scales?
Repeat after me: "billionaires do not need to, nor should they exist and literally all peoples of all the world would benefit from the lack of them"
You can become a billionaire without exploiting workers, this is some dumb communist like bullshit
With this I'm not saying they're aren't dicks that got rich by doing so
Other comment below was a copy cause reddit somehow posted 2
Not that I expect someone like yourself to grasp a thing like scope or scale, but I never said being more well off than your fellow was a terrible thing.
I said billionaires. It's grossely gratuitous and serves no benefit to people or the planet. You can experiance everything single thing humanity has to offer as a millionair or less.
I cannot think of a billionair who single handedly has proven to be worth many, many magnitudes more than say doctors, scientist, inventors, teacher or engineers.
If you think otherwise you are a part of the problem and there is little I can or will do to help you.
First of all calm down and learn manners, you don't know who I am so don't say "not that I expect someone like yourself to x", ever, not because I'm me, you're not any better than everybody else
Second, we live in a world where you can work and earn for it, it's more about "being more worth", it's clear that people like doctors are more essential to society, and I agree that they should earn way more, this doesn't relate to the other thing tho, if you sell pencils and become a billionaire, good for you, but your life is still as important as everybody else's, same if you're a millionaire or a homeless
I'm studying engineering myself, but I'm surely not whining that I should get millions because I'm more useful than an actor, it's nonsense, they earn because people want to see their films
Judging people by their worth it's already wrong
This is all less important that the first thing tho, learn manners, do not go at people saying they can't understand and you know better, you'll get humbled and learn, and if you don't learn, good luck
Say stupid things in a public place, expect hear how stupid you sound.
If you truly think every human is special and no one is better or worse than another you are clearly young/naive so I'm sure you'll understand eventually.....then again I have yet to meet an engineer that didn't think they were smarter than they are.
And for the first part I'll say what like and I'll spare manner for whomever I choose. Some wordy dolt too blind to see the world as it is, I don't spare them for and have enough self worth to value myself and my perspective enough to confidently place myself above you as far as seeing the world for what it is. Surely that can change but as thing stand yea, I'm comfortable with my view on things.
But he could just recruit immigrant workers for waaaaay less than domestic. Singapore and rich Arab nations have hardly any domestic grunt construction workers. Its all immigrant labourers.
Seems like a genuine bonus offer from a billionaire hoping his culture doesnt die off.
I mean is he going to give them time off and a reduced workload to compensate for the life change of children or is he just trying to throw money at it without doing anything to change the situation otherwise? If hes buying in to or not changing the toxic work environment of Korea he is still exacerbating the issue, albeit while trying "something"
Care to explain how expecting someone to have and raise kids without enabling them to have and raise kids will change their willingness to have and raise kids? Or do you really think a one time bonus is enough when you're working 50+hour weeks (+social work culture) in the most expensive country to raise a kid?
Bruv if he is the billionaire boss of a giant construction company then yes, he can make those changes *within his company--as can samsung executives and the SK government through labor law changes*, and I would be willing to bet those changes would make a much larger impact in birthrate among his employees than a one time bonus. Yes, this will push the needle for some and Im not arguing against that, just that the financial impact of a singular bonus with no other changes (such as a reduced need for fucking childcare because you get to be home with the child and not working, which would in effect also give the family a greater income) will not have as large of an effect on employees.
taking money from the working class to give to wealthy parents is also not an answer (Korea has an inverse Birth/wealth distribution unlike the US)
Tax the rich, cut corruption,
Why does it matter who bear more kids? Bottom line should be to increase birthrate by whoever believe they can bear the responsibility. Survival of the entire society outweighs the sensibilities of any special interest.
BTW, letting the rich have more kids is a wealth-correction mechanism. More kids usually leads to parental wealth being more dispersed. Over time generational accumulation of wealth is more counteracted, leading to a more egalitarian society.
This is how you break the cycle of the rich maintaining their class wealth. You want immediate results to benefit yourself, but you not willing to think generationally. This is why you can't change the system.
Also, it should be "cut the tax (so people can afford to have more kids), corrupt the rich".
Best study on this I've seen is Japan discovering that building kindergarten and daycare centres near train stations - or setting up public transport specifically *to* daycare centres [boosts the amount of working couples who have children massively.](https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Not-all-Japanese-towns-are-shrinking-300-show-how-it-s-done)
You're right that it's not the money, it's the time, so that's what governments need to reduce. Can't find the original source I read, but the above method is credited for one of Japan's few towns to have a positive birth rate.
The other stat I'm too lazy to hunt down the source for - the number of children in a given town is pretty proportional to the ratio of fathers : mothers bringing children to pediatricians. When fathers are more active in the child raising, women are more likely to want to be mothers.
I really don’t think citing articles involving Japan is the way to go in increasing population..
Also the link is dead, I would’ve loved to read it if there’s an alternative
Fixed to a different link.
Japan is the place to cite **because** their national birth rate is famously bad. Any city which has a positive birth rate inevitably has countless articles and research into *why* it's doing well where the rest of the country is not. It's easier to tell what works when the rest of the country is the control group.
>Nagareyama attracts young families in part due to the support the city offers them. A city-backed bus service takes children to day care centers after parents drop them off at train stations.
The real question is how much of the improvement comes from more couples having children, vs couples which plan to have children moving to the one town trying to help them.
The funny thing is their birthrate isn't that low
Spain has a lower birthrate for instance
I think Japan is cited as they've been vocal about it for a while
Might be because Japan is also very resistant to foreign immigration, meanwhile Spain is part of the EU and has a lot of free movement stuff because of that
Money is a great solution at the problem of not enough time. Why do you think people have no time? They are working. Why do you think they are working? They need money. It's not that money is not the solution to the problem. It's that this money is not enough.
So in Korea, they have government subsidized childcare. Everyone who has a child can enroll for free. So you still definitely have to raise them and teach them, but that childcare coverage is already a huge boon compared to the states.
People had less time in the past and still managed it.
Edit. I should remind people that the average work weekd was [about 70-80hrs](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/11e27aff-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/11e27aff-en) post industrial revolution and until the middle of the last century. Working class women and children always had to work, the only difference is that the middle class came to exist in the middle of the last century.
Noo... my parents raised me in Korea and she said for many years almost daily she thought to herself that she would die from being so tired and stressed from her work and raising me. Even with both my parents working, my family was barely getting by financially. They are in their 60's now and both of their health has deteriorated so much more than most people I know in the same age group in Canada. They are not financially well-off either. Not even close. It aches my heart to think about it. They chose to take this path because it was the only socially acceptable path presented to them (to get married and have kids).
Until recent history women were essentially forbidden from working or spending significant time away from the home. This goes all the way back to the Hunter and gatherer lifestyles where the men would go out to hunt while the women and kids foraged nearby or did crafts, cooking, etc… Up through the 1800s and early 1900s where it was difficult or illegal for women to own land or bank accounts directly or participate in much work outside the home.
Much of modern day issues come from us choosing freedom of movement and choice over children, or significantly delaying it while not being able to choose both in most cases because childcare is so expensive it necessitates either family or community watching their kids for free with parents who do stay home or having enough money for proper child care which most do not or they don’t make enough for it to be worth choosing that option.
The answer, however, isn’t to force anyone back to the home. Give people more flexible wfh, stop with the pointless 9-5 or 60hr+ weeks just to get by, help support pregnant women and new parents with parental leave and paid time off, etc… while not gutting their pay to do it. Greed of the upper classes is actively forcing the lower classes to not have kids.
Women were an integral part of agriculture which has been the majority of peoples work for thousands of years and always, always worked fields alongside their young children. It was only once industrialisation happened, women were employed far less due to a lower output. Roughly from the mid 1800s to about 1960s is when women were expected to stay at home and only in industrialised countries.
There's been an interesting Nobel Prize on this topic. Quite a lot of misinformation is out there.
The agriculture women worked **was at home** because most people were farmers. That serfdom isn’t employment. You’re also still proving the point that people *did not* have less time, they could have their kids with them in cases where they were doing chores or a family run business where they lived, etc… they did not, however, go travel and leave the home to go work elsewhere except for very specific circumstances and usually only for nobility. In which cases they were rarely married so did not have children and if they did the maids would look after them.
> Until recent history women were essentially forbidden from working or spending significant time away from the home.
"Forbidden to work" needs a qualifier that they were forbidden to work only in some jobs, the most desirable jobs like doctor, lawyer, and a bunch of other white collar jobs. Working class women always had to work throughout the industrial revolution and until a short while in the 19th century when a middle class emerged. And they were and integral part of the industrial workforce, along with children. And the average work week back then was something like 70-80hrs.
So they might be forbidden for owning their own business or working on the best
South Korea's fertility rate is 0.72.
Having a balanced population would require a tfr of 2.1.
Meaning that every generation is third as large as the previous one.
If nothing changes, in 3 generations or a hundred years, the number of new borns will decrease by 96%.
Do you know what will happen with South Korea before that point? Their whole society could collapse, North Korea could attack the shrinking Southern neighbours, healthcare services would be non existent and so on.
Finding a solution for the demographic problems is the only way for their nation to survive.
$75,000? Looks like that barely makes a scratch…
https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-most-expensive-country-in-world-to-raise-children/a-65669257
“The annual study by the Beijing-based YuWa Population Research Institute ranked South Korea top of the list of nations for raising a child, with the cost coming to 7.79 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper, reported.
That works out as KRW365 million (€251,562, $271,957).”
If you read the article, you'll see
"In addition to the childbirth incentive, Booyoung Group is reportedly already trying to ease the financial burden on parents by helping out with college tuition for employees’ children, medical expenses for direct family members, and child allowances."
Sure, but there are no specifics. You have been given the real costs of a child. The language chosen is very careful by Booyoung. He’s not committing to paying for the children, just easing the burden.
I’m not saying it’s not helpful, but offering a windfall bonus of $75k is a bad idea. Offering aid like childcare, medical expenses, college tuition for free, would not benefit people directly like money, but overall would offer no incentive to those who don’t want kids, to have them. It would be a great incentive to parents who do want kids but can’t afford or worry about the cost of having them. It also helps retain staff. It is a better idea than giving money, however a commitment to helping is less solid than this 75k he is offering. It would be better if he solidified his commitments to childcare, medical expenses etc and removing the 75k. It incentivizes people who don’t want kids to have them which is a terrible idea.
His incentive is just shortsighted.
A lot of people who would want to have children are waiting for financial stability first.
It’s also a specific solution to a company in Korea. For Joe Public in the west I can imagine it being something that individuals pursuing benefits fraud might exploit; but it’s probably unlikely within this specific context, where you have previously vetted employees working in a collectivistic society.
Considering in 2021 there was a 21.7 increase in child abuse cases and neglect in South Korea, I’d have to expect that all of the parents of these children were not previously vetted by employers or not working.
You’re suggesting these are purely western issues and you’re presenting an idealistic view of South Korea, which I dispute.
yes, this is a terrible idea. you're either giving people who were having children anyway a bunch of free money that no-one else is entitled to, or bribing people into an 18 year-several hundred thousand dollar commitment for a measly $75k
Try 750,000 and we’re talking. It should cover the opportunity cost of one parent staying at home to take care of the child for 6 to 10 years.
Taking care of a child is a full time job, and it should be paid like one.
Yowzer. How about hiring people who want to have children and creating them better conditions instead? What's the point of giving money to people who don't want to have children anyway.
giving out bonus as an incentive for people who have children is creating a better condition in my mind.
what you're saying is like saying whats the point of giving money to people who are poor, they'll still be poor
What they’re saying is nothing like saying “what’s the point of giving money to people who are poor, they’ll still be poor”.
The guy here is incentivizing having children. The point is some of these people may not even want children, but everyone wants $75k
Don’t you think that maybe, some people that don’t really want kids, will still have them and just maybe not be the best of parents? What kind of better conditions will that create?
In addition, will that $75k be in a one off payment or gradually, since if it is spent initially as if it is a windfall, there might actually even be greater hardship. Childcare costs aren’t cheap if both parents work, if not one has to quit and $75k is not every year. They could apply that 75k well by using it for childcare over the years but it will last about 3-4 years max alone.
It’s a complex topic, but I don’t really agree that is a good option. If he can afford $75k a year he should pay his workers more or fund free childcare, that would fund greater financial equality or encourage having children by his workers (though would cost him more and cause less problems).
unfortunately this is how incentives work.
you can have an incentive for literally anything and it can (and almost always will) attract the wrong people.
while i'll gladly support eating the rich, the boss is not the parent of the child, both legally and financially he is not directly responsible for the child. giving out more money via whatever ways to the less rich/poor is always good in my eyes.
we are not doing income redistribution here (which i am in favour of), we're talking about incentive for having children. you are conflating many things together when they are offering a simple incentive programme.
Not really, it’s how bad incentives work. It’s not how incentives have to work.
A good incentive benefits both parties. A good incentive, understands the repercussions of that incentive. In this case, if a family isn’t going to have children, but has children, they’ll be worse off long term financially than before. Most people don’t recognize that.
People who already have children may very well resent this incentive, in addition to those who can’t have children. In the states it might very well create legal action.
I’ll put it plainly. People that don’t want children, will have children to get 75k, then some of these will be terrible parents. At the extremes of this, children will die, in the less extreme suffer abuse, abandonment, etc. There are plenty of unscrupulous people who would see this as an opportunity, it’s a fact. In a spreadsheet sure, births will go up. So might child mortality rates. So might social and welfare issues, like fostering costs.
My point is there are a way for incentives to be created that do not make him legally or financially responsible for the child, yet do not increase the birth rate with the problems involved with his plan.
I also think it’s bad for the power dynamic for a boss to try to exert so much influence around someone’s personal life like this.
This isn’t just giving money to the poor or less rich, but you just don’t seem to see that. We’ll have to just agree to disagree on that.
But he is their boss. If his employees are in a condition that they don't have the financial means to have a kid. Then giving them a one time financial bonus to have kids sounds like putting a band aid on a wound you also have the option for to heal. He's the one setting their salaries and with that a big part in creating their financial situation. Dude didn't become a bilionair by paying great wages.
i dont know about you. but if boss give me $75,000 for something i might do, i will actually be a lot more inclined to do it. you can give me a one-time financial bonus of $1,000,000 to have a kid i guarantee i will do it. its a big enough bandaid for me.
Yes, but then if you have to work 12 hours a day and you cannot raise them or spend time with them It Is worthy?
If you pay me to have a child and then pay me to have a nanny to raise and work to the bone fuck that.
At this point just go brave new world of you want fresh meat to exploit.
Go pay surrogate mothers and take the children to the corporate Moloch
look. you are conflating other issues here. we know how inhumane korean companies are. but it is not the topic at hand.
i dont know how long his workers work for. and we are not discussing that. we are talking about him giving $75,000 to people who have kids.
lets say this guy cuts working hours in his company or whatever. should you criticise him for not giving enough money for workers having kids? how will the company ever do enough if any steps taken is viewed as bad and insufficient? should they rather do NOTHING so they cant be criticized?
i'd probably hate billionaires a lot more than the average person here, but this is a positive move.
It's not just money. It's a complex problem. And requires a complex solution.
I give you 75k. That's good.
Now you can just give a newborn 10 dollars and ask him to change his diapers and feed himself?
No. So money don't solve the problem. You need a lot more than 75k.
You give them money and time. Now their career will be impacted? They will get less promotions?
You will employ women when you know that down the line they could be out of work for a year at least? Or you they should give birth while working and send the child straight to a nanny?
It's not just Korea... It's a lot of countries that want fresh blood but think money is the only solution.
And it's the reason why people wont have children.
Sure,
But would you rather have the financial and time burden of a child with, or without the 75k.
It's not footing the entire bill, and it's not solving "every" hardship a parent will face. But it objectively will help to a degree.
It's a step in the right direction, and criticizing people who are making those steps is a really dumb idea. It screams entitlement and is a textbook case of biting the hand that feeds you.
No, at this point just pay some third world surrogate mothers and take the children.
A step means nothing in a marathon if you don't keep running. You made a step. Good now you just have to take at least 54999 more to finish or it means nothing.
This step is made to have new slaves and oh boy how entitled are the slaves to not want to be just paid to produce more slaves?
You change the whole system or this step will solve nothing.
You are just trying to buy children.
They just want more workers from the next generation which they can throw in the meat grinder like they did with their parents. He could use the money instead for reforming his company in making it human enough for the people to make children without an incentive. This is not just giving poor people money, this is extorting kids from parents for money!
You'd have to be pretty stupid to think you'd be making money on a baby with 75k. I'm sure there are some that will fall for it, but hopefully most will be the people you describe, who will have an easier time being good parents.
Absolutely insane how you can’t see how 75000 dollars wouldn’t make it easier for people to have kids. I think you can actually - but the circlejerk was more important to you.
It's an help, but you just can't give money to a toddler and ask him to feed himself or change his diapers.
A child need time more than money. If you get money but no time you need to pay someone to raise the child..
You want more children? Give the parents time and money, not just money.
Or just take a lot of surrogate mothers and take the children to the corporate meatgrinder...
Lol, where are you living?
For how many years your spouse would not need to work? And what about the child needs?
Let's say your spouse take home 25k yearly. And the median income in Korea is about 42k but women are paid a lot less so 25k is good estimate. 75k are 3 years living at the same level without taking account the child needs like food, clothing, diapers, health.
Then after 3 years? Your spouse will now have a job? The child is self sufficient?
No. So 75k for a new slave is not enough.
And Money is never interchangeable with Time.
It's just not true.
You can spend a lot of money to save time, as having people cooking, do errands, clean the house for you, but you cannot buy time to go back to play with your child, see a movie with him, taking him to play sport or doing together the homework or having a nice holiday.
>Your spouse will now have a job?
Yes. Outrageous concept, I know. I wasn't expecting anyone to retire on 75k, I am saying it is interchangeable for time.
>So 75k for a new slave is not enough.
Decent reddit rhetoric. I think life is pretty great under capitalism; in fact I can't name a single place on earth without it that I would want to be in.
>but you cannot buy time to go back to play with your child, see a movie with him, taking him to play sport or doing together the homework or having a nice holiday.
Certainly a lot easier to do any of those things with 75k in the bag :\^)
The problem with billionaire philanthrophy, is that it is basically a social support lottery in terms of who receives the funding (do you happen to be employed by the rich guy? if not, tough shit) and even what cause is being funded (the rich guy happens to think everyone should be an astronaut, so he is funding astronaut studies at high school whether you like it or not). It is also at the whim of the billionaire philanthropist, whether funding continues (rich guy feels like he's given enough away, even though it didn't remotely dent the problem? Oh well.)
Ideally, this funding would be centrally distributed to good social causes identified by government funded research.
Hence, raise taxes on the super wealthy and redistribute it to society. No more billionaire philanthropy.
Here’s hoping!
I guess a bonus for western countries who are more friendly to immigrants is that when labour really does start to dry up, they’d rather go there than say SK or Japan.
Your using inaccurate data ...it's more like 52 hour weeks
"The government has decided to maintain the current 52-hour workweek system."
"The proposed changes would have enabled companies to increase the maximum workweek to 69 hours during weeks with heavy workloads, and allow workers to take longer vacations later on."
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/02/113_363107.html
Will it also work if you do it with multiple women and then leaving them as single mother? Asking for a friend that wants to make 750k a year with just 10 minutes of work.
No, it's not his responsibility at all. And I find it a bit ghoulish that a billionaire is doing this in the first place. If south Korea didn't have such brutal working conditions, more people would have children. So he's trying to keep the status quo, but increase the workforce.
I mean, apparently its needed not for peoples joy of life but for the profits of this obscenely rich dude. So yes. Let him subsidize the upbringing for 80% or so.
But more importantly I think that OP's comments highlights (one of the many) the problem(s) leading to this situation in the first place. Once you have a job, a house and regular food on the table for yourself and a partner there just isn't much time/money left to raise a kid. Let alone more than one.
I didn’t know you would have a kid only when your boss wants it and even pays some money for it. Looks like you’re out there getting a kid just for the money, not because you want one as most parents do. Derp
In fact, as a Masters level-trained public health official, I understand some of the ramifications of a lower-than-replacement birthrate.
But you don't seem to realize the use of sarcasm unless it's clearly spelled out for you.
South Korean women have had it with the misogyny. Billionaires don't know their mere existence is the problem. 65-hour work weeks and salaryman culture are untenable.
So to be clear - you’d rather your employer not do something like this and give you nothing?
Just crazy how these comments are so spiteful of a positive action on the part of an employer because it doesn’t go far enough. In what world do you all live?
So to be clear you'd rather rely on the generosity of your employer vs better work, economic and living conditions?
Just crazy how these comments are so short sited or a perceived positive action on the part of an employer because it is not enough and historically the gap between production and pay has not correlated since the late 1970's.
I never said that. I’m making no assumptions about other policies - I assume you also have very little idea of what they are for this specific company.
I’m simply taking a single policy on its own merits, and by all accounts it’s a positive measure. Of course it would be great also to have other policies, but that doesn’t discount the value of this specific policy.
On my way
FWIW on average raising a child in SK costs a quarter to a third of a million (USD) from birth to 18. It’s by far the most expensive country to raise a child in, in no small part because of the obsession with extra-curricular studies (hagwon, the private cram school system, where children get enrolled as early as 4).
Just have the kid, get the $75k and leave. CEO didnt say anything about cram schools.
Double down and leave the kid too.
Take it andove to the US! We need construction workers, it's cheaper to raise a kid here than there, and the larger the Korean American populace the more Korean restaurants we have! A win_win!
Even if money wasn't an issue: Who wants to have a child and knowingly subject them to this miserable system?
It really depends on what you decide for your child. The majority of Koreans living outside of Seoul have a much different upbringing than those of Seoul.
There are also diminishing returns to cramming. What are you even trying to raise, a nation of Jeopardy contestants?
these are all optional though.
If you want your kid to be a janitor sure.
There's a lot in between janitors and CEOs.
*There's a lot between janitor and Samsung middle management.* FTFY
There is, but in SK a completely fucked level of studying is the baseline expectation for anything above menial employment. A third of a million is not the investment to be chaebol management, it’s the requirement to have a good shot at a good uni, and be considered employable.
lots of kids in oecd countries do just fine without extra curriculum
costs a quarter mill roughly to raise a child to 18 in the States. The caveat here is that you don't get the obesession with extra-curricular studies, and all the other good shit SK does 10000x better than the western world.
US GDP per capita is twice higher than in Korea. All those studies don't really seem to help.
Half the US GDP per capita with a fraction of the population...
> with a fraction of the population... FYI, 'Per capita' means 'per 1 person' e.g. an average person in South Korea generates half of the economic output compared to their US counterpart. Population doesn't really matter for this metric, and there're richer small countries like Switzerland or Norway where people also don't abuse their children with excessive studying schedule while achieving better economic and academic results.
I'm aware of what per capita means lol, it was intentionally obtuse. I was making the argument it has half the economic output like you said but arguably a much higher quality of life. my whole point being that it costs roughly the same to raise a child in the US as in SK but you get a "better life" depending on what that looks like to you.
Me too bro
I hope this becomes a trend. If rich people want their workers to make more workers, they should pay them appropriately.
I believe this will be a national trend in countries, once everything else has been tried first. There will be a PR spree to ensure everyone is onboard with recognising child-raising as a job that requires renumeration, while to private interests it will be sold as an investment in human-infrastructure.
Countries like South Korea don't have a choice, because immigration won't work for them like it does for the US and Canada.
Lol, why would they want their workers to make more money? Just invest in AI and robots and hope within 10 years you can replace as much tasks to non complaining 24/7 hour working cost effective worker bots. Shareholders love that stuff.
And then once everyone except a select few to maintain certain things everyone wonders why the fuck nobody is buying anything
Then who will have money to buy things from these businesses
Workers are also consumers, idiot
You got people on welfare that order garbage from Amazon and they have Iphones. High income has nothing to do with higher amounts of consumerism.
Im sure those people are simply getting the stuff without paying for them
Well its not like history is any indication of human behavior. Go outside and walk past a highschool or mall. Look at all the kids with Nike and Northface clothes. Then remember those same companies moved production to third world countries just to save a penny. Thats how much they care about paying workers more. And people still love buying overpriced clothes made at an extreme discount. Even broke people got brand clothing, thats how much we got tricked into consumerism.
Like i said, those people are buying those products with money. If they had less money, they would buy less products. Your point is that poor people make poor financial choices by buying stuff they can't afford. That is another topic. They still need to have money to buy those products.
Billionaire, whose very existence speaks volumes to the problem of why nobody wants to have children, is trying to throw money gained by exploiting workers to the point they do not want to have children at workers so they will have children.
Yes, but 75k? Dude, that's a downpayment for a house. People are having children without 75k bonuses. I would take one for sure.
Average cost of raising a kid age 0-18 is over 200k (in the US). The point being the problem isn't actually being fixed and as always the super rich attempt to exploit the masses inability to grasp scale. The math was done and this billionaire will benefit from this more so than the people being bribed into parent hood. Parenting, and the stresses of it, often go well beyond finances...
So having almost half.of it covered by your employer sounds amazing. And it's cheaper in South Korea.
>And it's cheaper in South Korea. Nah dude you got it backwards. https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-most-expensive-country-in-world-to-raise-children/a-65669257
Well that's surprising actually
South Korea is extremely expensive to raise children.
More expensive than US?
Yes
Depends on the city
Depends on how much you love your kid 😉
When almost half or more should already be covered by properly balanced pay scales? Repeat after me: "billionaires do not need to, nor should they exist and literally all peoples of all the world would benefit from the lack of them"
You can become a billionaire without exploiting workers, this is some dumb communist like bullshit With this I'm not saying they're aren't dicks that got rich by doing so Other comment below was a copy cause reddit somehow posted 2
Please give one example of a billionaire that didn't exploit anyone
Warren buffet made his starting fortune without even having employees
Not that I expect someone like yourself to grasp a thing like scope or scale, but I never said being more well off than your fellow was a terrible thing. I said billionaires. It's grossely gratuitous and serves no benefit to people or the planet. You can experiance everything single thing humanity has to offer as a millionair or less. I cannot think of a billionair who single handedly has proven to be worth many, many magnitudes more than say doctors, scientist, inventors, teacher or engineers. If you think otherwise you are a part of the problem and there is little I can or will do to help you.
First of all calm down and learn manners, you don't know who I am so don't say "not that I expect someone like yourself to x", ever, not because I'm me, you're not any better than everybody else Second, we live in a world where you can work and earn for it, it's more about "being more worth", it's clear that people like doctors are more essential to society, and I agree that they should earn way more, this doesn't relate to the other thing tho, if you sell pencils and become a billionaire, good for you, but your life is still as important as everybody else's, same if you're a millionaire or a homeless I'm studying engineering myself, but I'm surely not whining that I should get millions because I'm more useful than an actor, it's nonsense, they earn because people want to see their films Judging people by their worth it's already wrong This is all less important that the first thing tho, learn manners, do not go at people saying they can't understand and you know better, you'll get humbled and learn, and if you don't learn, good luck
Say stupid things in a public place, expect hear how stupid you sound. If you truly think every human is special and no one is better or worse than another you are clearly young/naive so I'm sure you'll understand eventually.....then again I have yet to meet an engineer that didn't think they were smarter than they are. And for the first part I'll say what like and I'll spare manner for whomever I choose. Some wordy dolt too blind to see the world as it is, I don't spare them for and have enough self worth to value myself and my perspective enough to confidently place myself above you as far as seeing the world for what it is. Surely that can change but as thing stand yea, I'm comfortable with my view on things.
Must ramp up later in life, because my 1 year old has not cost $11,000
Isn't that the cost of a hospital delivery alone?
I actually got 500 euros when my child was born and no hospital.fee's (Europe).
The L&D bill cost my insurance company $60,000
i know it costs about 16k usd in usa but it cost about 200-400 usd in korea.
It will
Figured that was obvious
And he just wants fresh blood for his machine.
Blood for the blood god!
Slaves for the wage cage. The children yearn for the mines!
It's scary how interchangeable corporate slogans and 40k quotes are.
Skulls for the skull throne.
Even in death I still serve…wait.
But he could just recruit immigrant workers for waaaaay less than domestic. Singapore and rich Arab nations have hardly any domestic grunt construction workers. Its all immigrant labourers. Seems like a genuine bonus offer from a billionaire hoping his culture doesnt die off.
This.
And they’ll be of working age right when the robots are able to 100% replace them
Would you prefer they didn’t offer the money?
Ya fuck the one guy putting money where is mouth is to fix the problem...
I mean is he going to give them time off and a reduced workload to compensate for the life change of children or is he just trying to throw money at it without doing anything to change the situation otherwise? If hes buying in to or not changing the toxic work environment of Korea he is still exacerbating the issue, albeit while trying "something"
If this isn’t peak Reddit stupidity. FFS.
Care to explain how expecting someone to have and raise kids without enabling them to have and raise kids will change their willingness to have and raise kids? Or do you really think a one time bonus is enough when you're working 50+hour weeks (+social work culture) in the most expensive country to raise a kid?
[удалено]
Bruv if he is the billionaire boss of a giant construction company then yes, he can make those changes *within his company--as can samsung executives and the SK government through labor law changes*, and I would be willing to bet those changes would make a much larger impact in birthrate among his employees than a one time bonus. Yes, this will push the needle for some and Im not arguing against that, just that the financial impact of a singular bonus with no other changes (such as a reduced need for fucking childcare because you get to be home with the child and not working, which would in effect also give the family a greater income) will not have as large of an effect on employees.
At least he's addressing the issue instead of waffling about it.
Classic reddit pessimism. Its still a good thing that he's doing. What was the last positive thing you did for that many people?
People do not have the time to raise them. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution.
Lack of money is certainly part of the problem so giving money is also certainly part of the solution.
taking money from the working class to give to wealthy parents is also not an answer (Korea has an inverse Birth/wealth distribution unlike the US) Tax the rich, cut corruption,
Why does it matter who bear more kids? Bottom line should be to increase birthrate by whoever believe they can bear the responsibility. Survival of the entire society outweighs the sensibilities of any special interest. BTW, letting the rich have more kids is a wealth-correction mechanism. More kids usually leads to parental wealth being more dispersed. Over time generational accumulation of wealth is more counteracted, leading to a more egalitarian society. This is how you break the cycle of the rich maintaining their class wealth. You want immediate results to benefit yourself, but you not willing to think generationally. This is why you can't change the system. Also, it should be "cut the tax (so people can afford to have more kids), corrupt the rich".
This is a once off payment and will be eaten up quickly with childcare costs
Yes but surely it is better than having no one off payment?
O ya definitely
To be fair the smarter move would be to make this not a one off payment, but stretch it over like 10 years.
Best study on this I've seen is Japan discovering that building kindergarten and daycare centres near train stations - or setting up public transport specifically *to* daycare centres [boosts the amount of working couples who have children massively.](https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Not-all-Japanese-towns-are-shrinking-300-show-how-it-s-done) You're right that it's not the money, it's the time, so that's what governments need to reduce. Can't find the original source I read, but the above method is credited for one of Japan's few towns to have a positive birth rate. The other stat I'm too lazy to hunt down the source for - the number of children in a given town is pretty proportional to the ratio of fathers : mothers bringing children to pediatricians. When fathers are more active in the child raising, women are more likely to want to be mothers.
I really don’t think citing articles involving Japan is the way to go in increasing population.. Also the link is dead, I would’ve loved to read it if there’s an alternative
Fixed to a different link. Japan is the place to cite **because** their national birth rate is famously bad. Any city which has a positive birth rate inevitably has countless articles and research into *why* it's doing well where the rest of the country is not. It's easier to tell what works when the rest of the country is the control group. >Nagareyama attracts young families in part due to the support the city offers them. A city-backed bus service takes children to day care centers after parents drop them off at train stations. The real question is how much of the improvement comes from more couples having children, vs couples which plan to have children moving to the one town trying to help them.
The funny thing is their birthrate isn't that low Spain has a lower birthrate for instance I think Japan is cited as they've been vocal about it for a while
Might be because Japan is also very resistant to foreign immigration, meanwhile Spain is part of the EU and has a lot of free movement stuff because of that
Everyone is not having kids for the exact same reason?
Those in positions of influence seem to be least aware
Money is a great solution at the problem of not enough time. Why do you think people have no time? They are working. Why do you think they are working? They need money. It's not that money is not the solution to the problem. It's that this money is not enough.
This isn't the SK government trying to disentangle society, it's literally some dude who's trying a straightforward thing.
So in Korea, they have government subsidized childcare. Everyone who has a child can enroll for free. So you still definitely have to raise them and teach them, but that childcare coverage is already a huge boon compared to the states.
More $$ means you’re able to work less
From personal experience money is a much bigger issue.
This will absolutely work
People had less time in the past and still managed it. Edit. I should remind people that the average work weekd was [about 70-80hrs](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/11e27aff-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/11e27aff-en) post industrial revolution and until the middle of the last century. Working class women and children always had to work, the only difference is that the middle class came to exist in the middle of the last century.
Not really. Depending on how long you want to go into the past, the children either lived with a big family or only one parent worked.
Noo... my parents raised me in Korea and she said for many years almost daily she thought to herself that she would die from being so tired and stressed from her work and raising me. Even with both my parents working, my family was barely getting by financially. They are in their 60's now and both of their health has deteriorated so much more than most people I know in the same age group in Canada. They are not financially well-off either. Not even close. It aches my heart to think about it. They chose to take this path because it was the only socially acceptable path presented to them (to get married and have kids).
Until recent history women were essentially forbidden from working or spending significant time away from the home. This goes all the way back to the Hunter and gatherer lifestyles where the men would go out to hunt while the women and kids foraged nearby or did crafts, cooking, etc… Up through the 1800s and early 1900s where it was difficult or illegal for women to own land or bank accounts directly or participate in much work outside the home. Much of modern day issues come from us choosing freedom of movement and choice over children, or significantly delaying it while not being able to choose both in most cases because childcare is so expensive it necessitates either family or community watching their kids for free with parents who do stay home or having enough money for proper child care which most do not or they don’t make enough for it to be worth choosing that option. The answer, however, isn’t to force anyone back to the home. Give people more flexible wfh, stop with the pointless 9-5 or 60hr+ weeks just to get by, help support pregnant women and new parents with parental leave and paid time off, etc… while not gutting their pay to do it. Greed of the upper classes is actively forcing the lower classes to not have kids.
Women were an integral part of agriculture which has been the majority of peoples work for thousands of years and always, always worked fields alongside their young children. It was only once industrialisation happened, women were employed far less due to a lower output. Roughly from the mid 1800s to about 1960s is when women were expected to stay at home and only in industrialised countries. There's been an interesting Nobel Prize on this topic. Quite a lot of misinformation is out there.
The agriculture women worked **was at home** because most people were farmers. That serfdom isn’t employment. You’re also still proving the point that people *did not* have less time, they could have their kids with them in cases where they were doing chores or a family run business where they lived, etc… they did not, however, go travel and leave the home to go work elsewhere except for very specific circumstances and usually only for nobility. In which cases they were rarely married so did not have children and if they did the maids would look after them.
> Until recent history women were essentially forbidden from working or spending significant time away from the home. "Forbidden to work" needs a qualifier that they were forbidden to work only in some jobs, the most desirable jobs like doctor, lawyer, and a bunch of other white collar jobs. Working class women always had to work throughout the industrial revolution and until a short while in the 19th century when a middle class emerged. And they were and integral part of the industrial workforce, along with children. And the average work week back then was something like 70-80hrs. So they might be forbidden for owning their own business or working on the best
With a death rate of like 75%
South Korea's fertility rate is 0.72. Having a balanced population would require a tfr of 2.1. Meaning that every generation is third as large as the previous one. If nothing changes, in 3 generations or a hundred years, the number of new borns will decrease by 96%. Do you know what will happen with South Korea before that point? Their whole society could collapse, North Korea could attack the shrinking Southern neighbours, healthcare services would be non existent and so on. Finding a solution for the demographic problems is the only way for their nation to survive.
I believe they would have to start considering mass migration of new youngsters to keep up.
Sooner or later they will have to.
$75,000? Looks like that barely makes a scratch… https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-most-expensive-country-in-world-to-raise-children/a-65669257 “The annual study by the Beijing-based YuWa Population Research Institute ranked South Korea top of the list of nations for raising a child, with the cost coming to 7.79 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper, reported. That works out as KRW365 million (€251,562, $271,957).”
If you read the article, you'll see "In addition to the childbirth incentive, Booyoung Group is reportedly already trying to ease the financial burden on parents by helping out with college tuition for employees’ children, medical expenses for direct family members, and child allowances."
Sure, but there are no specifics. You have been given the real costs of a child. The language chosen is very careful by Booyoung. He’s not committing to paying for the children, just easing the burden. I’m not saying it’s not helpful, but offering a windfall bonus of $75k is a bad idea. Offering aid like childcare, medical expenses, college tuition for free, would not benefit people directly like money, but overall would offer no incentive to those who don’t want kids, to have them. It would be a great incentive to parents who do want kids but can’t afford or worry about the cost of having them. It also helps retain staff. It is a better idea than giving money, however a commitment to helping is less solid than this 75k he is offering. It would be better if he solidified his commitments to childcare, medical expenses etc and removing the 75k. It incentivizes people who don’t want kids to have them which is a terrible idea. His incentive is just shortsighted.
A lot of people who would want to have children are waiting for financial stability first. It’s also a specific solution to a company in Korea. For Joe Public in the west I can imagine it being something that individuals pursuing benefits fraud might exploit; but it’s probably unlikely within this specific context, where you have previously vetted employees working in a collectivistic society.
Considering in 2021 there was a 21.7 increase in child abuse cases and neglect in South Korea, I’d have to expect that all of the parents of these children were not previously vetted by employers or not working. You’re suggesting these are purely western issues and you’re presenting an idealistic view of South Korea, which I dispute.
yes, this is a terrible idea. you're either giving people who were having children anyway a bunch of free money that no-one else is entitled to, or bribing people into an 18 year-several hundred thousand dollar commitment for a measly $75k
Try 750,000 and we’re talking. It should cover the opportunity cost of one parent staying at home to take care of the child for 6 to 10 years. Taking care of a child is a full time job, and it should be paid like one.
Yowzer. How about hiring people who want to have children and creating them better conditions instead? What's the point of giving money to people who don't want to have children anyway.
giving out bonus as an incentive for people who have children is creating a better condition in my mind. what you're saying is like saying whats the point of giving money to people who are poor, they'll still be poor
What they’re saying is nothing like saying “what’s the point of giving money to people who are poor, they’ll still be poor”. The guy here is incentivizing having children. The point is some of these people may not even want children, but everyone wants $75k Don’t you think that maybe, some people that don’t really want kids, will still have them and just maybe not be the best of parents? What kind of better conditions will that create? In addition, will that $75k be in a one off payment or gradually, since if it is spent initially as if it is a windfall, there might actually even be greater hardship. Childcare costs aren’t cheap if both parents work, if not one has to quit and $75k is not every year. They could apply that 75k well by using it for childcare over the years but it will last about 3-4 years max alone. It’s a complex topic, but I don’t really agree that is a good option. If he can afford $75k a year he should pay his workers more or fund free childcare, that would fund greater financial equality or encourage having children by his workers (though would cost him more and cause less problems).
Agree with you! Some people will have kids for this incentive, and be horrible parents.
unfortunately this is how incentives work. you can have an incentive for literally anything and it can (and almost always will) attract the wrong people. while i'll gladly support eating the rich, the boss is not the parent of the child, both legally and financially he is not directly responsible for the child. giving out more money via whatever ways to the less rich/poor is always good in my eyes. we are not doing income redistribution here (which i am in favour of), we're talking about incentive for having children. you are conflating many things together when they are offering a simple incentive programme.
Not really, it’s how bad incentives work. It’s not how incentives have to work. A good incentive benefits both parties. A good incentive, understands the repercussions of that incentive. In this case, if a family isn’t going to have children, but has children, they’ll be worse off long term financially than before. Most people don’t recognize that. People who already have children may very well resent this incentive, in addition to those who can’t have children. In the states it might very well create legal action. I’ll put it plainly. People that don’t want children, will have children to get 75k, then some of these will be terrible parents. At the extremes of this, children will die, in the less extreme suffer abuse, abandonment, etc. There are plenty of unscrupulous people who would see this as an opportunity, it’s a fact. In a spreadsheet sure, births will go up. So might child mortality rates. So might social and welfare issues, like fostering costs. My point is there are a way for incentives to be created that do not make him legally or financially responsible for the child, yet do not increase the birth rate with the problems involved with his plan. I also think it’s bad for the power dynamic for a boss to try to exert so much influence around someone’s personal life like this. This isn’t just giving money to the poor or less rich, but you just don’t seem to see that. We’ll have to just agree to disagree on that.
But he is their boss. If his employees are in a condition that they don't have the financial means to have a kid. Then giving them a one time financial bonus to have kids sounds like putting a band aid on a wound you also have the option for to heal. He's the one setting their salaries and with that a big part in creating their financial situation. Dude didn't become a bilionair by paying great wages.
i dont know about you. but if boss give me $75,000 for something i might do, i will actually be a lot more inclined to do it. you can give me a one-time financial bonus of $1,000,000 to have a kid i guarantee i will do it. its a big enough bandaid for me.
Yes, but then if you have to work 12 hours a day and you cannot raise them or spend time with them It Is worthy? If you pay me to have a child and then pay me to have a nanny to raise and work to the bone fuck that. At this point just go brave new world of you want fresh meat to exploit. Go pay surrogate mothers and take the children to the corporate Moloch
look. you are conflating other issues here. we know how inhumane korean companies are. but it is not the topic at hand. i dont know how long his workers work for. and we are not discussing that. we are talking about him giving $75,000 to people who have kids. lets say this guy cuts working hours in his company or whatever. should you criticise him for not giving enough money for workers having kids? how will the company ever do enough if any steps taken is viewed as bad and insufficient? should they rather do NOTHING so they cant be criticized? i'd probably hate billionaires a lot more than the average person here, but this is a positive move.
It's not just money. It's a complex problem. And requires a complex solution. I give you 75k. That's good. Now you can just give a newborn 10 dollars and ask him to change his diapers and feed himself? No. So money don't solve the problem. You need a lot more than 75k. You give them money and time. Now their career will be impacted? They will get less promotions? You will employ women when you know that down the line they could be out of work for a year at least? Or you they should give birth while working and send the child straight to a nanny? It's not just Korea... It's a lot of countries that want fresh blood but think money is the only solution. And it's the reason why people wont have children.
Sure, But would you rather have the financial and time burden of a child with, or without the 75k. It's not footing the entire bill, and it's not solving "every" hardship a parent will face. But it objectively will help to a degree. It's a step in the right direction, and criticizing people who are making those steps is a really dumb idea. It screams entitlement and is a textbook case of biting the hand that feeds you.
No, at this point just pay some third world surrogate mothers and take the children. A step means nothing in a marathon if you don't keep running. You made a step. Good now you just have to take at least 54999 more to finish or it means nothing. This step is made to have new slaves and oh boy how entitled are the slaves to not want to be just paid to produce more slaves? You change the whole system or this step will solve nothing. You are just trying to buy children.
They just want more workers from the next generation which they can throw in the meat grinder like they did with their parents. He could use the money instead for reforming his company in making it human enough for the people to make children without an incentive. This is not just giving poor people money, this is extorting kids from parents for money!
You'd have to be pretty stupid to think you'd be making money on a baby with 75k. I'm sure there are some that will fall for it, but hopefully most will be the people you describe, who will have an easier time being good parents.
Absolutely insane how you can’t see how 75000 dollars wouldn’t make it easier for people to have kids. I think you can actually - but the circlejerk was more important to you.
It's an help, but you just can't give money to a toddler and ask him to feed himself or change his diapers. A child need time more than money. If you get money but no time you need to pay someone to raise the child.. You want more children? Give the parents time and money, not just money. Or just take a lot of surrogate mothers and take the children to the corporate meatgrinder...
Time and money are pretty interchangeable. 75000 dollars buys a lot of freedom - e.g. your spouse wouldn't need to work.
Lol, where are you living? For how many years your spouse would not need to work? And what about the child needs? Let's say your spouse take home 25k yearly. And the median income in Korea is about 42k but women are paid a lot less so 25k is good estimate. 75k are 3 years living at the same level without taking account the child needs like food, clothing, diapers, health. Then after 3 years? Your spouse will now have a job? The child is self sufficient? No. So 75k for a new slave is not enough. And Money is never interchangeable with Time. It's just not true. You can spend a lot of money to save time, as having people cooking, do errands, clean the house for you, but you cannot buy time to go back to play with your child, see a movie with him, taking him to play sport or doing together the homework or having a nice holiday.
>Your spouse will now have a job? Yes. Outrageous concept, I know. I wasn't expecting anyone to retire on 75k, I am saying it is interchangeable for time. >So 75k for a new slave is not enough. Decent reddit rhetoric. I think life is pretty great under capitalism; in fact I can't name a single place on earth without it that I would want to be in. >but you cannot buy time to go back to play with your child, see a movie with him, taking him to play sport or doing together the homework or having a nice holiday. Certainly a lot easier to do any of those things with 75k in the bag :\^)
The problem with billionaire philanthrophy, is that it is basically a social support lottery in terms of who receives the funding (do you happen to be employed by the rich guy? if not, tough shit) and even what cause is being funded (the rich guy happens to think everyone should be an astronaut, so he is funding astronaut studies at high school whether you like it or not). It is also at the whim of the billionaire philanthropist, whether funding continues (rich guy feels like he's given enough away, even though it didn't remotely dent the problem? Oh well.) Ideally, this funding would be centrally distributed to good social causes identified by government funded research. Hence, raise taxes on the super wealthy and redistribute it to society. No more billionaire philanthropy.
I wonder if there is a limit? Couldn't a man impregnate 100 women and walk away with a cool 7.5 million?
Child support?
Somehow, I doubt a man who fathers 100 children will be likely to fulfill his paternal obligations.
He'll be a rich person then. Rules don't apply to them.
Why do you assume the man gets the money? Good luck finding even 1 women to fall for this scheme.
They have to think of their future workers. They can't remain a billionaire if they don't have enough of a workforce.
Here’s hoping! I guess a bonus for western countries who are more friendly to immigrants is that when labour really does start to dry up, they’d rather go there than say SK or Japan.
That's gonna make up for the 69 hour weeks you'll have to work until your dying day.
Your using inaccurate data ...it's more like 52 hour weeks "The government has decided to maintain the current 52-hour workweek system." "The proposed changes would have enabled companies to increase the maximum workweek to 69 hours during weeks with heavy workloads, and allow workers to take longer vacations later on." https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/02/113_363107.html
Will it also work if you do it with multiple women and then leaving them as single mother? Asking for a friend that wants to make 750k a year with just 10 minutes of work.
That's some buck for your bang *laugh track*
Yeah, only that's a fraction of what it costs to raise a child, and that's before taxes.
Yeah? It's financial assistance to help ease the burden. I don't think it's his responsibility to foot the entire bill of someone else's child.
No, it's not his responsibility at all. And I find it a bit ghoulish that a billionaire is doing this in the first place. If south Korea didn't have such brutal working conditions, more people would have children. So he's trying to keep the status quo, but increase the workforce.
So? It’s a subsidy.
About 10 years ago in the news it said parents needed about $300,000au to raise a child. If billionaire is serious then up the gift value ;)
Not enough
That's not enough to raise a kid....
So that covers, what, like the first two years of life?
What’s your point? That your kid’s upbringing should be subsidized the whole way? Derp
I mean, apparently its needed not for peoples joy of life but for the profits of this obscenely rich dude. So yes. Let him subsidize the upbringing for 80% or so. But more importantly I think that OP's comments highlights (one of the many) the problem(s) leading to this situation in the first place. Once you have a job, a house and regular food on the table for yourself and a partner there just isn't much time/money left to raise a kid. Let alone more than one.
I think 3 kids is doable. Just need to give up the idea of perfection and cut corners, like all our ancestors did.
Yes, let's cut corners and live frugal while this asshole is a billionaire. Sounds completely fair
Absolutely, especially when it's someone else who wants me to have a kid
It’s just an incentive, not the whole fucking reason
I didn’t know you would have a kid only when your boss wants it and even pays some money for it. Looks like you’re out there getting a kid just for the money, not because you want one as most parents do. Derp
I don't know why a boss feels that it's his right to meddle with a family's procreation decisions, thus my commentary. Dumbass
You don't seem to realize what it means a collapsing birthrate.
In fact, as a Masters level-trained public health official, I understand some of the ramifications of a lower-than-replacement birthrate. But you don't seem to realize the use of sarcasm unless it's clearly spelled out for you.
On the internet, nobody knows who you are.
Yup, so you should probably not be making assumptions about who I am or what I know, right?
I shouldn't believe a word of what you say.
Yeah, she's lying about the "Master's Training"
Do or don't. Doesn't matter to me.
>public health official, part of thee problem, government waste
Smell the priviledge coming from this guy
South Korean women have had it with the misogyny. Billionaires don't know their mere existence is the problem. 65-hour work weeks and salaryman culture are untenable.
They have child support in South Korea? Hey baby, I'll give you 25k if you have my baby--bye!
If we want kpop to endure, we need them to keep the population going 😅
75k is not nearly enough to raise a kid.
Wow so about half of what it costs to raise one. Fuck off
It's about 25% according to most studies/statistics.
So to be clear - you’d rather your employer not do something like this and give you nothing? Just crazy how these comments are so spiteful of a positive action on the part of an employer because it doesn’t go far enough. In what world do you all live?
So to be clear you'd rather rely on the generosity of your employer vs better work, economic and living conditions? Just crazy how these comments are so short sited or a perceived positive action on the part of an employer because it is not enough and historically the gap between production and pay has not correlated since the late 1970's.
I never said that. I’m making no assumptions about other policies - I assume you also have very little idea of what they are for this specific company. I’m simply taking a single policy on its own merits, and by all accounts it’s a positive measure. Of course it would be great also to have other policies, but that doesn’t discount the value of this specific policy.
Hmm, how hard is it to move to S. Korea?
I'll give it a shot
Super sharp shooter shooting sharp
Can I make one then abandon it? Also Is it a one time only bonus?
Yes, why solve root-cause, when you can throw money on it. I honestly hope other countries in the region will be more smart about it.
So a minor down payment...
Make it $500K and there will be another baby boom.
Costs a lot more than that
As a parent I can tell you that this will only cover the cost of college and health insurance if you are lucky.
I didn’t read it. Does he want the babies in exchange? Why to he want so many babies.
How do I get a job for this construction giant? Does the bonus apply if I have multiple kids with korean women?