I’ve heard it said that no kids zones are largely driven by liability. Apparently courts there are inclined to hand out excessive penalties when a child is injured at a business.
In which case, it’s yet another example of policy having unforeseen consequences. An effort to protect kids leads to families having fewer options and fewer kids being born.
But if 60%+ of the population supports them, maybe the noise of kids is part of it too. Or maybe liability got the ball rolling, but now it has taken on a life of its own where people seek these establishments out.
South Korea seems to be a culture that chose suicide.
They may not understand this right now, but the quoted 68% support for having no-kid zones means they decided to commit a nationwide prolonged suicide. This may be extended in time, and they will probably enjoy this time while it lasts, but at some point they will understand that they just will vanish off the face of the planet, and it will be too late to do anything. It is probably already too late.
Whoever wants to visit South Korea while it still exists - do it now.
I don't really see how sparsity is a relevant metric.
First off, most of Canada's population is in large cities, not evenly spread over the tundra.
Second, absolute numbers matter.
Third, population structure *really* matters: how can one worker support multiple retirees? What does a fully gerontocratic culture with proportionally few able bodied workers or soldiers look like?
there are 21 cities with over half a million people in south korea.
If population was 5% of what it is now that doesn't mean that each city shrinks by 95%. what it could mean instead is that 20 of the cities are gone and only 1 exists, but the one that still exists still has a full half a million people.
Like in a free market people will move around in ways that make sense.
Re absolute numbers: If Iceland can exist as a tiny country why can't south korea?
1) Iceland doesn't have a revanchist militaristic neighbour who it is still technically at war with and who claims its territory.
2) Iceland is part of NATO.
3) Old people are reluctant to move - see the villages in Japan which aren't really viable and consist almost entirely of the elderly.
Again, though, by far the biggest issue here isn't a country instantly getting smaller with the same age structure, it's having an overwhelming number of elderly dependents crashing the health and welfare systems and with enormous political power.
People per kilometer is really not a metric that matters.
If those people who are left are mostly elderly, how are they going to sustain themselves? Who's going to feed them?
If large clusters of economy crumble because there is just no able-bodied workers and the knowledge is lost, how the economy is going to keep going? Who's going to pay the taxes to keep the country going?
If there are no people left to defend the land, what stops the North Korea from moving in? I don't know if there is any reliable data on the birth rates situation in North Korea, but I suspect it's different from South Korea.
And sure, probably North Korea has inferior weaponry, but you know, if they have people and the other side has no people, it doesn't matter how inferior your rifles and tanks are. It's people that win the war, not rifles.
It's called "savings", a concept that seems to be lost on Westerners but not on the peoples of Asia.
As for the idea the economy will "crumble" did it after WW1 or WW2 or the black death? And how exactly is "knowledge" going to be lost? More "Let's import migrants, that will work" nonsense,
I suggest you roll some banknotes into a sausage and try to eat them. Just to get the concept of "savings" right.
If there is no food being produced, it doesn't matter how much money you have in your bank account. Money is not a thing in its own right, it's a social construct. If the society no longer exists, that construct is moot.
If food will be in short supply, because there are not enough people working the fields, or any part of the supply chain is struggling - the prices will go to the roof, and the value of money will tank. Life savings will vanish overnight.
Yes, various economies did crumble during the XX century, more than once. Have you seen the economy of Germany after First World War? Food riots, insane hyperinflation, mass unemployment. It took them 15 years to get out of it.
And they didn't have any problems with the actual workforce or birth rates; they just had problems with the societal structure failing (and insane reparations). So there was a path out for them, they just had to tank through it and wait it out.
In Korea's situation, I don't see a path out.
---
In modern history, there is no analogy to what is going to come.
Since South Korea has mandatory military service, it seems the easiest way to solve the birth rate issue would be to have an equivalent for young women where they work in state-operated childcare centers for the same two-year period in which young men serve.
This would not only reduce the financial burden of having children, but also accustom young people to seeing young children. Additionally, it would help create a fair equivalent to military service -- you could even make it so young people can choose which service to go into, instead of sorting automatically based on sex, in the interest of fairness. (They'd mostly sort themselves by sex, of course)
This would provide young people with the skills needed to care for families, socialize them towards young children, and make sure everyone gets the same two years of camaraderie, structure, and service to their country.
It wouldn't work anywhere that doesn't have the precedent of mandatory military service, but it seems like an easier solution for South Korea specifically.
I mean there’s a big gap between ‘no kids at this place in particular’ and ‘we don’t have kids at all’. That’s just conflation. Yes SK does have a growing movement against marriage and kids but that’s more to do with scarcity of good mates and lack of social resources. Kid friendly or not establishments are not really affecting anything at all in terms of those declines. Just get family or a babysitter if you wanna go. They’re not saying you can’t come in if you’ve given birth. Only to leave the birth out until it’s able to behave.
If you believe signs saying “No kids” make no difference what would you say if the signs said “No blacks” or “No mixed couples” or “No Democrats” or “No women” ? I’m sure you’d be outraged because you’ve been told to be.
Of course it makes no difference it’s not a government policy it’s a social preference. You’re now being alarmist and reductive conflating it with no black/jew/whatever. Not being able to take a child to an establishment catering toward adults is perfectly reasonable. Same way you can’t take em to R rated movies. Or put them on certain rides at Disney. Or are you gonna say that’s exclusionary too now? You’re also ignoring all the historical context regarding profiling bc racial minorities and excluding them. I understand it takes a capable intellect to understand and as you are not displaying the ability to critically view the differences, I’m sure you’ll understand why I say ‘no uneducated people’ get my time. X.
I mean. Sounds great. Kid friendly places and places to be free from the noise etc. Less chances of liability also. With all the food allergies and the like. It makes complete sense. Airlines need to have family friendly cabins or planes too.
I’ve heard it said that no kids zones are largely driven by liability. Apparently courts there are inclined to hand out excessive penalties when a child is injured at a business.
In which case, it’s yet another example of policy having unforeseen consequences. An effort to protect kids leads to families having fewer options and fewer kids being born.
But if 60%+ of the population supports them, maybe the noise of kids is part of it too. Or maybe liability got the ball rolling, but now it has taken on a life of its own where people seek these establishments out.
South Korea seems to be a culture that chose suicide.
They may not understand this right now, but the quoted 68% support for having no-kid zones means they decided to commit a nationwide prolonged suicide. This may be extended in time, and they will probably enjoy this time while it lasts, but at some point they will understand that they just will vanish off the face of the planet, and it will be too late to do anything. It is probably already too late.
Whoever wants to visit South Korea while it still exists - do it now.
South Korea has about 500 people per square Kilometer.
Canada has about 5 people per square Kilometer.
That means that even if south Korea losses 80 percent of it's population per generation, it will take 3 full generations to be as sparce as Canada.
A lot can happen in 4 generations and trends can change.
If Canada manages to exist as a country and a culture at 5 people per Kilometer then so can South Korea.
I don't really see how sparsity is a relevant metric.
First off, most of Canada's population is in large cities, not evenly spread over the tundra.
Second, absolute numbers matter.
Third, population structure *really* matters: how can one worker support multiple retirees? What does a fully gerontocratic culture with proportionally few able bodied workers or soldiers look like?
re sparcity I assume if there were lesss south koreans they could also move to large cities, right? like according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_South_Korea
there are 21 cities with over half a million people in south korea.
If population was 5% of what it is now that doesn't mean that each city shrinks by 95%. what it could mean instead is that 20 of the cities are gone and only 1 exists, but the one that still exists still has a full half a million people.
Like in a free market people will move around in ways that make sense.
Re absolute numbers: If Iceland can exist as a tiny country why can't south korea?
1) Iceland doesn't have a revanchist militaristic neighbour who it is still technically at war with and who claims its territory.
2) Iceland is part of NATO.
3) Old people are reluctant to move - see the villages in Japan which aren't really viable and consist almost entirely of the elderly.
Again, though, by far the biggest issue here isn't a country instantly getting smaller with the same age structure, it's having an overwhelming number of elderly dependents crashing the health and welfare systems and with enormous political power.
People per kilometer is really not a metric that matters.
If those people who are left are mostly elderly, how are they going to sustain themselves? Who's going to feed them?
If large clusters of economy crumble because there is just no able-bodied workers and the knowledge is lost, how the economy is going to keep going? Who's going to pay the taxes to keep the country going?
If there are no people left to defend the land, what stops the North Korea from moving in? I don't know if there is any reliable data on the birth rates situation in North Korea, but I suspect it's different from South Korea.
And sure, probably North Korea has inferior weaponry, but you know, if they have people and the other side has no people, it doesn't matter how inferior your rifles and tanks are. It's people that win the war, not rifles.
It's called "savings", a concept that seems to be lost on Westerners but not on the peoples of Asia.
As for the idea the economy will "crumble" did it after WW1 or WW2 or the black death? And how exactly is "knowledge" going to be lost? More "Let's import migrants, that will work" nonsense,
I suggest you roll some banknotes into a sausage and try to eat them. Just to get the concept of "savings" right.
If there is no food being produced, it doesn't matter how much money you have in your bank account. Money is not a thing in its own right, it's a social construct. If the society no longer exists, that construct is moot.
If food will be in short supply, because there are not enough people working the fields, or any part of the supply chain is struggling - the prices will go to the roof, and the value of money will tank. Life savings will vanish overnight.
Yes, various economies did crumble during the XX century, more than once. Have you seen the economy of Germany after First World War? Food riots, insane hyperinflation, mass unemployment. It took them 15 years to get out of it.
And they didn't have any problems with the actual workforce or birth rates; they just had problems with the societal structure failing (and insane reparations). So there was a path out for them, they just had to tank through it and wait it out.
In Korea's situation, I don't see a path out.
---
In modern history, there is no analogy to what is going to come.
International trade? The elderly can get their savings in dollars and buy shit from USA or China?
LMAO what a bad metric. Comparing barely inhabitable tundra to South Korea
Since South Korea has mandatory military service, it seems the easiest way to solve the birth rate issue would be to have an equivalent for young women where they work in state-operated childcare centers for the same two-year period in which young men serve.
This would not only reduce the financial burden of having children, but also accustom young people to seeing young children. Additionally, it would help create a fair equivalent to military service -- you could even make it so young people can choose which service to go into, instead of sorting automatically based on sex, in the interest of fairness. (They'd mostly sort themselves by sex, of course)
This would provide young people with the skills needed to care for families, socialize them towards young children, and make sure everyone gets the same two years of camaraderie, structure, and service to their country.
It wouldn't work anywhere that doesn't have the precedent of mandatory military service, but it seems like an easier solution for South Korea specifically.
Perhaps society should be required by law to accommodate children just like disabled people.
Neither should exist. The market can decide.
The future belongs to those who have kids, let the misery guts grow old and lonely.
I mean there’s a big gap between ‘no kids at this place in particular’ and ‘we don’t have kids at all’. That’s just conflation. Yes SK does have a growing movement against marriage and kids but that’s more to do with scarcity of good mates and lack of social resources. Kid friendly or not establishments are not really affecting anything at all in terms of those declines. Just get family or a babysitter if you wanna go. They’re not saying you can’t come in if you’ve given birth. Only to leave the birth out until it’s able to behave.
This is nonsense.
There is ALWAYS a lack of “Good” mating partners.
If you believe signs saying “No kids” make no difference what would you say if the signs said “No blacks” or “No mixed couples” or “No Democrats” or “No women” ? I’m sure you’d be outraged because you’ve been told to be.
And that’s the point.
Of course it makes no difference it’s not a government policy it’s a social preference. You’re now being alarmist and reductive conflating it with no black/jew/whatever. Not being able to take a child to an establishment catering toward adults is perfectly reasonable. Same way you can’t take em to R rated movies. Or put them on certain rides at Disney. Or are you gonna say that’s exclusionary too now? You’re also ignoring all the historical context regarding profiling bc racial minorities and excluding them. I understand it takes a capable intellect to understand and as you are not displaying the ability to critically view the differences, I’m sure you’ll understand why I say ‘no uneducated people’ get my time. X.
Bye bot.
Imagine the uproar if a cafe banned old people…
I mean. Sounds great. Kid friendly places and places to be free from the noise etc. Less chances of liability also. With all the food allergies and the like. It makes complete sense. Airlines need to have family friendly cabins or planes too.