same with japan.
If South Korea is over, I'd like to see them reunite with North Korea someday, thereby becoming Korea once again 
Is that a white man narrating?
Is that a white man narrating?
Probably an AI voice or TTS voice
Probably an AI voice or TTS voice
This channel's been active since at least 2016 when the misinformation thing was trending. That was long before ai voices were possible.
That said, honestly I find this whole thing a bit silly. Its essentially saying 'humans are going to go extinct, because everyone decided to stop making babies'. Seriously, what are the odds of THAT seriously happening? Yeah, the population decline thing is real, and will have negative consequences, but I highly doubt humans are going to go extinct just because they mysteriously lost interest in making babies.
South Korea will be an eternally fucked up country, politically, if it keeps to the stupid two party political system. The centrist reformists need their own party, as the country is split three ways. The CRs from both PPP and DPK need to leave their respective parties and unite as one. The closest the country has ever got to being truly represented was with the 2016 parliamentary election, with Ahn leading his own party. In the perfect timeline, Ahn would probably be president now, there'd be two four-year terms, and runoffs for presidential elections.
Uh, I thought South Korea essentially had a one-party system? From what I've heard, the split with North Korea was due to political polarization. Their left became communist, and the right became overly conservative. Its why South Korea looks like its literally run purely by American conservatives. Of course, the split did technically happen decades ago, and South Korea has changed government a total of five times, and I've never been much into their politics, so what do I know?
Uh, I thought South Korea essentially had a one-party system? From what I've heard, the split with North Korea was due to political polarization. Their left became communist, and the right became overly conservative. Its why South Korea looks like its literally run purely by American conservatives. Of course, the split did technically happen decades ago, and South Korea has changed government a total of five times, and I've never been much into their politics, so what do I know?
Currently, North Korea is a one-party state.
South Korea has a multi-party system. Just that the largest two parties is the PPP (leans conservative) and DPK (leans liberal).
Idk what you mean by their left and right becoming communist and conservative... The split basically started because North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union while the South was backed by the US/UN. attempts for democratic elections by the UN failed to reach the North, so they were only held in the South. This is why the North was led by Kim Il-Sung and the South by Rhee Syngman. Later on, South Korea would become a democratic republic in the late 90s, after a period of autocracy. dk if I would say that it's entirely run by American conservatives...
(this explanation leaves out a lot of other things, obviously... im also not an expert on this either 
)
somehow south korea existed for hundreds of years with much less population than it has now. That's the same for every other country in the world.
maybe just maybe people are compensating for the unnatural explosion of humans that has invaded the earth in the past 50 years and we need to stop worrying so much about the rich people loosing stock money because the economy isn't gonna be growing forever like they need it to
and the old people will probably find a way to take care of themselves
somehow south korea existed for hundreds of years with much less population than it has now. That's the same for every other country in the world.
maybe just maybe people are compensating for the unnatural explosion of humans that has invaded the earth in the past 50 years and we need to stop worrying so much about the rich people loosing stock money because the economy isn't gonna be growing forever like they need it to
and the old people will probably find a way to take care of themselves
You have to remember that there is a ticking timebomb called pensions. The majority of the world's pensions are like Ponzi schemes, whereby the youngest pay for the eldest, which needs to change. "Paying your way" seems to be the only answer, with support for those who fall below a certain amount of wealth to pay for their care when they're older. Self-funded pensions would be a step forward.
This is a problem facing the entire first world, not just Korea, and while they have the lowest rate, probably the stupidest thing we could do is just point to South Korea and say “sucks to be them” without realising we’re all hurtling down the same track.
The video touches that at the end. The USA and UK have a rate of 1.6 which isn’t much better than South Korea’s 0.72 because everything below 2.1 is detrimental.
This is a problem facing the entire first world, not just Korea, and while they have the lowest rate, probably the stupidest thing we could do is just point to South Korea and say “sucks to be them” without realising we’re all hurtling down the same track.
The video touches that at the end. The USA and UK have a rate of 1.6 which isn’t much better than South Korea’s 0.72 because everything below 2.1 is detrimental.
Not to mention the world's pension systems rely on a lot of young ppl existing, and there aren't as many these days compared to years gone by...
Yeah, the whole thing could collapse in the future. If I was in charge I would look to start taxing the wealth and assets of the super-rich and using that to subsidise state pensions.
Yeah, the whole thing could collapse in the future. If I was in charge, I would look to start taxing the wealth and assets of the super-rich and using that to subsidise state pensions.
Oh God, no! It'll cause them to flee to other lower tax countries. The best course is to make funding your own pension mandatory. Similar to Singapore, and similar to how healthcare in Switzerland is.
That’s a common misconception. Taxing the super-rich means taxing the assets they own (i.e the buildings and companies they own). They can’t take those assets abroad. It’s something first world countries must do to stop the growing wealth gap, which imo is one of the biggest causes of the low-birthrate.
But for pensions specifically, you’re right there’s good models that could be followed too.
Edit: Here’s a video that explains taxing the assets of the super-rich much better than I could ever.
Is that a white man narrating?
And the race of narrator is important for what reason?
Edit: Here’s a video that explains taxing the assets of the super-rich much better than I could ever.
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
You really had to use the guy who told tales about career in finance? 
I thought we could have a discussion in good faith, but it seems not. Shame. 
I thought we could have a discussion in good faith, but it seems not. Shame.
We can, but not with him as a reference. Wealth taxes are only as good as what they are applied to. In addition, those who are wealthy will always leave if they feel they are being hit "hardest", as they have the means to leave until those who don't earn as much.
It’s about taxing the assets and holding of the super-rich: the properties, the buildings, the companies, the debt. They cannot “leave” and take those assets with them because they are intrinsically in the counties they are in.
We saw it with the Russian billionaires who had their assets sold by European governments to help Ukraine, they weren’t able to take those assets with them (and even if you could take a row of houses from central London and drop it in the Caymen islands, it would lose all its value anyway). Those are the assets that we need to tax to solve wealth inequality, and it is that wealth inequality that is the root cause to low birth rates (in my opinion).
People cannot afford a house to raise a family in anymore, this is because house prices keep going up, the reason they keep going up is because the growing wealth inequality allows the super-rich to buy more and more of a country’s assets (in this case housing) squeezing out lesser folk who are now priced out the market.
People cannot afford a house to raise a family in anymore, this is because house prices keep going up, the reason they keep going up is because the growing wealth inequality allows the super-rich to buy more and more of a country’s assets (in this case housing) squeezing out lesser folk who are now priced out the market.
Actually, the reason why house prices are going up is because there isn't enough housebuilding, not wealth inequality. Going down the Singapore route would be interesting. For example, in the UK, the average house price is £296,699 (as of March 2024, though differs from region to region).
halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html
The UK built just 217,911 homes. 217,911. A country that has 4.3 million missing homes that should've been built over the last 80 years.
Savills UK | English Housing Supply Update Q4 2024
Anyway, that's about the UK. What SKorea needs is to build more, and focus less on Seoul being the place where opportunities are born. Investing in other regions and cities would alleviate the crisis going on in Seoul, and push people out towards other areas. Seoul is essentially a city-state within a country. Like saying if Singapore in Malaysia (yes, I know the historical analogy, too).
Is that a white man narrating?
nah probably a purple one.. 
Display MoreCurrently, North Korea is a one-party state.
South Korea has a multi-party system. Just that the largest two parties is the PPP (leans conservative) and DPK (leans liberal).
Idk what you mean by their left and right becoming communist and conservative... The split basically started because North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union while the South was backed by the US/UN. attempts for democratic elections by the UN failed to reach the North, so they were only held in the South. This is why the North was led by Kim Il-Sung and the South by Rhee Syngman. Later on, South Korea would become a democratic republic in the late 90s, after a period of autocracy. dk if I would say that it's entirely run by American conservatives...
(this explanation leaves out a lot of other things, obviously... im also not an expert on this either
South Korea wasn't any better than North Korea until recently. The souths military killed hundreds of thousands of civilians by firing squad during the war, and a lot of the mass graves weren't discovered until after the 90s. The US army photographers that were attached to some South Korean MP units and Infinity units took pictures of people being lined up and shot and pictures of bodies in mass graves but suppressed this information etc.
The Bodo League massacre is a good example of this. If you're interested in this topic I def recommend you look into the war crimes done by the ROK. The low estimate for just the Bodo League massacre is that they tortured and executed 60,000 civilians and the high estimate is 200,000. Syngman Rhee also directly ordered that this particular massacre be carried out.
When the south recaptured Seoul they executed 30,000 civilians in the city etc.
There are also things like the Jeju April 3 incident before the war where around 10% of the population of the Island of Jeju was killed. If you want to go deep there are lots of other things like the Yeo-Sun incident etc.
People cannot afford a house to raise a family in anymore, this is because house prices keep going up, the reason they keep going up is because the growing wealth inequality allows the super-rich to buy more and more of a country’s assets (in this case housing) squeezing out lesser folk who are now priced out the market.
However, if a land value tax were to be implemented, I'm all for it. It would mean those in Seoul will be paying more than those in the satellite cities around it, but it should incentivise housebuilding elsewhere, and plan for better commute from such areas.
At the moment, Busan is the news for being a “dying city”, and is projected to have a much steeper population decline than Seoul. Locals say it is because the industries and companies have all been pushed out.
I’ve heard the South Korean government are trying to decentralise and have moved some services and industries to cities neighbouring Seoul. Not sure if anything can be done to save Busan though as it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as more young people move away, companies will be reluctant to set up there with the diminished employee pool.
I live in Ulsan, just to the north. Here is the industrial hub of South Korea with the Hyundai car factory and shipwright. So there’s no shortage of jobs here, but one thing I have noticed is there are now a lot more SEA migrant workers to fill positions than their used to be.
At the moment, Busan is the news for being a “dying city”, and is projected to have a much steeper population decline than Seoul. Locals say it is because the industries and companies have all been pushed out.
I’ve heard the South Korean government are trying to decentralise and have moved some services and industries to cities neighbouring Seoul. Not sure if anything can be done to save Busan though as it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as more young people move away, companies will be reluctant to set up there with the diminished employee pool.
I live in Ulsan, just to the north. Here is the industrial hub of South Korea with the Hyundai car factory and shipwright. So there’s no shortage of jobs here, but one thing I have noticed is there are now a lot more SEA migrant workers to fill positions than their used to be.
That is a concern about Busan. This might be controversial, but I wonder if a merger between Busan, Ulsan, and Changwon might be a part of the solution? My merging them together under one authority, catering to all three at the sane time, without any differentiating policies, might help Busan. I don't know the transport situation between the three, but I imagine some sort of joined-up rail and bus system might help with ppl wanting to stay in Busan.
Yeah, the whole thing could collapse in the future. If I was in charge I would look to start taxing the wealth and assets of the super-rich and using that to subsidise state pensions.
That's kind of what's failing in the US. They talk about taxing the rich and they just move somewhere else that has a lower tax rate or they hide money in investments that show loss or foreign investment accounts. They always find a way to hide the money
How is healthcare in Switzerland? My country was praised by WHO for affordable medical service for everyone despite a developing country. I paid 100 baht (roughly 3 USD) to see the doctor, got blood test and some pills. This sounds cheap, doesn't it? But, I should not have paid a dime if not the hospital was broke. The state policy was FREE healthcare. An insider (my cousin) working at that very hospital told me the hospital had run in deficit that it started to charge everyone 100 baht for every hospital visit or the service was automatically denied. This is a large hospital in suburban area with always fully occupied premium rooms. I heard those hospitals in remote areas got it way worse.
Real estate tax is not as simple as that. Who is to shoulder the tax, the already struggling tenant or the landlord? This will drive more and more people to "gosiwon" or tiny studio with 5 - 10 sq. meters of size.
Also, the rich always has its way to evade this tax. A way is to register the home under the corporate ownership. So, it's the company, not them, to pay the tax. And, this real estate tax will become the corporate expense to deduct the corporate tax. In the end, this is but a petty attack on them.
How is healthcare in Switzerland? My country was praised by WHO for affordable medical service for everyone despite a developing country. I paid 100 baht (roughly 3 USD) to see the doctor, got blood test and some pills. This sounds cheap, doesn't it? But, I should not have paid a dime if not the hospital was broke. The state policy was FREE healthcare. An insider (my cousin) working at that very hospital told me the hospital had run in deficit that it started to charge everyone 100 baht for every hospital visit or the service was automatically denied. This is a large hospital in suburban area with always fully occupied premium rooms. I heard those hospitals in remote areas got it way worse.
Swiss healthcare is one of the best in the world for outcomes and treatments. Yes, it's mandatory health insurance, but you are subsidised if you fall below a certain incomes threshold.
Healthcare is never free. That is a misnomer. In one way or another, you pay for it unless you fall under a threshold in a country like Switzerland.
Real estate tax is not as simple as that. Who is to shoulder the tax, the already struggling tenant or the landlord? This will drive more and more people to "gosiwon" or tiny studio with 5 - 10 sq. meters of size.
Also, the rich always has its way to evade this tax. A way is to register the home under the corporate ownership. So, it's the company, not them, to pay the tax. And, this real estate tax will become the corporate expense to deduct the corporate tax. In the end, this is but a petty attack on them.
A simple way is to charge how we do in the UK with council tax, which is against the occupant of a property, not the owner (unless it's a property of multiple occupancy, then the landlord pays).
Gosiwon-type properties should be banned, and program to build more housing, akin to Singapore, should be implemented.
Swiss healthcare is one of the best in the world for outcomes and treatments. Yes, it's mandatory health insurance, but you are subsidised if you fall below a certain incomes threshold.
https://www.internationalinsur…h/systems/switzerland.php
Healthcare is never free. That is a misnomer. In one way or another, you pay for it unless you fall under a threshold in a country like Switzerland.
There was the plan to charge the better-off but was strongly opposed by the medical officers themselves. It would cost the hospital to hire more employees to work with the income data 24/7. The more income the hospital might earn would not worth the additional expenses + more works for the hospital. This would mean even longer waiting time for the patient too. Besides, my country never had had thorough credible income tracking record.
A simple way is to charge how we do in the UK with council tax, which is against the occupant of a property, not the owner (unless it's a property of multiple occupancy, then the landlord pays).
Gosiwon-type properties should be banned, and program to build more housing, akin to Singapore, should be implemented.
Ummm. The company can still cover the real estate tax for the executive listing it as housing welfare for the executive. Besides, what's about the land without anyone living on it? (Factories, markets, plantations etc.)
Singapore definitely is not a country with affordable decent housing for the poor. And, too much resident units can cause pollution and various problems lessening living quality.
That is a concern about Busan. This might be controversial, but I wonder if a merger between Busan, Ulsan, and Changwon might be a part of the solution? My merging them together under one authority, catering to all three at the sane time, without any differentiating policies, might help Busan. I don't know the transport situation between the three, but I imagine some sort of joined-up rail and bus system might help with ppl wanting to stay in Busan.
I am not knowledgeable about this at all, but my thoughts would be you’re right about public transport being key. I think if you want people to live in Busan and be able to commute to Ulsan or Changwon you need to expand the subway to cover all 3 cities so you can get on in wherever in Busan and get off in Ulsan or Changwon without needing to leave the subway. Ulsan and Busan are already tentatively connected, the subway merges into the train line in Ulsan, but the problem is once in Ulsan you have to switch over to buses and they are sparse and still take ages to get around because the city covers such a wide land area (it’s more like several towns scattered along the coast/mountains than a big metropolitan hub).
Same with Changwon, the subway goes as far as Gimhae (Busan airport) but then you need to swap over to buses, and at the end of the day it’s just easier to move to those cities than stay in Busan.
An expanded subway would turn it into a proper rival for Seoul/Incheon I think.
I am not knowledgeable about this at all, but my thoughts would be you’re right about public transport being key. I think if you want people to live in Busan and be able to commute to Ulsan or Changwon you need to expand the subway to cover all 3 cities so you can get on in wherever in Busan and get off in Ulsan or Changwon without needing to leave the subway. Ulsan and Busan are already tentatively connected, the subway merges into the train line in Ulsan, but the problem is once in Ulsan you have to switch over to buses and they are sparse and still take ages to get around because the city covers such a wide land area (it’s more like several towns scattered along the coast/mountains than a big metropolitan hub).
Same with Changwon, the subway goes as far as Gimhae (Busan airport) but then you need to swap over to buses, and at the end of the day it’s just easier to move to those cities than stay in Busan.
An expanded subway would turn it into a proper rival for Seoul/Incheon I think.
Looking at the map of the area, incorporating Gimhae, and even possibly Miryang, would be appropriate when it comes to transport. I think merging them together is preferable into one city, like I believe with Seoul and some surrounding cities, as the layers of bureaucracy would be reduced when it comes housebuilding, and such cities could possibly incentivize builders by offering tax breaks (though, that would have to be a power devolved from central government).
same with japan.
Korea is in a worse situation
"In Japan, the rate is 1.3. In South Korea, it has dropped as low as 0.87. Even in the United States, it’s only 1.66. These numbers suggest slow decline, but the reality may be steeper."
This is a problem facing the entire first world, not just Korea, and while they have the lowest rate, probably the stupidest thing we could do is just point to South Korea and say “sucks to be them” without realising we’re all hurtling down the same track.
The video touches that at the end. The USA and UK have a rate of 1.6 which isn’t much better than South Korea’s 0.72 because everything below 2.1 is detrimental.
It was discovered recently that the actual number is 2.7 instead of 2.1, as in the article above says
Welp, we’re even more screwed if that’s the case. I have been thinking recently, that Korea focuses too much on incentives for having “at least 1 child”, for example, I saw a scheme for getting a near free apartment in Incheon for couples with young children/expecting, but these schemes are likely to get the number closer to 1, not above. What you really need to do is have an incentive for couples to have 3 children. For example, if they gave a payout of a $5k for the 1st child, $50k for the 2nd and $500k for the 3rd.
For example, if they gave a payout of a $5k for the 1st child, $50k for the 2nd and $500k for the 3rd.
I don't know about paying out THAT much, but is there such a thing like child benefit or child tax credits like we have in the UK? It means you receive benefits, in work and out, depending on how many children you have.
Welp, we’re even more screwed if that’s the case. I have been thinking recently, that Korea focuses too much on incentives for having “at least 1 child”, for example, I saw a scheme for getting a near free apartment in Incheon for couples with young children/expecting, but these schemes are likely to get the number closer to 1, not above. What you really need to do is have an incentive for couples to have 3 children. For example, if they gave a payout of a $5k for the 1st child, $50k for the 2nd and $500k for the 3rd.
Stats show this kind of benefit has never worked. Free nice nursery close to workplace works better.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
