

As Families Change, Korea’s Elderly Are Turning to Suicide  - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/world/asia/in-korea-changes-in-society-and-family-dynamics-drive-rise-in-elderly-suicides.html?pagewanted=all

======
uvdiv
This is a severe abuse of statistics.

 _They are succeeding at alarming rates; the suicides among people 65 or older
ballooned to 4,378 in 2010, from 1,161 in 2000._

The are _absolute counts, not rates_. The male 65+ population went up 70% in
the same period, and the 75+ subgroup doubled [1]. This explains away much of
the increase (c.f. generic statistics in [2]). And at the same time:

 _The number of suicides among other adults and teenagers also surged..._ (no
numbers)

Is it even clear the age-normalized suicide rate increased _at all_ among the
elderly, relative to the general population? I don't think the journalist
checked.

edit: BBC says Korea's general-population suicide "more than doubled" over the
same period [3]. So the 65+ suicide rate is almost completely explained by the
null hypothesis. The count of 65+ suicides went up by 3.77x; the male 65+
population increased by 1.68x, and the general population suicide rate by
>2.0x, which together is a factor of 3.36x. That leaves a <12% increase in
[65+ suicide rate]/[general population suicide rate] (I'm still ignoring (rare
[2]) female suicides). In a better analysis this might completely disappear.
E.g. the 75+ subgroup outgrew the 65+ subgroup and they are much more suicidal
[2], but I don't know how much more.

[1]
[http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/regi...](http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/region.php?N=%20Results%20&T=10&A=separate&RT=0&Y=2000,2010&R=-1&C=KS)

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5236508>

[3] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14784776>

~~~
azakai
Totally correct.

Also, it seemed odd not to compare to suicide rates in other countries - was
it low before and typical now? Or typical before and high now? We can't tell
from the article.

There might be substance in the topic, but the numbers presented don't support
it.

------
tokenadult
This, by the way, is one of the reasons that the aggregate national suicide
rate in Korea (and also in Japan) exceeds the aggregate national suicide rate
in the United States. The elderly (persons born before the end of the Korean
War, and especially before the end of World War II) in those countries kill
themselves at a much higher rate than the same birth cohort in the United
States. On the other hand, rates of YOUTH suicide in recent decades have been
much more comparable among those countries, and once when I checked in the
1990s, looking up World Health Organisation statistics, the youth suicide rate
in the United States was actually higher than that in Japan. So some of the
international comparisons in suicide rates have to take a careful look at
cohort effects (rates specific to a particular era of birth) to better tease
out hypotheses for the causes of differing rates of suicide.

This is an old issue all over the world, including in east Asia, the issue of
children growing up and taking care of themselves and their children rather
than their elderly parents. A comment on Hacker News (as I recall) recently
mentioned the 1953 Japanese movie Tokyo Story (東京物語), which I began watching
on a DVD from the public library last night. Yes, even in 1953 in early
postwar Japan, families had to adjust to children not necessarily being by the
side of their parents as the parents grew old.

~~~
abrowne
Seconding Ozu's _Tokyo Story_. You can watch it for free on Hulu today – I
assume only in the US – along with the rest of the Criterion Collection:
<[http://www.hulu.com/watch/215840>](http://www.hulu.com/watch/215840>).

------
matterhorn
Certainly, when individuals vote to turn over personal responsibilities to the
the government, things will turn out badly in the end. However, the break down
of personal responsibilities within families is not the result of economic
success. Has the article's author considered their implied message - that if
only Koreans had experienced economic failure, then everybody would just happy
as pigs in slop? That's absurd, of course, as their northern neighbors provide
the perfect example for the comparison. If there is a breakdown in familial
responsibilities, it is not likely to be the result of economic success. Many
people around the world work not just in a distant city, but in a distant
country in order to send the fruits of higher earnings home to family - so it
is not reasonable to assume that moving to a different city somehow forces a
person to lose their sense of familial responsibility. If such a breakdown is
occurring, the explanation for its cause lies somewhere other than economic
success.

~~~
anigbrowl
So why don't EU countries have a very high suicide rate, since they have even
more pervasive welfare states?
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134928/pdf/jivr...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134928/pdf/jivr-03-80.pdf)

~~~
uvdiv
Your paper shows that some of them do. In all four tables (age/sex subgroups),
the top quartile includes France, Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland, as well
as South Korea. Germany is in the top quartile for females.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's the ones that don't which disprove the hypothesis. Ireland and the UK
both have pervasive public health systems, with nursing homes being a more
common destination for the aged than living with children, but are only in the
second quartile.

------
genwin
Maybe a few centuries from now our major societies will no longer rely on
population growth. The consequences of this unsustainable approach won't be
pretty. My kid will be expected to financially support at least two retirees
via Social Security contributions _and_ pay back a chunk of those borrowed
$trillions.

~~~
kaonashi
Your kid will have to support retirees through the output of his labor; the
labor required to support a person is dropping , and soon it can be completely
automated. The financial economy is a heuristic to explain the underlying
economic conditions, not vice-versa.

~~~
genwin
As labor is automated there will be increasing downward pressure on my kid's
wages and job prospects. Harder work will be required to pay the taxes that
are increased to make up for the falling wages.

~~~
kaonashi
As labor is automated, labor share of profits will fall under current
arrangements; and the political pressure to change those arrangements will
increase.

~~~
genwin
But the political pressure from the wealthy overrides the pressure from the
average person. Hence taxes go up as wages fall in response to labor
automation.

------
chadcf
This is something I've been thinking about in the good old USA too. Throughout
most of history elderly relied on family to take care of them, but modern
society often has families spread out over great distances and children not
prepared or expecting to have to care for their parents, and with people
living longer than ever it becomes much more of a job to care for your
parents. Combine that with the fact that pensions are becoming increasingly
rare and social security benefits are likely to be cut at some point in the
future, and you have the potential for a massive increase in elderly living
below the poverty line with no one to care for them.

Even if you prepare and save, that's no guarantee as the recent economic
troubles demonstrated, with many people nearing retirement seeing massive
decreases in their investments. Not to mention, with the skyrocketing costs of
college tuition and wages that have not kept up with inflation, adequately
saving for retirement has become increasingly difficult as well.

I'm not sure what's going to happen but I don't see the future as being that
promising as we age and quite frankly, I can see a lot of seniors turning to
suicide when whatever meager savings they have run out. I hope I'm wrong, but
it looks quite bleak...

~~~
pmorici
"adequately saving for retirement has become increasingly difficult"

Is that true or is it just a shift in culture where people blow all their
money on crap they don't need, disposable convenience, and live a more "up-
scale" life style instead of saving for retirement?

I was reading a few blogs about early retirement the other day such as,

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-
must...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/)

The financial situations vary widely but the common theme is they save a lot
more of their income % wise than a typical person. The guy that writes the
above blog retired at 30. Those are extreme examples but surely if that is
possible then retiring after working until 60+ isn't particularly out of
reach.

~~~
svachalek
Suppose you're going to live until 90. That's 60 years of retirement. Suppose
you're given up on the whole materialism treadmill and are willing to live
close to the poverty line, say $25000 per year. That still works out to $1.5M.
How many people even make $1.5M by the time they're 30, even before taxes? And
that's to live more or less in poverty.

~~~
lutusp
> ... That still works out to $1.5M. How many people even make $1.5M by the
> time they're 30, even before taxes? And that's to live more or less in
> poverty.

The above analysis misses something important -- compound interest.

Without compound interest, yes, if you need $1.5 million to retire, then you
need $1.5 million in advance. But if you create and then invest your nest egg,
the math changes completely.

Consider an average return on investment of 12% per annum. That means if you
only need $12,000 per year to live in decent poverty, you only need a nest egg
of $100,000. In this scenario, to account for inflation, you must withdraw
less than $12K per year and let the nest egg grow faster than inflation can
erode it.

But let's say that stock market won't deliver 12% per year -- it hasn't been
doing that for a while. Let's say a more realistic return is 8% from various
investments. Let's also say we want an income of $50K per year for life. So we
need a nest egg of:

    
    
        50 / 0.08 = $625K
    

That doesn't seem too bad, or unrealistic. It requires discipline and a lot of
advance planning. But it's entirely practical.

Now back to your original example:

> ... That still works out to $1.5M. How many people even make $1.5M by the
> time they're 30, even before taxes? And that's to live more or less in
> poverty.

Let's say we have that nest egg -- $1.5M. Assuming an 8% return, what does
that give us per year?

1.5M * 0.08 = $120K

And guess what? You aren't under any responsibility to die when your money
runs out, because _it isn't going to run out_ \-- at the end of your life, you
still have $1.5M in the bank to give to your children.

~~~
chadcf
> The above analysis misses something important -- compound interest.

You are making the assumption that getting an 8% return is something that is
easy and safe to do. What happens to the people who retire in a year like,
say, 2007. Their first year of retirement, expecting to withdrawal $50k to
live on and instead watch their $625k dwindle down to $460,000. The next year
maybe they get lucky and only lose 2%, minus the $50k they withdrew. Now
they're down to around $400k. Ok the market picks up and they get a 3% average
the next year but took out another $50k. Now they've got $360k. After a mere 3
years of retirement they've used up half their savings. Even if they manage to
get 8% a year for the next 30 years, they now only have $28,000 a year to live
on. Whoops.

The assumption that your money won't run out is not a given. This is the
reason it's important to have a LARGE nest egg. While $625k might do it if you
could invest it at 8%, you can't count on that and the market could quickly
leave you living with your children. To really be safe you're going to need
significantly more money than you think you will. You also aren't accounting
for inflation, which means as you age either you're going to have to cut your
expenses ~3% a year or you're going to have to increase your withdrawls ~3% a
year.

I don't know what the story is with these retired by 30 people, but I would be
willing to bet a fair number of them will find themselves broke and returning
to work at some point in their lives.

~~~
lutusp
> You are making the assumption that getting an 8% return is something that is
> easy and safe to do.

But it is. It's as safe as anything you can name. Or would you prefer a bank
savings account, insured against loss, that produces a return of less than 1%?

A bank savings account is safe by one definition, but since it's an example of
sanctioned corporate theft, it's not safe at all.

> The assumption that your money won't run out is not a given.

That assumption depends on the wisdom of those who run the accounts. There are
any number of ways to prevent eroding the principal, primarily by paying
attention to investment growth and inflation.

> I don't know what the story is with these retired by 30 people, but I would
> be willing to bet a fair number of them will find themselves broke and
> returning to work at some point in their lives.

Well, I happen to be one who successfully retired young. I wrote a best-
selling program (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer>) in 1980 (wen I
was 35), made a bundle, and retired. I sailed solo around the world for four
years, had a lot of adventures, and every year I travel to Alaska in my latest
boat to photograph grizzly bears. And in constant dollars, I have
approximately the same nest egg that I did when I started.

It's simple -- all you need to do is pay attention to your investments and to
inflation.

> You also aren't accounting for inflation, which means as you age either
> you're going to have to cut your expenses ~3% a year or you're going to have
> to increase your withdrawls ~3% a year.

What? No, all you need to do is adjust your withdrawals to account for
inflation. That's simple -- it's as simple as multiplying two or three numbers
together as in my prior post.

Required nest egg = desired annual income * inflation factor / investment
return

Nest egg = $50K * 1.03 / 0.08 = $644K

This could obviously be rearranged to change the expected annual income
instead of the size of the nest egg.

And if the rate of inflation changes, you change the inflation factor and
recompute _before_ going to the bank.

~~~
chadcf
> But it is. It's as safe as anything you can name.

Having $625,000 and hoping for an 8% return to sustain your retirement is not
nearly as safe as, say, having $2 million dollars to sustain your retirement.

If you've only got so much money, sure, trying to live off the interest is not
a terrible strategy. If we're talking retirement planning (which I thought we
were), then planning to live off 8% interest of a minimal amount of savings is
NOT a good strategy to shoot for. It is far better to be conservative, plan to
have a larger amount of savings and invest in safer options (such as bonds)
and plan to have enough money to sustain you for 30 years.

Now of course if it comes time to retire and you only have $500k to make last,
you're obviously going to want to take some greater risks with your
investments and live as minimally as possible and hope for the best.

This is why I made my initial point, that I can see elderly suicides rising in
the future. What's going to happen when the market doesn't go your way and at
80 years old you're out of money and your kids have their own problems? At
that point you don't have a lot to look forward to other than living on
welfare and watching your health decline...

~~~
lutusp
> If you've only got so much money, sure, trying to live off the interest is
> not a terrible strategy. If we're talking retirement planning (which I
> thought we were), then planning to live off 8% interest of a minimal amount
> of savings is NOT a good strategy to shoot for.

Of course it is. It's the most obvious and most reliable strategy to plan for,
regardless of how much money you have. Do you suppose Warren Buffett has a
cash slush fund stashed away in his mattress for his retirement?

> This is why I made my initial point, that I can see elderly suicides rising
> in the future.

That might happen. It might happen because people can't plan their lives very
well.

> Now of course if it comes time to retire and you only have $500k to make
> last, you're obviously going to want to take some greater risks with your
> investments and live as minimally as possible and hope for the best.

How is that a problem, and how does it contradict the idea that one should
plan a retirement based on investments?

I think your objection is not to prudent investments but to the unfairness of
life. If so, go ahead -- complain about how unfair life is, but in the
meantime, save some money for your retirement.

------
wiradikusuma
reminds me of a TV ad for Chinese New Year from Petronas,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3NDaZ2p6ug> (see the poster's comment for
English translation).

------
fakeer
Been to Korea 4 times. To work(read slave off by choice), while my visa was
business. On whichever weekend I was left alone by my firm I spent it in
travelling around, trying things out, meeting people and trying to strike a
conversation. Elderly people were extremely polite and courteous and extremely
reserved too. Maybe because of the huge language barrier(any language other
than Korean has very limited reception in Korea) which is IMHO, though very
difficult for me, something South Koreans should be proud of - being self
sufficient without English(the colonial hangover) which has crept into social
DNA everywhere else.

Yes, the 'family' seems to be non-existent in Korea now, following the western
tracks. This assumption is based upon external observation and talking to my
Korean guest-house people, some staff who are from India/Pakistan/Nepal(either
Korean citizens now or having lived their long), colleagues(friends let's say)
who ever opened up on such matters(usually after a few drinks). I can confirm
that after a few drinks every society becomes one and social taboos are duly f
__ __d off. Most open were(once they are open) Korean females friends I have
known their, whether met in office or outside - they talked very animatedly
about their parents and how they don't find time for each other and most
likely will never find it. They also are worried whether their own state is
going to be worse than this. Here's the last line of the article, _"When I see
these old people, I see how my own generation will die."_.

One answer was common. Your parents bring you up till you get your job and are
on your feet, after that you are on your own. And they(parents) are on their
own too!

They usually spend their time in shops alone and sitting alone in those park
benches with those stoic faces. A very healthy life style/food makes the
matters worse(as in loneliness) as the life expectancy is quite high in SK.
Maybe that's a saving grace in India(my country) as families are slowly
disappearing here too, and/or turning into dysfunctional arrangements which is
not even a distant resemblance of glorious old Indian family.

As for social care - politicians are very corrupt and do surpass even US
standards. In US at least even heavyweights get long imprisonments. In Korea
they get parliamentary pardon. Nobody cares about national elderly
population(besides, just paying bills is hardly they want/need). So, while
everyone is busy taking share prices higher and higher and building new
things, the last generation - which is no longer a workforce - is left behind
in the race; mercilessly abandoned.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"without English(the colonial hangover)"

Korea was never colonized by English-speakers, as far as I know.

Japanese, yes.

~~~
fakeer
I referred to the main reason behind spread of English. Yes, Korea was never
colonized by the English and they don't speak Japanese either.

------
brenfrow
Hmm... welcome to life as an American.

