
The Suicides in South Korea, and the Suicide of South Korea - kwindla
http://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/the-korea-blog/suicides-south-korea-suicide-south-korea/
======
qwerqwerasdf
I would attribute the low birth rate to the fact that economic growth has
slowed down.

The 20s of this generation are literally the ones that are getting the shorter
end of the stick. Imagine yourself being 18 year-old male in South Korea, 80%
of highschool graduates go to college, so given the status of the job market
you are pretty much forced to go to college unless you are willing to work in
a poor environment (as in jobs that don't provide career progression, or pose
high risk on personal health).

To add salt to this wound, the college tuition has been hiking. The parental
generation of Korea who are in their 50s lived through a time of high economic
growth, and education was affordable due to cheaper tuition that could be paid
off in short term. Let's say that you take college somewhat seriously, and
spend extra year or two after highschool to get into a solid college. You are
now 20. After a year you have to serve the military. You are now 23-24, second
year in college. After finishing college, you are 26, but there are good
amount of people who take year or two off so you will get plenty of 27-28 year
old males that have lot of debt, and not much job experience.

Ok, time to get a job. But hey, the job market sucks right now. Older people
aren't retiring. Some companies give you contract or internship work but these
barely pay for cost of living, and rarely convert to satisfying full-time
positions. There were times when college degree meant a guaranteed full-time
employment but not anymore. If you managed to land a full-time job after
gaining job experience, you're probably 30. To make things better, real estate
is spinning out of control so you wouldn't be able to afford a house any time
soon. If you asked a person like this about getting married and having
children within a year or two... You can't blame them for saying no.

Population kept scaling with the assumption that economic growth will match
it, but things have slowed down. It's not like Koreans will go extinct or kill
themselves as a whole. But it's the matter of how much is the population going
to drop by and whether they can find breakthroughs in the meantime to grow its
economic capacities.

As a side note, although people are mainly concerned about teens or young
adults when discussing suicide issues, I would like to point out that suicide
rate in Korea is exceptionally higher for older people (60+).

~~~
Vomzor
| Older people aren't retiring

This is called the "Lump of labour fallacy". In economics, the lump of labour
fallacy is the misconception that there is a fixed amount of work—a lump of
labour—to be done within an economy which can be distributed to create more or
fewer jobs. [1] While in fact having older people active and productive
actually benefits all age groups and spurs the creation of more jobs.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy)

~~~
qwerqwerasdf
Except the term was created to reject the idea that restricting hour of labor
will lead to reduction of unemployment. All I am trying to say is that there
is restricted number of jobs, and people have to live longer given increased
life expectancy plus poor social security in Korea so elder are becoming
competitors from the perspective of youth.

I don't particularly disagree with what the term you've introduced me argues.
Korea has been trying to actively reduce work hours and etc and it still gets
all the problems.

My point in saying that "older people aren't retiring" is that there's limited
number of jobs, and companies don't have the capacity to hire all the people
(reducing work hour can lead to larger total employment, but the income per
person will be reduced so not like it helps much). If companies kept growing,
and was able to employ people of all age groups then things would look good.
But with no new players expanding the economy it's mostly about older people
trying to hang onto their job and younger ones trying to break into what
exists.

I totally agree with the fact that economic growth isn't 100% zero-sum. But
that's when economy grows and everyone is winning, not when almost everyone is
about to lose.

~~~
JeffL
But saying that there are a limited number of jobs is exactly falling for that
fallacy. There are as many jobs are there are people who want to work. There
can be other problems, like not enough entrepreneurs, too many regulations,
not enough capital per person to effectively compete globally, etc.

Old people being forced to retire or everyone being forced to work fewer hours
would not help. That would result in massive load of productivity and value
creation. The pie might get shared more equally, but it would be a much
smaller pie.

~~~
blub
Where's the proof that this so-called fallacy is indeed a fallacy? After
reading the wiki description it seem to me that while the core idea is true,
this theory is overreaching in trying to explain away for example the impact
of immigration on the job market.

You're ignoring a very important detail - the quality of jobs. Only if people
lower their standards enough will there be as many jobs as people that want to
work. A significant number of those jobs will be (nearly) worthless, causing
other social issues.

Disguising a lack of jobs as "not enough entrepreneurs" or "too much
regulation" is simply a malicious semantic trick.

------
Theodores
The article did not mention what to me is the saddest aspect of suicide in
South Korea. This is amongst the retired old folk. They don't want to be a
burden on the world and their family, there isn't a lot of state support for
them and so they take some nasty pesticides, hang themselves or poison
themselves by carbon monoxide.

When they were young they looked after their grandparents, but, with family
sizes not being what they were and with people moving away for jobs etc. they
don't have a surplus of children or grandchildren (or great grandchildren)
around to look after them. Hence the particularly tragic ending.

Not sure why the article cites the '...not enough social media followers'
reason for suicide when the tragedy with the old folk is a bigger phenomenon.

------
oska
I do not at all like the early established conceit of this article: that a
country with a currently low birth rate is 'committing suicide'.

Yes, social conditions in South Korea are dreadful in many ways and yes, these
conditions are definitely influencing South Koreans' decisions on whether to
have children, or marry. But not marrying and not having children is not
suicide, neither for the individual _nor_ the society.

The Black Death is estimated to have reduced the size of Europe's population
by 30% to 60% in the 14th century. After that extreme population shrinkage
life improved dramatically for the ordinary people. People were _more valued_
than they had been before. Shrinkage of a population can be healthy and, as it
improves conditions for those who come after, will go into reverse at a
certain point.

~~~
dropit_sphere
>But not marrying and not having children is not suicide, neither for the
individual nor the society.

Isn't it?

Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population does
not reproduce, _tautologically_ , it will die off.

Sure, not reproducing is not suicide in the same way that a shotgun in the
mouth is. But _isn 't_ it, in the same way that refusing food is?

After WWII, the UN adopted a definition of genocide that included "(d)imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group." If China were doing it
to SK, we'd call it genocide. If SK is doing it to SK...?

I'm not trying to assign blame here. But that's the _point_ : whether you die
in your bed surrounded by family, in your garage with the car exhaust on, or
in a totalitarian purge---you are still _dead_.

So, I don't know---neglect? decline? twilight? Sustainable (non-) growth? Call
it whatever you want, <2.0 TFR reduces the population however anyone feels
about it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population
> does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off.

Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent, so this is not
tautologically true, nor is it even practically true, since negative natural
growth with positive population growth had been observed in countries.

~~~
remarkEon
>Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent

This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years, and only marginally so.

>...nor is it even practically true, since negative natural growth with
positive population growth had been observed in countries.

Only with substantial immigration is this the case, which brings with it a
whole host of other potential problems.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years

No, it's been true that nations are memetic rather than genetic constructs as
long as nations have existed, and migration and assimilation have existed and
been factors for a much longer time than 50 years. Non-transitory sub-
replacement levels of natural population growth may be a recent phenomenon,
but the nature of nations being such that such does not tautologically spell
doom has been true much longer.

~~~
remarkEon
Ehh, this is just factually wrong and discounts the histories of Europe and
e.g. Africa in such a grand way that it's hard to even know where to start. If
you wanted to restrict your claim to something like "nations have memetic
characteristics that often follow from genetic lineage that don't make
membership in that nation strictly genetic" then I'd be inclined to agree. But
back to the point, sup-replacement levels of natural population growth _is_ a
recent phenomenon and it's hard to say what comes next - since we don't have
any perfectly analogous historical parallels.

------
operatorequals
I find this social behavior amazing. And I'm very surprised that humans are
capable of it. This is a behavior often recognised in animals that are in
captivity.

Personal experience is with some finches. Finches refuse to hatch their
fertilised eggs by breaking them, if they were forced to mate in a cage. I was
a breeder for a brief while.

~~~
api
Perhaps certain modern societies are a bit like zoos in which we have placed
ourselves on exhibit.

~~~
lolc
Haha yes modernity does compare[0] to zoos. We're self-domesticating.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Zoo_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Zoo_\(book\))

------
pnathan
The writer has an interesting slant on SK (I flipped through a few of his
other essays). I don't know enough about South Korea to distill it, but it
doesn't feel _right_. Something vaguely exoticiszed... Maybe .... "snotty
expat?"

Are there any South Koreans here who will speak out? I'd trust a local's
opinion over the above writer's.

~~~
jeromebaek
I'm Korean. The author's principal mistake is casting Western anxieties onto a
radically different society. This projection reveals nothing about Korea. It
serves only as a linear multiplier of Western anxieties.

Confucianism and Taoism, the principal founding blocks of Korean
consciousness, are deeply feminist. (Look up "Confucian feminism", "Taoist
feminism", or "Do-ol" on any search engine; or just consider the fact that
Feng Shui is a vagina-worshipping cult) The patriarchy apparent in them is
only superficial. The superficial patriarchical aspects of Confucianism have
sometimes morphed with the deeply patriarchal aspects of Christianity, and
have produced some devastating effects, I admit.

Point is, you are absolutely correct, the author is exoticizing without any
understanding of Korean society beyond the superficial.

~~~
oska
It's rather disappointing to see a self-identified Korean being (currently)
downvoted in an article all about Korea.

Even if you disagree with their thesis that "the principal founding blocks of
Korean consciousness are deeply feminist", it's still an interesting take. And
their other point that the author is exoticising Korea is bang on I think. We
have seen the same for decades with Japan and its population decline. Seems
like it's Korea's turn now.

And why can't the LA Review of Books employ a Korean to write its 'Korea
Blog'? Why do we always have non-anglophone countries being "explained" by
anglophones?

~~~
yongjik
I'm Korean: I didn't downvote GP, but honestly the argument doesn't look good.

Korea used to be a highly sexist/Confucian country for the past several
centuries (and still is, to a degree). Confucianism are Taoism are about as
much feminist as Christianity and Islam, that is, you can make them look
feminist if you want. They are all ancient philosophies practiced by diverse
peoples. Something is bound to sound feminist if you look hard enough.

Besides Korea is not exactly a threatened Amazonian tribe. It has literate
tradition going back ~2,000 years, chip factories, skyscrapers, and idol
groups. (I heard some of them are even popular worldwide these days.) There's
certainly enough room for non-Koreans to talk about Korea.

* Finally, Do-ol (도올) is a quack. For an expert of traditional Asian philosophy, he always seemed too eager to promote himself rather than, you know, doing actual _study_ of the values he's supposedly an expert of. Doubly ironic, considering how much traditional Confucian philosophy despised self-promotion. I heard he used to even praise Xi Jinping as an ideal Confucian ruler, so go figure.

~~~
jeromebaek
Traditional Confucian philosophy certainly did not despise self-promotion.
Confucius proclaimed himself the greatest sage alive, and his arrogant
attitude turned off every ruler he was trying to advise.

I wouldn't call Do-ol the greatest sage alive, but he is one of the most
original and prolific thinkers in modern Korean philosophy. Before you dismiss
him as a quack, try reading at least one of his fifty books.

~~~
DuskStar
> Traditional Confucian philosophy certainly did not despise self-promotion.
> Confucius proclaimed himself the greatest sage alive, and his arrogant
> attitude turned off every ruler he was trying to advise.

This doesn't actually follow - "do as I say, not as I do" and all that. The
actions of the philosopher and the preferences of the philosophy do not have
to match.

------
amyjess
> while calling someone “unmarried” in English has no strong connotations, the
> word’s standard Korean equivalent, mihon (미혼), implies that its object may
> not have married yet but one day will. An alternative term has thus gained
> traction in recent years: bihon (비혼), which suggests a deliberate choice not
> to marry, and thus not to engage in anything that comes along with marriage.

I found this part interesting. There are a few analogues in English with
similar phenomena, both of which I'm personally familiar with due to
communities I'm part of.

\- Because the word "childless" implies that childless people are _lacking_
something they want, many of us who actively recoil at the thought of having
children have taken to using the term "childfree". Someone who wants children
but doesn't have them is childless; someone who doesn't want children and has
avoided having them is childfree.

\- Historically, trans people, and especially trans women have been classed
into two categories, "pre-op" and "post-op", based on whether or not somebody
has had Genital Reconstruction Surgery. As there are an increasing number of
trans women who aren't interested in having GRS at all, many who would
otherwise have been considered "pre-op" are now using the term "non-op". And
on top of that, as the trans community has continued to de-emphasize GRS, I've
also seen the prominence of those terms fade away in general. Years and years
ago (long before I transitioned), it wasn't uncommon for someone's op status
to always be attached to any mention of them being trans (usually in the form
"So-and-so is a pre-op transsexual"), and nowadays you only see op status used
when someone is specifically discussing GRS (and honestly, the status of my
genitalia is private medical information, and I have no interest in rattling
it off when introducing myself or having other people rattle it off when
introducing me; it's tacky and gross).

~~~
tacon
The cruel way to refer to a "childfree" woman is "barren".

~~~
Endy
Barren is a reference to her ability to have children, and means the same as
"sterile" in males.

------
JDiculous
Although much of the sentiment of the article is correct, the author seems to
be trying really hard to push a narrative (suicide by being attacked by social
media followers, really?). Also, less desire to marry is certainly not
exclusive to Korea. Same thing in the U.S., and probably most of the rest of
the developed world as well. I'd still bet that the average Korean is more
interested in marriage than the average westernized feminist American, but
that's just me guessing.

In any case, it's most certainly true that life is hard in Korea if you're not
in the top 10% or so. They've got among the most competitive (pre-college)
education systems in the world that in my opinion is more tantamount to
torture because 11 year kids are literally at cram schools until 10-11pm at
night. Getting into the right university is extraordinarily competitive and
basically determines your future.

And then the job market is extremely competitive, with probably among the
longest hours and worst working conditions as far as office jobs go. If you're
only working 9:30am-5:30pm, you're considered lucky and probably working at a
foreign company. You've got to be completely subservient to your boss, and
there's always some upper manager who makes the atmosphere toxic. If you're a
woman, you'll basically get pressured to leave as soon as you have a baby. And
buying a home - a prerequisite for a man to marry in Korean culture - has
gotten unaffordable unless your parents can subsidize you. And of course tack
on 2 years of military service, so most Korean men don't even start their
first job until their 27 or so.

It's no surprise to me that Korea has the highest suicide rate in the world,
and that people are choosing to drop out of this cutthroat rat race. I spoke
to an expat with kids who's lived here in Korea for the last 20+ years who
told me the younger generation has basically given up on finding a good job
and buying a home, focusing more on travel and experiences. Perhaps an
exaggeration, but not completely removed from reality.

In Korea's defense, I see the same pattern in the U.S. (thanks baby boomers),
just maybe not as extreme. Although university is perhaps getting more
expensive in Korea, it's certainly nowhere near the extreme that it is in the
U.S. And at least Korea has a very good universal healthcare system. Similar
to the U.S., I think the only hope of real change is for the baby boomers to
retire or get out of politics and for the younger generation to take over.
Let's call a spade for a spade here - baby boomers created this mess (whether
we're talking the U.S. or Korea), and they're not going to bring us out.

------
superpermutat0r
Unfortunately it's just the way advanced countries work. The society there is
not made for people. So people do not have offspring and do not want to live.
Although it's quite interesting that South Korea turned unfit for habitation
in such a short time.

~~~
JSavageReal
> not made for *common people

If you're rich, it's never been a better time to be alive. Higher wealthy
inequality than ever, financially desperate unattached workers to take
advantage of. Increasing wealth inequality/concentration is simply the default
nature of any capitalist system without policies in place to redistribute
wealth.

------
lota-putty
Casualties of war* are not counted in percentages(%):

[http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-
by-c...](http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/)

India beats __China by a big margin, even with the subpar statistics Dept.

* If life is war then suicide is casualty(short-life) __sort by 'Total Per Year'

------
boyadjian
Low birth rate is a sign of intelligence, it has nothing to do with suicides.

------
qroshan
I'm very much a non-religious person, but as a science person you absolutely
have to question the almost glaring correlation between people properly
practicing religion and discipline, happiness, and procreation.

~~~
aglavine
and the data of this correlation is... all in your head

------
notTyler
I am a lifelong gamer and for about as long, my parents have hated it. I
remember one time they made me read about Korean guys packed like rats in
computer labs, chainsmoking cigarettes and farming gold / whatever you farm in
WoW for 18 hours a day. They were paid next to nothing and largely used their
spare time to also farm to make money on the side.

I wrote it off at the time because reasons but to think that society, parents,
or getting a low score on a single test would all but force them into a
position like that is mind boggling. This was over a decade ago too, I can
only assume it's gotten worse for a lot of people.

I can't see anything like this happening in the US because of half the country
being red states that would be appalled at the thought of not getting married
and having kids.

~~~
pixl97
>I can't see anything like this happening in the US

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/22/u-s-
fertili...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/22/u-s-fertility-
rate-explained/)

The US is already below replacement rate on average and growth is mostly
coming from immigration.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate)

Only 5 states have a fertility rate above 2, and they are very low population
states. Deep blue state are around 1.5/1.6 and red states are around 1.8/1.9

~~~
amyjess
Ah, thank you. I was thinking of commenting something similar, but I didn't
have numbers.

The oddity of South Korea and Japan isn't that they aren't having kids; that's
par for the course for a first-world nation. It's that they have no
significant amount of immigration. If South Korea and Japan took in the same
proportions of immigrants as North America and Europe, they would have the
same population projections as us.

