South Korea is on a capitalist upswing, not decline. People forget that South Korea was worse off than most of Africa after the Korean War. Capitalism and democracy is what saved them.
Look at their brother to the North if you want to see a real decline.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work, where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption - and indeed Korea has massive megacorps owned by just a few families that are de facto governments in themselves.
Ugh... I see you overlooked the small fact that the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula happened before the Korean War...
"After all, the South was by all standards a failed state after the Korean war (1950-53). GDP per capita in South Korea in early 1960’s was below $100. Lower than Haiti, Ethiopia or Yemen, making South Korea one of the poorest countries in the world. Infrastructure built during the Japanese occupation (1910-1945) was destroyed during the war. All of Korea’s natural resources remained in the North, as well as its industrial facilities. The first years of independence, under the presidency of Rhee Syng-man, brought no economic development and kept South Korea afloat only due to foreign aid." [0]
>“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work
There may be something strong and special about Koreans, but one half went capitalist, the other half went Communist/Socialist. The proof is in the pudding.
>where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption
Being capitalist is immaterial to being corrupt.
I guess explain China vs Taiwan, which are both doing well, although that is certainly glossing over some horrible decades with the cultural revolution.
Yes, that's exactly what PP posits as the cause of these suicides.
I believe it was Malcom Kyeyune who joked that if North Korea nuked Seoul, it would be the best thing to ever happen to young people in South Korea.
The birth rate in South Korea is like 1/4th the birth rate of North Korea.
People are having less children because there is constant downwards pressure to have less children, by society, by politics, by wealth/industry.
Having a kid doesn't cost a lot in South Korea. In fact it's usually beneficial. The problem is that having a kid basically means your main source of income is vulnerable and your situation will more than likely be negatively affected.
This is how elite overproduction tends to happen. I suggest you read some of the writing on the causes and effects of EO. The Good Ol Boyz podcast has some episodes on EO in Korea that are pretty good.
If you can get into a relatively high status position by doing better than your peers in a school test, and you’re out of luck otherwise, of course many people are going to spend 16 hours a day studying for those tests.
> People are having less children because there is constant downwards pressure to have less children
Where would you say this pressure comes from and is communicated?
> Having a kid… it's usually beneficial… your situation will more than likely be negatively affected.
This seems contradictory.
Being a labourer is often highly regarded in lots of low population or first world countries. Not in Korea. Not even without significant immigration. They are just all sardines trying to squeeze into the upper jobs. No one wants to be left out and certainly doesn't consider it a career path.
>Where would you say this pressure comes from and is communicated?
Their workforce and/or lack off work stability, almost entirely.
>This seems contradictory.
If you take it out of context..... yes. But I just said that it'd be financially beneficial to have a kid. But then also introduces instability that might pull the rug underneath when your financially beneficial decision removes your larger chunk of income.
i.e. babies are very affordable, and you get benefits that aren't bad. But also this coincides with losing your job due to having a baby. It's not contradictory as they're both alternate directions. Your job is stable whilst having a baby AND you have a baby? You're benefiting. You have a baby and it ruins your income stream? Those extra savings from having a baby are cancelled out.
Unfortunately not. The suicide capital of the world (including teenagers) is currently South Korea:
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20190501000216
which has the highest suicide rate among countries with a population of more than 5mln:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...