Time for a paradigm shift on parental leave

As Mercator readers know, South Korea is a demographic basket case. While still a powerhouse “Asian Tiger” economy, it has the world’s lowest fertility (possibly apart from war-torn Ukraine). Statistics Koreareported a total fertility rate (TFR) of 0.78 in 2022, 0.72 in 2023, and projects 0.68 for 2024 (replacement level TFR is 2.1). Not only that, but the country also has an average life expectancy of 83.8. The median age is 45, projected to be almost 64 by 2072. Population is declining. Bankruptcy looms: they will run out of money as they run out of people.

Downfall

Current projections have South Korea’s population shrinking by almost a third by 2072. This is an unfolding disaster, something the government is struggling mightily to reverse. In May 2024 South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared a “national emergency.”  What took them so long? South Korea has been slowly, surely sinking into a demographic abyss for decades.

The cause of falling fertility? Haven’t we already parsed that to death? Like other East Asian countries, South Korea has a fanatical work ethic. This means a high-pressure workaholic culture with one of the world’s longest work weeks. This is unhealthy from the get-go but is the logical result of globalist economics that values people, families and all else exclusively on the basis of economic utility. Family life is simply not a factor. Such an ethos prioritizes corporate profits über Alles. Time for a paradigm shift.

South Korea also has the highest gender pay gap of any OECD country. As possible pushback to this dysfunctional high-production modernist economy, radical feminism has planted a flag:

Proponents of the 4B (or Four Nos) movement reject four traditional norms—dating men, pursuing marriage, engaging in sex with men, and having children. The movement has amassed about 3,400 members on Naver, the most popular online forum in South Korea.

A 2021 study on South Korea’s baby bonus published in The Journal of Asian Economics “found that more than 74% of the program's disbursements were for births that would have been expected even without monetary enticement.” Bottom line: baby bonuses and parental leave subsidies have helped, but not nearly enough.

Creeping pronatalism?

Seems like South Korea’s powers that be are waking up:

At a forum hosted by the Korea Labor Institute and the National Institute for Future Strategy at Seoul National University on the 23rd [September 2024], participants agreed that changes in the way they work are inevitable due to ultra-low birth, digital technology development, and changes in work ethics.

“Changes in the way they work are inevitable.” Indeed. When a business is failing, they hire a turnaround specialist or file bankruptcy and formulate a workout plan. That is exactly what South Korea needs. Corporate turnarounds mean a change in practices. You can’t continue the course that led to difficulty in the first place. Rember that famous quote (attributed to several), “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?” Maybe folks are finally figuring out that the globalist model of monetizing mankind has run its course. I hope so.

But hold on. I’ve just run across a piece at allkpop.com with an encouraging headline: “South Korea sees highest birth rate increase in nearly 12 years, number of marriages also surging”. Talk about clickbait:

In July 2024, South Korea experienced its largest rise in births in nearly 12 years, with 20,601 babies born in the month, marking a 7.9% increase compared to July 2023.

At the same time, marriages in July 2024 surged by 32.9% over July 2023, exceeding 18,000 marriages. This marks the highest year-over-year increase for any July since records began in 1981 and the largest overall rise in 28 years.

That is a good sign. Maybe a start. But how can a national turnaround be accomplished? A young sociology professor at Utah State University may have the answer.

 

icon

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

Public service

There’s an old saying that if you don’t have a solution, you’re part of the problem. Seems like Professor Sojung Lim has taken this to heart. She has just published a groundbreaking piece in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, The Necessary Paradigm Shift for South Korea’s Ultra-Low Fertility.” Her essay is worthy of quoting at length:

South Korea’s unprecedented ultra-low fertility requires a paradigm shift in the country’s approach to the family. The government should take bold steps to support children and their families while recognizing parenting as a public service.

Call it reprioritizing, spiritual awakening, or whatever. Paradigm shift will suffice.

Widespread pessimism and young people’s lack of confidence in the future [are] considered major drivers of falling marriage and fertility rates.

The acceleration of fertility decline in recent years indicates that existing systems are unsustainable and that a paradigm shift is required in South Korea’s approach to the family. South Korea’s current fertility policies are still based on the traditional paradigm that unconditionally relies on parents and their families to rear children instead of fully recognizing parenting as a public service.

With over two decades of extremely low fertility, childbearing and childrearing have become essential for the country’s economic and demographic future, and parenting should therefore be recognized as a “public service.”

What a great idea! Officially designating parenting as public service could be a game-changer.

Professor Lim calls for extending generous child support up to the age of 17. The OECD average for spending on child support is 2.103 percent of GDP. South Korea is a third lower at 1.374 percent. They should reallocate resources to achieve at least the OECD average.

She also advocates “universal and mandatory child parental leave.” Many South Koreans do not avail themselves of existing paid parental leave options, such is their workaholic culture. Safeguards should ensure that extended parental leave does not negatively impact professional standing and advancement. That means job security, something lacking at present.

The government should instead offer universal and mandatory parental leave to all new parents, including fathers. Mandatory parental leave for fathers reduces the childcare burden on women, promulgates gender-egalitarian attitudes towards childcare responsibilities in the longer term, and could reduce the stigmatization of women’s leave-taking.

Got that? Mandatory parental leave. While I don’t like the idea of government telling folks what to do, it happens all the time, like paying taxes. We allow the economy to dictate what we do, and the economic system is set by the government. Parental leave should be a duty, much as military service. This would be great for South Korean children and could possibly break the pattern of workaholism. At the very least, it could shift the priorities of Koreans from worrying about job performance to focusing on the quality of their public service, i.e., parenting. Maybe if they frame it as national defense, politicians will support it.

Speaking of defense, a generous slice of the military budget could be reallocated for parental public service. This could be an issue to facilitate cooperation between North and South Korea. They have similar challenges. If left to their own devices (sans imperial meddling), these countries could help each other. After all, they are the same people. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if pronatalism led to peace breaking out?

Professor Lim also advocates parental insurance untethered to employment. To the best of my understanding, this would be a hearth and home version of workers compensation insurance.

The ultimate goal should be to promote a healthy work-life balance for all workers and create a social environment where work and family are not mutually exclusive… [P]arents should be able to freely choose amongst various options such as reduced work hours, flexible hybrid or work-from-home schedules, and family medical leave to reconcile workplace and parenting responsibilities.

South Korea provides a useful test of whether current socioeconomic and cultural forces are inevitably anti-natalist, and if not, how effective policies based on social agreement can reshape them.

Globalist economics is indeed anti-natalist. How else could you describe a system where profits, not families and children, are what counts. How could one possibly not understand that?

Paradigm shift

Talk about a game-changer. Should governments officially designate parenting as public service, there could be a major realignment of social priorities. For example:

Ever heard of the Association of Mature American Citizens or the larger left-leaning American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)? If you join there are any number of membership benefits and discounts. They have lobbyists. How about a Parent’s association, where parents join and receive benefits?

Government employees have any number of organizations representing them. There is the National Federation of Federal Employees. Then there is IFPTE, a union of state and local government professionals. There is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) with a membership of public sector and healthcare industry employees. How about a federation or union representing and lobbying for parental interests?

Active duty and retired military can shop at the PX (aka Base Exchange) with a wide range of “military discounts.” How about a Parent’s Exchange, a place where parents can shop?

The sky’s the limit. Time to think outside the box.

In any event, Wow. Parenting as public service. Properly implemented, that would be a profound paradigm shift. Professor Sojung Lim is on to something. This is historic, an idea whose time has come. Spread the word.  


Will mandatory parental leave work? Leave your comments in the box below!   


Louis T. March has a background in government, business, and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author, and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.

Image credit: Bigstock


 

Showing 10 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Susan Rohrbach
    commented 2024-10-11 20:26:30 +1100
    David and Emberson, I am not saying Trojan horses in the GOP did not abet the flooding of the labor market but flood it did.
  • Emberson Fedders
    commented 2024-10-10 13:29:24 +1100
    “David, that living wage used to happen before women flooded the labor market and depressed wages for male providers.”

    This is simply not true. In America, vested interests with the help of the Republican party, have depressed wages.
  • mrscracker
    Miss Susan, those are some good points but I think men actually fear divorce as much as women do & it’s one reason our marriage & birth rates are so low.
    We’ve had a couple generations watch what happened to their parents & siblings following divorces & it’s been discouraging. When you see a business model fail like that you’re less likely to enter into it yourself.
    Older, successful married couples mentoring newly wed couples is a strategy that can counteract some of the marriage failure rate & provide role models.
  • mrscracker
    “…the larger left-leaning American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)? If you join there are any number of membership benefits and discounts. They have lobbyists. "
    *******
    Lobbyists who lobby for euthanasia & against conscientious objection laws for healthcare workers. The AARP is perhaps not a good example of lobbying for our best interests.
  • David Page
    commented 2024-10-09 02:19:37 +1100
    Susan, are you serious? It was Reagan, including his union busting, that destroyed the middle class. And then there are the tax structures designed concentrate wealth in the very few. In America the bottom 50 percent of the country only has 2.5 percent of there wealth. But you are “conservative”. You are programmed to blame the victim.
  • Susan Rohrbach
    commented 2024-10-09 00:23:31 +1100
    David, that living wage used to happen before women flooded the labor market and depressed wages for male providers.

    And when it was a given that households relied on one single income.

    Nowadays employers can’t even conceive of paying a “household” wage because there are so many double income double dippers – why should I pay a household wage to my employee when his wife might be going to bring home an equivalent wage and double it?

    I’ll add that the flood of women into labor market came at just the same time things were supposed to look up for black male providers. That 1964 civil rights act should have been just to address racial prejudice. Employers were right to try to favor sole providers.
  • David Page
    commented 2024-10-09 00:06:25 +1100
    Susan, how about paying people enough to keep one parent at home?
  • Susan Rohrbach
    commented 2024-10-08 23:31:47 +1100
    How about unshaming stay at home momhood? (Like an anti smoking campaign)

    How about backstopping marriage so that staying at home is a mutual investment and wives don’t fear divorce?
  • Paul Bunyan
    commented 2024-10-08 18:29:41 +1100
    I don’t see how making parenting a duty will encourage more people to have children. When you get down to brass tacks, many people simply don’t want to have children.

    If they wait too long and can’t have biological children, there’s always adoption. I don’t see why societies or governments need to pressure or coerce people into having biological children.

    Russia is even planning to outlaw the childfree movement and impose draconian fines.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-proposes-ban-child-free-lifestyle-rcna172616
  • Louis T. March
    published this page in The Latest 2024-10-08 14:43:17 +1100