SOUTH KOREA IS OVER

This is not what has happened in South Korea though. They've hit the top of the curve and pretty much every projection agrees that it's drastically downhill from here, the main disagreement is over how quickly. Kurzgesagt has a good video on this [0], they estimate that by 2060 the population of South Korea will have shrunk by 30% and will be heavily skewed towards the elderly. [0] ▶ this video

This is a nice explanation from Kurzgesagt showing precisely why South Korea is completely screwed long term, and why it's impossible to course correct through birth rate alone: ▶ this video

Relevant video from Kurzgesagt about South Korean birth rate and the repercussions, 3–4 generations down the line: ▶ this video

South Korea is facing a serious demographic crisis, in the not too distant future it'll be a country of mostly elderly folk. I'd be interested to know if this investment has anything to do with this, since robots may be needed in the absence of young able bodied folk. More info: ▶ this video

The issue is what to do about aging demographics? My few paragraphs or your few paragraphs can only encompass trite answers. There is no obviously good solution. We can only hope our glorious leaders find good compromises. I am mostly trying to suggest you look at how different countries manage (positively and negatively) their "demographic time bomb". It is unclear whether immigration is a strongly beneficial solution since it does cause friction. > Australians online > same sentiments Please take care with your arguments because anecdotal evidence generalises poorly (especially for topics that are common in echo chambers - it is difficult to avoid ones own biases). It is clear that immigration is broadly unpopular. The question is whether the rewards are worth the risks? link Immigration is an economic response to aging demographics. It is a very imperfect response. > Japan "South Korea is over" is a response to that: ▶ this video I predict Australia and particularly New Zealand will continue to use immigration to help their economies, despite pitfalls. I don't feel confident to predict anything about the US. The government there (either party) continues to surprise me with its recklessness; however systematically it surprises me with its resilience. Last year I was in New Orleans for a month and as an in person snapshot I saw a lot of negative signals for the future. I try to care about economics as a topic because for retirement investment I kinda have to invest overseas. Ho

I'm sure this is more a reflection on me but I try to go out to meet strangers at meetups and I find I quite often don't like the people. You might get the random ultra woke person who makes it impossible for others to have a conversation because they're just waiting to be triggered by anything anyone else says and find a way to spin every comment into an offence. If anyone brings up politics then the meetup is over, at least for me. I struck up a conversation with the person setting next to me at an outdoor cafe. He was probably 84-ish. He'd married someone from Japan he'd met there in the 60s. They had not had any children. I brought up the population issue in a light way (Japan's population is declining), something like making the joke that they didn't help Japan's population decline. He replied something like "anyone who tells you there's an underpopulation issue is lying. The planet has 8 billion people which is way too many". And that was when I knew I wasn't going to continue the conversation. (not Japan but same topic: ▶ this video )

This just seems obviously false. I'm sure their data shows something but come on, take a population of 5,000,000. Reduce it to 1. 1 person can not do all the things needed to run a society. They can barely do the stuff needed for 1. Specialization makes things possible. So then the question becomes, what number is too small. Population of Seoul metro is 26 million people. It's suppose to drop by 2/3rds by 2060 (or worse). That's 1/3 less taxes, a 1/3 less transportation riders, 1/3rd less customers, etc.... ▶ this video

> crucially selling the appreciated home after XX years Selling depends on demographics, the economy, and immigration. I'm in New Zealand where a lot of workers emigrate, and NZ patches that issue up with immigration. I read about €1 houses in Italy and ¥1 houses in Japan and then watch "South Korea is over" ▶ this video Modelling risks is the hardest part of any investment calculation. Edit: the future value matters, and we get highly misled by looking at our experiences of historical results (especially don't expect to get the same results as your parent's generation). Personally, thinking of your house purely as an investment is undesirable. You want to live there joyfully and not have to worry about pleasing the next investors. The non financial upsides and downsides of your own home are more important than the investment. There are significant upsides and massive downsides: they are hard to balance. I've rented a lot so I know that too has its advantages and disadvantages. There are large financial upsides and downsides of your own home too. Geared lending is fantastic and dangerous, domicile taxation issues, regulations, yearly government fees that can screw your retirement. You don't really own your home, you have a license that you can sell. A home is really just a glorified longterm tenancy with two bigger landlords (the bank and your government).

> population there has almost perfectly levelled out at just over 51m This video would beg to differ: ▶ this video That said, I am inclined to disagree with his take -- when women and men are both expected to work 996, when housing takes up a huge percentage of your income, when the only way you think you can assure a good life for your children is to pay exorbitant amounts for private tutoring, then yeah, 0 or 1 seems like the best option. This may be a bit of a weird take, but I wonder if it might make sense to just explicitly make "rearing the next generation" a "public good" career choice. Some people are far more cut out, by personality and character, to raise children. Rather than trying to exhort every single family to have 2.1, find people who are good at child-rearing, give them training, and give them government support to raise 8 kids.

absolutely. i just saw a documentary about that. south korea has a birthrate of 0.72. in a few generations the country will be full of elders in poverty because the pension funds have run out of money and there are not enough workers to replenish the funds. ▶ this video

> doom talk Perhaps easier to say in Australia: Australia seems to be doing better than many countries so perhaps you don't recognise the problem. Japan and Italy already have some ~$0 houses due to demographics. Children from New Zealand go overseas so demographics in NZ are worse than Australia. An article[1] this morning asked: "Have you seriously considered moving to Australia in the last year?" 37% said YES (and 40% of those have 'looked into it'). This thread is started by nly in London who clearly hasn't retired yet: My mortgage runs until I'm 70 and I, like most owners now, are entirely dependent on the housing casino game continuing. I have to refinance every 5 years, so if rates spike I'm also screwed. Here's a different view of the demographics story in the UK: link And here's a proper doom animation for Korea: ▶ this video Try to ignore the bullshit in both but do attend to the facts. I'm over a decade away from retirement in New Zealand, but all the signals I see here are pointing towards the country taxation base not being able to afford retirees in the future. I haven't considered Australia yet since I assume Oz won't escape the demographic wall, and if there is a future problem then being a kiwi in Oz could become unpleasant. The narrative a year ago was that we should invest a good proportion of retirement savings into the US stock market. Recent events indicate that might not be an effective long term strategy. A rental property was the traditional investment v

- Population is leveling off and dropping in some countries, This is a problem ▶ this video - AI is rapidly getting better. Not clear how good it gets, but if everything you do for money goes in and out over a wire, you're in trouble. Or, everything gets so abundant that we can actually have high UBI This reminds me if why I disliked to movie Elysium. They had a robots that effectively gave free perfect medical care. I didn't buy the premise of the movie that only that rich would be able to use them. Given they were robots, governments, hospitals, could and would make them readily available since ultimately it would massively lower their medical costs.