Korea Should Be Country People Want to Live In

Korea's demographic problems have long ceased to be news but the seriousness of the situation is far beyond what most people think.

According to the National Statistical Office, the nation's ``core productive population'' ― people aged between 25 and 49 ― is expected to fall below 20 million, or 40 percent of the total population, by 2011.

Considering the core population is one of the three main elements, along with capital and productivity, which constitute a nation's growth potential, its downward trend rings alarm bells for the country's economic vitality or, in other words, the aging of the Korean economy.

Disheartening as the figures may be, they should astonish few Koreans, as an earlier government report shows Korea's birthrate of 1.22 over the past five years at less than half of the global average of 2.54. Small surprise again that the nation spent the least amount of money, 0.3 percent of GDP, on boosting the birthrate, among the 30 OECD members.

Demographic experts note the nation's population, currently 26th largest in the world, will fall to 43rd in 2050. Some doomsayers even say Koreans will completely disappear from the Earth in 300 years if the nation fails to jack up its birthrate.

What should we do to prevent this, then? One thing is apparent: the current childbirth subsidies or other minor incentives won't change the situation much. In other words, the time has long past to leave this to the health and welfare minister alone.

The world's lowest birthrate here, when coupled with the highest suicide rate, also tells us something; Korea is becoming a country in which people increasingly find it hard ― and/or unpleasant ― to live. The government's demographic concerns also focus mostly on the shortage of workers or soldiers, failing to delve into the more fundamental causes of the problems.

Just think of it: Who would want to produce children in a country where everything ― entering schools, finding jobs and getting your own home ― must be won through cutthroat competition with the portion of state-provided welfare dwindling year by year? At a time when the government seems bent on reviving the development boom of the 1960s and '70s, leaving huge environmental damages and fiscal burdens for future generations, who would want to have their offspring to bear all the burden?

The nation may well consider making better use of the idle workforce, such as women, aged people and immigrant workers, as stop-gap measures. But the fundamental solution lies in a bit less competition and more equitability at least on basic levels.

This is not to say the government should give second or third children easy entry to schools, employment benefits and free or cheap homes. But the government should try harder to give more peace of mind to the people and it is this long-term, grand task that President Lee Myung-bak should heed instead of artificially changing the nation's natural environment.

A country should first be livable rather than industrialized or even advanced.