Taiwan needs to redistribute it’s wealth. Ironically this would create a much stronger local economy , more kids and hence more consumers and home buyers and better environment but the wealthy and elite here mostly have second homes overseas and foreign passports or factories in China, so many do not see the value in this.
As for the empty schools, one idea proposed was to turn them into social housing, no doubt so legislators could get kickbacks on construction deals.
A better idea would be to raze them, keep the sports facilities and turn them into comment parks. Unlikely to happen as where is the money in that?
In addition to the overall shrinkage of the number of kids in the population, there are also substantial migrations of young families with kids to places like Linkou and Sanxia. In Linkou, there are several new schools recently built, being built, or on the drawing board, and many new buxibans are opening. The new schools are supplementing rather than replacing the old schools, but still there are insufficient places available for all the new kids in town, especially in the public kindergartens attached to the elementary schools.
These kids are being drawn away from other school areas, mostly in Taipei City and more expensive areas of New Taipei City, where their parents cannot afford the absurd prices of reasonable housing, so that further reduces the population of kids in those areas. The “star” schools in Taipei City will presumably always have a surplus of kids competing for places in them, but the less well regarded schools must surely be facing a very uncertain future.
On a side note, I read an article a month or so ago about the difference in price per ping between similar homes inside and outside the intake areas of star schools. In many cases, it makes a difference of hundreds of thousands of NT per ping for houses in the same street or even side by side. There are evidently a lot of people who are willing to pay millions of dollars extra - often an extra NT$10 million or more - for a home that will get their kids into a highly regarded school.
No, no, no! This is why many countries, especially Britain, have produced an absolutely feral underclass. Bad, bad social implications for supporting single motherhood. If the government must get involved in supporting family arrangements, it should be supporting couples who are educated and middle class.
As for people not wanting to move back to their hometown, well, they wouldn’t necessarily have to do that. However, in the case of my friend and his wife, it’s also a case of them not having any money for retirement (he’s in his fifties) and trying to raise a kid (whom they don’t get to see that much). I can understand working your arse off to get ahead, but I can’t understand working your arse off to stand still, which is what a lot of people are doing in Taipei.
tom: I don’t understand what people are thinking, but you’re right that you can’t tell people this. The crazy money people burn when they go out blows my mind. I earn more money than them and I think it’s outrageous. 5,000NTD on a night out? How can anyone on a five figure income justify that?
My wife’s friends from university are virtually all struggling now. Some have buggered off to Australia for working holidays. Some are kicking around other parts of Taiwan. Those in Taipei (working as designers) are struggling anyway, but then they don’t help themselves by blowing stupid money on crap. Some of them get haircuts for 5,000NTD! Those same people are earning less than 30,000NTD/month (and working insane hours for it). Completely bloody insane. I used to think that Taiwanese were good with money, but every time I go up north, I realise that they’re completely insane with money, just like people in the West.
cretzor: Unification with China will not solve the demographic issues here. China has the same issues, so they’d only be importing more of the same (not to mention all of the social and environmental problems they’d also import). They are going to need to figure out immigration and/or family planning better here in the near future, but I don’t believe unification is the way.
I think that eventually, there will be some sort of redistribution of wealth here (unless the rich guys just flee abroad with all of their money). The trouble is that I’m not confident that they will do that the right way. They will probably end up copying all of the worst elements (including the feral and feckless children) of the Western welfare state.
Omni: At the school I worked at in Taoyuan, they had an English Village. Before they opened the English Village, the school was on the verge of closing. Within a few years, enrollments were more than they could handle (I’m not sure how much was due to the English Village). Our principal used to brag about this, though I can’t imagine he was particularly popular with principals at other schools. In about May of each year, we (and other schools) used to actually go to all of the local elementary schools and try to entice their sixth grade students to come to our school. Other schools would give really boring presentations, and we’d arrive shortly before theirs ended, and the kids basically wouldn’t pay any more attention to whichever school was before us because they’d be gawking at the eight circus animals, I mean foreign teachers, off to the side. Our principal was was a real showman too, almost like the ringmaster of the circus. There was a lot of competition between the schools to get those sixth grade students.
That phenomenon you mention of parents paying more to be in the catchment area of good schools also happens in Melbourne where certain government schools have become de facto private schools. It’s an interesting phenomenon. In some ways, as absurd as the exam entrance system is here, it is fair (though of course, then parents can send their kids to buxibans to get an edge).
I don’t think it’s for society to be judging single mothers as to why they are single. Nor should we make a judgement that their kids would be ‘feral’. After all there are many men walking around who have fathered children, just not easy to single out are they? I also include in this single mothers who are not married but may be in a relationship of some sort.
If you understand more about Taiwan you would realise that single mothers in Taiwan (and Korea/Japan etc.) face active discrimination and are entitled to less benefits than a married couple. This is a problem, because then you are reducing your population by discriminating against a subset of parents.
[quote]'Local governments bar single-mother subsidies
NOT VALUED:Many local regulations require mothers wishing to apply for a subsidy for newborns to provide proof that they are married in order to get the money’[/quote]
I know this, because my wife’s cousin who is a wonderful mother and who has a wonderful child and who just happens to be divorced has been turned down by the Hsinchu government for subsidies.
So you see, there are many MISSING children who have not made it to term because of this discrimination. These missing children could add up to 10-20% of the population. Ethically and from a rational standpoint of supporting the local economy and older generation this policy is wrong.
If we conclude that society needs more kids then support for parents of all types is important. In the countries above single mothers account for less than a couple of % of parents, and that is why I think they have extremely low birth rates.
As for the best rated school districts being expensive, the area of Nantun in Taichung is just like that.
In Taipei you have JianGuo 1st Boys and 1st Girls schools. If you can get into those schools you have a network for life. You also have a better chance of getting into Taida or CKU etc.
You wouldn’t believe how many laoban and famous people in Taiwan went to these schools…it’s all about the network. It’s something to do with the extreme amount of time and pressure that kids have in high school here, they tend to form tight bonds at school.
HH2: If they’re receiving a handout, you bet society should be judging them. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. Don’t want to be judged? Bloody well pay your own way.
I don’t think we should be giving handouts to any group of people (including married couples), but if we are going to give handouts, then there should be conditions on those, and those conditions should favour those who have their acts together (educated, middle class), not those who don’t. It shouldn’t just be a matter of handing out money willy nilly. This is where the welfare state is at in the West, and it’s been an abject failure. It has produced large numbers of people who cannot, and will not, work. It has produced large numbers of people who engage in extremely antisocial behaviour. It has produced large numbers of people who then go on to produce offspring who are just as bad or worse than them. The welfare state has been a pox on our civilisation. Any sense of responsibility has been removed from such people and all the wrong kinds of people have been encouraged to breed. This is as true of the fathers as it is of the mothers. Find the deadbeat fathers and make them pay to support their children. That said, if a man didn’t want the child and the woman insisted on having it anyway, I don’t think it’s entirely his responsibility that she refused an abortion. Otherwise, that’s a form of taxation without representation, as the Seppos would put it.
As for feral children, it is well established in sociology which factors are much more likely to lead to certain positive or negative outcomes for children. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to predict “feral” children at all. I have worked in many different schools in three different countries. There is an underlying thread to the underclass in Australia, Britain, and Taiwan. We should not be putting incentives on bad behaviour.
Incentives on bad behaviour? What is bad behaviour? Judged by who? What’s the situation in the UK got to do with Taiwan, the cultures are actually very different.
The divorced mother with no child support should not get subsidy? But yet they pay taxes, more than corporations do. I think there is a VERY LONG list of things to attack before attacking single mothers and their ‘feral children’.
And I say this as somebody who grew up in the typical catholic nuclear family of my birth where divorce was a no-no. Sure enough when divorce became legal many of my relatives got divorced. So the kids were okay living in unofficiallly broken families but then after they got divorced they could go ‘feral’ and have ‘bad behaviour’? Who were the biggest child abusers in the state I grew up, the Catholic Church and the Christian Brothers, all operating under complete collusion with the State. All HOLIER THAN THOU and all passing judgement on those around them.
I’m just going to have to categorically refute your blackmouthing of people who don’t live according to your standards, apart from the fact that the situation in Taiwan and other countries like the UK has absolutely no comparison. Have you actually read what I wrote or what I have posted here, they are discriminated against in Taiwan, they do not have equal rights to the rest of the population, let alone ‘more’ human rights.
They do not have an incentive to be single. They just had a baby as their human right and happen to be single, for whatever reason that is I am not the one to judge. That’s their business!
I grew up with your sort of false moralising, I’d had enough of it.
This is a problem ethically and a problem leading to the population decline in Taiwan.
[quote]LOW BIRTHRATE
Although providing the subsidies is a means to reverse the nation’s rapidly declining birthrate — which fell below 180,000 for the first time last year — it would be a mistake to ignore a growing segment who choose not to get married, Huang said.
“Taiwan’s birthrate is at a historic low. Under these circumstances … central government agencies down to local district offices should actively encourage more births … not discriminate based on gender and marital status,” she said.[/quote]
Judged by a whole lot of well known trends in sociology that show all sorts of things from poorer school attendance/performance to increased likelihood of criminal activity. Judged by the fact that if penalties/failure is removed from any behaviour, it doesn’t disincentivise bad/destructive behaviour. Really, are we actually debating that behaviours can be incentivised and disincentivised, or that there are such things as good/productive behaviour and bad/destructive behaviour? Relativism has reached new lows at this site. Obviously, the cultures in Taiwan and the U.K. are different, at least right now. There was a point where British culture was different to how it is now, radically different, and certain behaviours were incentivised. Are you really disputing this? Do you think British culture just changed accidentally overnight and that similar processes couldn’t/wouldn’t happen here? Fifty or one hundred years ago, the Britain of today would have been unimaginable. In fact, everyone thought it was going to be some sort of social utopia when they set out on the path they have been on since then. Funny how unintended consequences turn out.
If you’d read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I do not want the state subsidising anyone. However, if the state is going to make moral decisions, then it should do so based upon things such as sociological evidence rather than this modern touchy feely nonsense of being “inclusive”. Subsidising people’s behaviour is, in and of itself, the state legislating morality. Yet you’re talking like that’s not the case. We see it as perfectly reasonable to legislate morality in a whole lot of other ways from liquor licensing to the age or conditions under which people are allowed to drive cars to TV censorship. Either have a free market free for all, or legislate morality in sensible ways.
Complete strawmen as I do not support state intervention in private affairs and I certainly don’t support state support of the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter. Of all the people at this site, I’m quite possibly the most atheistic and one of the most libertarian.
If people want my tax dollars then I have every right to “backmouth” them for their behaviour. Simple choice: take some bloody responsibility for their lives, or accept the lecture with the handout. If they don’t want the lecture, then they don’t get the handout. As Heinlein once wrote, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
Again, I don’t think the state should be granting anyone special privileges, but if it absolutely must, then I think it’s preferable to favour those who are less likely to produce worse sociological outcomes. Let’s do this scientifically, rather than based on some touchy feely, PC crap. There are good and bad people in society. Reward the good, don’t reward and/or punish, the bad. No everyone is equal. Not everyone should be treated equally.
If it’s their business, then it should also not be their business to expect a government handout. You can’t have it both ways.
Absolute nonsense. The Ireland you grew up in was not promoting free market solutions to this situation. I have already pointed out your strawmen regarding the state and church. Also, I’ve grown up with your sort of PC nonsense. I’ve had enough of it. So, “snap” because I can play that card too.
[quote]This is a problem ethically and a problem leading to the population decline in Taiwan.
[quote]LOW BIRTHRATE
Although providing the subsidies is a means to reverse the nation’s rapidly declining birthrate — which fell below 180,000 for the first time last year — it would be a mistake to ignore a growing segment who choose not to get married, Huang said.
“Taiwan’s birthrate is at a historic low. Under these circumstances … central government agencies down to local district offices should actively encourage more births … not discriminate based on gender and marital status,” she said.[/quote][/quote]
It is indeed an ethical problem, and Taiwan would proceed down that path at its own own peril. Today’s welfare recipients are tomorrow’s anti-social cretins. As I wrote earlier, I believe that if Taiwan goes down this path, it will copy all the worst aspects of the Western welfare state. It’s almost comical how governments around the world have had the opportunity to watch other nations repeatedly hit the self-destruct button for decades and then seek to embrace the same idiocy. Incidentally, today’s and tomorrow’s welfare recipients are excellent for politicians and bureaucrats because they ensure the gravy train will not only continue, but expand. Politicians and bureaucrats love a “victim” because that makes politicians and bureaucrats essential to solve a problem (which, funnily enough, only gets worse the more they get involved and the more taxpayer’s money they spend on solving it). Whenever politicians talk of the need to just spend more money, I’m always extremely sceptical because it never comes out of their pockets. In fact, funnily enough, their benefits and job security often also rise as a result.
This is about creating a level playing field. Nothing more nothing less. You say dont give subsidies so then dont take their income taxes. My wifes cousin pays a higher tax rate than corporations and shareholders yet gets almost nothing in return. She has had a child which this state desperately needs to shore up the economy as it stands. Your logic is flawed on many many levels with regard to the situation in Taiwan. You don’t seem to get that Taiwan NEEDS to incentivise people to have kids otherwise they cannot afford them or don’t want them. If less people are getting married all the time how the hell are you going to have more kids if you discriminate against single mothers having kids? This is the trend in societies worldwide, you can’t stick your head in the sand and ignore it.
If you read the article I quoted from you would see Taiwan is in an odd situation. The marriage rate is dropping quickly (either never married or divorced) but the overall % of children born to single mothers has actually decreased. That is why this is actually a big contributor to the overall population decline in Taiwan!
Most people would agree having…more…kids…even…poorer…kids…who may…have… single …mothers will result in a more economically stable country here. After all most Taiwanese were dirt poor until only a few decades ago.
So you seem to be arguing against something that makes no sense in the context of Taiwan.
Using your logic above I can move very quickly into a facist mindset. It reminds me of eugenics books I read from the 1930s, based on the latest research of the time with many promoters even in Ivy league universities. The idea that poor begets poor etc etc. It was all rubbish. All of it.
The same argument was used against Irish and other emigrants to the US and UK over centuries, heard it all before. Pick a poor subgroup, make them out to be to be worth less than others by some sociological study or other. Make them as out as a stereotype instead of an individual. The same was done to other races in facist states and look how that ended. Easy to do isn’t it.
I could easily spend my time ranting and blaming every Etonian educated upperclass twat that runs the political and legal and financial system in the UK (if I was British) and I would probably have as much rationale behind it.
Problems in the UK are caused by a multitude of problems and not specifically by single mothers, or mothers who just happen to be single for whatever reason. Its the whole lumping of every single mother together which is the most ridiculous part of the argument. But again that has precious little to do with Taiwan.
You say I am PC, actually I don’t have any love for people who live on the dole or falsely claim asylum etc. But if you mean I want a level playing field for people and stick up for decent hard working people so be it.
HH, it’s completely daft (and very interesting) that your wife’s cousin can’t get the “let’s make babies” grant because she’s divorced. It suggests that the grant is at least partially or entirely aimed at encouraging marriage and “family values”. But this:
and this:
Are just assertions without backup. Most people are cretins who believe whatever the gubmint tells them, so why should we care what they agree on?
Taiwan has pretty much reached its population limit. We know this because people have voluntarily stopped having kids. This phenomenon has been observed in many different species, and attempting to work around it will probably cause some kind of major disaster. Evolution seems to have created this mechanism to avert Malthusian collapse. You’re a biologist - you probably know more about it than I do.
Taiwan’s economy, likewise, has hit the limit stops, at least within their existing model. This happens all the time; what’s supposed to happen next is a step change in the economic model that provides what’s needed. That doesn’t necessarily mean “growth” or “stability” - in fact, instability seems to be an inherent feature of any capitalist economy. Up-down cycles are normal and (somewhat) predicable. Instead of bravely stepping up to the challenge, Taiwan’s talking heads are coming up with these unimaginative ideas in a frantic, last-ditch attempt to maintain the economic status quo. It ain’t going to work. You can’t increase the population indefinitely.
The irony is (in the context of GiT’s comment re. state support) the primary need for a glut of young people is to provide pensions for retirees. Taiwan’s pension provisions are fairly lightweight; that, coupled with a general acceptance in society that you look after your parents, reduces the need for a certain demographic profile.
OTOH I don’t think England’s problems with feral kids is related to state support, as such. I do think it’s a HUGE problem that there are so many people dependent on it, and that the state “safety net” has become an all-encompassing cobweb, but that’s an economic/policy issue, not really a moral one. I grew up in a one-parent family and I learned a lot about money management from my mum (which, she admits, she learned by trial-and-lots-of-error). Most of my attitudes about wealth and the value of money I can ascribe to (a) growing up with no money on a council estate and (b) rubbing shoulders with sons of politicians, doctors, lawyers and assorted nobs at a posh private school. Some of them were nice people. Some of them were little shits. Back on the estate, some of my neighbours were nice people; some were little shits. The main difference was that the kids on the estate were a bit thick, and would therefore (many of them) go through life making dumb choices. Not necessarily because they were bad people, but because nobody had taught/shown them anything different.
I suspect the ‘feral kids’ problem has more to do with the government’s desire to increase tax revenue to ever-greater heights by getting people out to work and creating a new ‘babysitting class’. Most of these people are doing utterly useless jobs and would be better off staying at home looking after their spawn. Even a mediocre parent can do better than a babysitter, who really doesn’t give a shit if the kid lives or dies (as long as said babysitter can get away with it).
If I had any say in social policy for poor people, I’d like to see them provided with proper education, and I’d like to see bad parents stamped on hard, really hard, until they wise up. Bad parents can be rich or poor - it’s just that bad parents, because they’re usually vile people in a more general sense, end up being poor because they’re unemployable. “Proper education” means life skills. Learning how money works. Learning that it’s not normal for your house to smell of piss, or for your bf to kick you around, or for your kids to steal from the Spar. Learning that the word “fuckin’” is not a copula, conjunction, or a general-purpose adjective. Learning that life is what you make it, and that even if you’re poor, you still have choices. I don’t know where you’d find people to teach those things (because those who applied would invariably be social misfits with their own psychological problems) but I think it would be less intrusive, and more productive, than means-tested benefits, or incentives to become “middle class”.
I think as the system stands more people is desirable to support the local economy, job creation and pension plans. That’s fairly obvious.
We can see that investment decisions, consumer demand, infrastructure and property requirements, service demand from government and private operators should generally increase with a growing population. A classic case are education services as discussed earlier.
Of course if there is some type of change in the environment or technologically or socially that may not bear up.
But at the moment the maxim more people equals a more robust economy seems to hold up.
As for the other issue regarding single mothers, I hope I have shown conclusively how the situation here is very different than Western countries and very much on the other side of the see-saw and needs to be addressed in a manner that is specific to the culture and population trends in Taiwan at this time.
For what it’s worth I think a lot of grandparents here would not mind having a grandchild of such providence (as opposed to more conservative South Korea) and they have time to help out, it’s the attitude of employers and the government that is impeding things more and resulting in this missing segment of children in a country that has among the lowest birth rate in the world.
We are not talking about incentives to sit at home here. These are incentives to give people extra money for childcare or some tax relief. These are subsidies that would help these hard working people to give their kids a better education, assist the mother to hold down a job and career (while paying income taxes) and avoid the cycle of poverty that some are insinuating would happen here. In fact it could also create more child minding jobs as a spin-off and reduce costs on the healthcare and labour bureau overall (as working people must contribute to these funds). I think that is one of the reasons I find GITs post about single mothers and feral children especially offensive in the context of Taiwan.
I was raised solely by my mom. And i think iv been pretty feral all my life. Im totally feral in fact. Im just one feral cat, dude, mess with me and I am gonna mess you up ! I listen to my own drummer. I have trouble listening to other people. I only obey when i want to (and i wont unless i have to).
HH2: I work in the education system. I have done so for a decade. There are two common threads that run through the feral kids. Firstly, they have bad adults at home. Secondly, they have bad adults at school and in other positions of authority in society. I’m definitely concerned with the latter, but I’ll leave that out of the discussion for now. Come out and live where I live and teach the kids I teach and we’ll see what you’re on about and you’ll see what I’m on about.
Not all children from single parent families will grow up to be feral, but many will simply because there are a whole lot of issues that arise from single parent families. Indeed, many people are in single parent families because those issues already existed before they had the kids. It’s a bit of a chicken and the egg argument. Anyway, I’m not just arguing against single parent families. I am arguing against non-middle class families. This is not fascism, so stop painting it as such. It’s disingenuous for you to conveniently ignore the sociological research and label it as fascism because you don’t like it. It is merely acknowledging that there are a certain set of values (that are generally embodied in the middle class, that’s how they become/remain middle class, after all) that we should encourage because they are good for society, if we absolutely must give people money.
You seem to be arguing that any kid is worth having (there’s that Catholicism peaking its nose out), and all one need do is throw money at the situation and all will be well. Really, how well has the mantra of having as many kids as possible worked in many parts of the world? I am coming from the opposite direction. Either keep the state out of reproduction or find those who have already proven themselves (the middle class, largely) and encourage those people to have (more) kids. Incentivise good behaviour, disincentivise bad behaviour. No relativism. You can claim that the U.K. is in a completely different situation all you like, but the U.K. didn’t get to the situation it’s in (and remember, I’ve taught there also) accidentally. Taiwan would copy that at its own peril.
I have a Taiwanese mate who is on comparatively good money, 60k, and I have no idea how he manages to get by with two kids. His wife has a job for a further 25k. However, they send both kids to a private bilingual kindy which costs 30k. His mortgage is 25k, so their combined income is immediately down to 30k a month. Subtract bills, car loan, groceries etc and he clearly can’t be saving each month. Raising kids is really expensive and Taiwan is not a child-friendly place, so I can only see the numbers going in one direction.[/quote]
This is the bit that I really don’t get. I have a friend who works in the MOE programme. His wife is originally from Yilan County. He could basically do his job anywhere (he has had the option of taking a position in Hualian, for instance), for the same money. A large part of his and his wife’s decision to live in New Taipei City and for her to work in Taipei City is based upon her job. Yet she has a very average kind of job. I can’t see how that can possibly make any financial sense. The higher cost of living, commuting, etc. in Taipei, coupled with the fact that they pay a babysitter for their kid who is about one year old, just can’t possibly justify their situation. Even if she got a job in Hualian for 15K/month less (and it probably wouldn’t be that much less), it would still work out better to move to Hualian. Or even better, I’m sure they could figure something out for Yilan, and then her mother could help look after the kid. My friend is sick of commuting (to Xinzhu) for work, and he’s talking about freelancing and doing privates around where they live. Yeah, him and every other foreigner in Taipei. Too much competition. I can’t see that that would work out for him. Yet if he and his wife were to find a somewhat large town (such as the one she is from!!!) and set up shop there, even in an unofficial capacity at first, they could probably do okay and have virtually no competition.
I just don’t understand the rationale of moving to Taipei to earn, for example, 6,000NTD/month more, but spend 12,000NTD/month more in the process. Yet I can’t get this through to my friend.[/quote]
A lot of people don’t want to move back to their hometown. Sometimes they think it’s boring. Sometimes they have unhappy memories. Sometimes they think it’s too close to their family. Sometimes they prefer the big city and bright lights. I’ve had similar conversations with the wife, it’s her who is the unenthusiastic one about moving too close to her family.[/quote]
Moving outside of Taipei means less opportunities to find work, and a lot less salary. Many people -usually the ones with the best grades/more money- come to study in Taipei as youngster -highschool or college- and as said, do their little guanxi rings or contacts based on those ties. The best jobs may or may not be in Taipei, but people think they are.
Also, they get used to the perks -higher salary, more shopping, traveling, etc. Their parents had those perks when the economy was better, so the parents demand that their kids have/do that -buy a house! doesn’t matter it you are in debt over your head, buy a house!- hence the need to stay working in Taipei… even if you can’t save.
All the good schools are in Taipei. That’s a fact. All the good doctors are in Taipei. That’s a perception. Outside of Taipei, it is another world for most people. People think differently, speak differently. If someone wants to advance socially and make something economically, they have to be in Taipei. Meipanfa.
You claim that sociological research points to this, but have you actually got any research that actually relates to Taiwan or Asian cultures?
For instance in Taiwan child rearing often involves grandparents and extended family members and now a lot of childcare services.
There is almost no social welfare system in Taiwan too.
You seem to fear that it will happen creepingly in Taiwan, the social welfare state. Well let me tell you Taiwan has been running social welfare for many people for decades, the army, civil servants, policmen, corporations, semi state workers.
Icon: Sure, but I’m not talking about people in great jobs, earning big money. I have no idea what my friend’s wife makes, but it can’t be more than 40,000NTD/month. If she were to move outside Taipei, she might get as low as 25,000NTD/month (I doubt it would be that low). Yet it has to be costing them at least 15,000NTD/month more to be living in Taipei. Actually, I know it is because they’re using that babysitter.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]You claim that sociological research points to this, but have you actually got any research that actually relates to Taiwan or Asian cultures?
For instance in Taiwan child rearing often involves grandparents and extended family members and now a lot of childcare services.
There is almost no social welfare system in Taiwan too.
You seem to fear that it will happen creepingly in Taiwan, the social welfare state. Well let me tell you Taiwan has been running social welfare for many people for decades, the army, civil servants, policmen, corporations, semi state workers.
Why don’t you bring that up?[/quote]
No one had any research about what the welfare state would do in the U.K. before they implemented it there either. Are you suggesting that we should just throw our hands in the air, unintended consequences be damned? It’s like me saying that environmental studies conducted in country X have no relevance to Taiwan because it has a different ecology, so go for it boys, start pouring those chemicals in rivers and chopping down trees! Woohoo! Either you look at scientific evidence (elsewhere if necessary) and try to learn from it, or you don’t.
The implementation of subsidies for families would constitute the beginning of welfare here. It would be the thin edge of the wedge. One thing that I really like about Taiwan, actually, probably the main thing I like about Taiwan, is that the government largely stays out of things, which creates a low tax/low cost of living environment, which is why I am able to prosper here. As I have pointed out, it’s been an unmitigated disaster in many places that have already gone down that route. How’s the welfare state working out in the PIIGS, for instance? Their economies, and their birthrates, for that matter, are in such wonderful shape! Ironically, European subsidies have equalled more trips to Thailand, not more babies.
I’m sure you know my position regarding the welfare that does exist in Taiwan. Are you assuming that because I didn’t bring those other topics up that I am in support of them? Surely you know my posting history and philosophical position by now! Are you really implying that I’m in favour of the KMT gravy train?
Using your logic Guy there wouldn’t be many people left to live on the island. It’s pick and choose isn’t it. We can all look at another group and say, we are more deserving, they aren’t.
What gets my gall is the fact that you rail against giving incentives to single mothers in Taiwan from an ideological, not practical position. As I have explained about five times now single mothers are actively discriminated against in society by government regulations. I note you haven’t had much to say about this? Do you agree with this? This is state sponsored interference, I thought that was against your principles?
You might say that’s okay, that’s the values of this society. OK, but in terms of population this is having a big impact because AT THE SAME TIME the rate of people getting married is constantly reducing while the age of getting married has increased. If Taiwan wants more kids it’s going to have to get real…and hopefully more openminded in the process.
Whether you like it or not some of your thought processes that you have brought up here are related to facist ideology. Facism and it’s big brother racism has proven to be a dead end time and time again but it’s usually brought untold misery onto minority groups and the majority population before it is shown up for what it is …extremist and simplistic idealist thought that does not work in a complex and humane world.
I get there are issues in the welfare state in the UK, but it does not mean the total abandonment of the world as we know it, as much as McCarthy railing against creeping communism in the US in the 1950s, and it is NOT particularly relevant to Taiwan.
Taiwan should do what Singapore does to promote higher birth rates/innovative next generation. Tax breaks, cash, and clubs for smart people to meet/then copulate and breed a very intelligent next generation.
I listen to my own drummer. I have trouble listening to other people. I only obey when i want to (and i wont unless i have to).