A Superficial Calculator Falling Short of the Depth of Child and Family Studies
South Korea is routinely cited as the first nation at risk of demographic extinction. Faced with this unprecedented ultra-low fertility crisis, mainstream economists have rushed in as if they had been waiting for this exact moment, brandishing their supposedly sophisticated theories. Their explanation essentially boils down to this: "People are choosing not to have children because the opportunity cost of raising a child exceeds the utility derived from them. In other which, today’s low birth rate is merely the result of a highly ‘rational choice’ made by human beings."
At first glance, this sounds like a remarkably calm and objective analysis. However, to those who actually study real human lives and parenting, this explanation is a massive contradiction and a thoroughly superficial piece of sophistry. Economics is a discipline where the very criteria of rationality can shift and fluctuate at any moment depending on supply, demand, and environmental changes.
Yet, here they are, taking a stark social tragedy and structural imbalance and packaging it as if it were a "perfectly rational order" discovered by the market. In doing so, a deep understanding of actual "human beings" is entirely omitted.
The Arrogance of Calculating a Child’s "Quality" Solely by Monetary Investment
When the founding fathers of family economics explain low fertility rates, they invariably pull out their patented trademark logic: the theory of the "Quantity-Quality Trade-off" of children. They argue that in an expensive world, rather than having multiple children and raising them haphazardly, parents make an economic choice to have just one "high-quality" child and pour all their resources into them.
However, this logic is a shallow approach that completely fails to grasp the depth of Child and Family Studies, which actually researches the environments in which children grow.
Countless studies in child development and pediatric psychology directly refute this economic hubris. One of the core elements that fosters a child’s emotional development, social skills, and the overall "quality" of the rearing environment is none other than the presence of siblings and the rich interactions experienced among them. The quality of a child’s growth does not mechanically increase simply by sending them to expensive private academies or plastering them with more financial capital.
Nonetheless, economics reduces even the "quality of a child" to the "amount of money injected"—such as private education expenses or art and sports lessons. Lacking any understanding of human developmental processes, they treat a child as a commodity, akin to a high-performance computer or a luxury car. It is no wonder they arrive at such shallow conclusions.
The Blind Spot of Losing the Core Essence of Value Exchange
Originally, the rationality spoken of in economics stems from weighing and trading different values—much like paying money to acquire an apple.
However, the act of a parent giving birth to and raising a child is not a "transaction" where one invests personal resources to purchase a commodity called a son or daughter. It is a sublime realm of unconditional love, sacrifice, communal value, and reverence for life—elements that can never be substituted by the logic of a market economy.
Yet, economics forces this realm onto a cold scale of supply and demand, cost and benefit, calling it the "economics of the family." It is only natural that people experience a profound sense of revulsion and find it impossible to accept this as legitimate economics.
Conclusion: Time to Step Out of Fossilized Equations
"An existing phenomenon cannot automatically be equated with a rightful order."
Amidst housing insecurity, job instability, and the collapse of social infrastructure, young people have been backed into a tragic corner of "choosing having no choice." Yet, economics has beautifully fossilized this tragedy, labeling it a market equilibrium and a rational order. This is the result of extremely oversimplifying human life solely to fit their equations, while completely disregarding the profound research achievements of neighboring disciplines.
The hubris of believing that a temporary band-aid fluctuating with supply and demand represents eternal rationality, and the superficiality of measuring a child’s worth purely in terms of money—this is precisely why economics is criticized by other disciplines as "shallow." If economics wishes to preserve the signboard of its grand empire, it must stop hiding behind cold calculators to justify tragic phenomena. It is time to look straight at the complex, yet sublime, reality of how humans actually live.
Leave a Reply