Foreign domestic worker program has become a burden too costly to keep, yet too difficult to abandon

Last year, shortly after Seoul launched its pilot program for foreign domestic workers, two Filipino housekeepers left their jobs, and experts quickly pointed out the underlying issue: “Affordable care is not sustainable.” Five months have passed, and with just two weeks remaining before the program’s conclusion, the inevitable cost increases are once again fueling debate over the project’s viability.

From the outset, the initiative was framed as a solution to high childcare costs, which were seen as a major factor in South Korea’s declining birthrate. But the discussion should never have been solely about cost. The high price of childcare reflects the parents' long working hours, not the high wages of domestic workers. In reality, local housekeepers face poor wages and harsh working conditions. The introduction of “cheap foreign labor” only risked further deteriorating the already precarious situation of domestic workers in South Korea.

Rather than tackling labor reform—such as reducing working hours for dual-income families or expanding flexible work policies—the government opted for a shortcut: bringing in lower-cost care from abroad. It even proposed wages below the legal minimum, defying international labor standards. While that audacious initial proposal ultimately failed, the final wage for foreign housekeepers was set at 13,940 won per hour, including benefits, making them a cheaper alternative to both public childcare workers and private domestic workers in Korea.

However, even that cost advantage is quickly eroding. Under Korean labor law, these workers are entitled to severance pay after one year in the country, meaning their wages will inevitably rise.

Currently, families using foreign housekeepers are paying only 9.2% less than they would for public childcare services. A further increase in costs could drive many of them away. Moreover, a government survey conducted last December found that interest in hiring foreign housekeepers was minimal outside of Seoul—where the pilot program is running—with fewer than 20 people expressing intent per municipality.

Seoul has scrambled to fill the gap by leveraging existing domestic worker support programs. According to the city, apart from the two housekeepers who initially left, the remaining 98 foreign workers are currently employed across 185 households. The Ministry of Employment and Labor is now considering extending the pilot program.

However, the government cannot keep this program in a perpetual trial phase. Cost increases were inevitable, and maintaining the promise of “affordable care” will require securing additional funding to offset the rising expenses. Driven to the wall, the government is exploring other financial sources, but it remains unclear how much funding can be secured - or for how long. Scrapping the project altogether is not a viable option either, as the government pushed it forward despite fierce opposition.

This program, now a burden the government can neither abandon nor sustain, began as an initiative to introduce affordable care. But the government now stands at a crossroads: Will it partially abandon the promise of low-cost care or resort to temporary fixes to keep it afloat? One thing is certain—the latter is not a long-term solution. Even if emergency funding keeps the program running for now, the government must use this moment to develop a sustainable plan. Affordable care is not sustainable.