"New housing should be of a family-friendly type (something with a yard for kids to play in)"
Low density of other children nearby and inability for children to safely travel on their own is not family friendly. I agree that if we only build one and two bedroom apartments its going to discourage larger families, but there is no reason we can't build denser three or four bedroom housing.
Though honestly I think the entire premise of this article is flawed. Cost of housing is only one of many factors. Cost of having children is higher than ever before, which housing can play a factor in.
Yes, IMO the most important thing that makes a place family friendly is lots of accessible kids nearby.
The suburbs used to be that. Mine was built in the 70's and used to have a family with kids in pretty much every house, now it's mostly empty nesters. And in the 70's the streets used to be safe because even though it had no sidewalks there were always kids walking them. Now the cars go 40 and don't expect to see kids. Urban sidewalks are safer than suburban streets.
Denser neighborhoods means more people close by, which should mean more kids.
The problem is perception. People think you need a backyard. But a nearby park full of kids kids can walk to own their own is far more important than a backyard, in my opinion. Even if my opinion is correct, it doesn't matter because people act on what they believe. And if most believe you need a backyard...
> But if we rush to build dense apartment towers, they will drag down fertility for many generations to come
Completely gets cause and effect backwards.
Talk to literally anyone who's ever been young. You DECIDE to have kids, THEN you move to the suburbs. You don't move to the suburbs and then suddenly feel like having kids.
I moved to the suburbs with the intention of having kids right after moving (and we did have one 1 year after moving). I suppose that I was young at one point in my life.
> This makes sense to anyone who has been a parent trying to raise children in an apartment. It feels awful as a parent when your noisy children are bothering the neighbors through the walls at all hours. It is difficult to entertain young kids all day when there is no yard for them to play in. It is nerve racking knowing the ever-present danger of a high balcony for little ones.
This feels like a lot of assumptions. I'm not convinced that every parent would classify apartment living as awful, and many seem happy to trade the quiet backyard for the bustling city below. That said, this stands out to me
> your noisy children are bothering the neighbors through the walls at all hours
Among other causes, I think in the US there's been a growing negative attitude towards young children - they're seen as nuisances to be endured. A friend of mine is a military wife with 4 children. She said in Italy the difference was striking - she'd get on a bus or train with the kids and everyone smiled cheerfully, happy to see young family out and about. In the US everyone grimaced and avoided eye contact, probably hoping the kids sat far away.
The root cause is doubtless debatable - are Italians better at raising obedient kids or are Italians more tolerant towards normal kid behavior?
Reddit is my usual source of the attitudes of young people and I see "I can't afford kids" much less often than I see "Kids are awful and why would anyone want them?"
The other strong factor appears to be for all the trending 'trad wife' cosplay going on, a lot of women don't want to be full time wives and moms. Men often have rosy memories of growing up with someone taking care of them, women often have mixed memories of a mom who had few intellectually challenging tasks, no time of, and very little respect from society in general.
I think you nailed it. Europe is, in general, just a lot more family-friendly. Italy in particular is very enthusiastic about children, probably due to a combination of culture and their declining population. But generally speaking, my wife and I never felt out of place bringing our then-three-year-old son around to wineries or restaurants.
I suspect most of this is cultural and not due to Italian child-rearing resulting in better-behaved children or something like that. European governments are generally much more supportive to new parents. In France, my sister got a nanny subsidized by the government for the first couple of years, for example. Here in the Bay Area, my wife and I had to pay through the nose for a full-time nanny. We not only paid her a good rate, but we paid her above board, Nanny Tax and everything. And guess how much of that is tax-deductible? Absolutely none of it. And because we're in a high CoL area, we obviously didn't qualify for the expanded child tax credit. Our one child has cost an astonishing amount of money -- my wife has been agitating for another, and I'm just not sure we can afford it without decimating our savings.
Kids are demanding enough, but when the government basically tells you you're on your own after they're born, society orients itself around that. To anyone who doesn't have kids, they just think, "Well that's your problem", because that's basically the stated position of American society.
>> your noisy children are bothering the neighbors through the walls at all hours
Paper-thin walls are a construction issue.
I've been living in apartments in cities my whole life, and now I'm raising my kids in a large city. There are several families with small kids in the same building. Noise is rarely a problem, because walls between apartments are thick and sound-insulating.
Paper thin walls are more than a construction issue, they are substandard living conditions and the buildings should be condemned and the construction company that built them should be fined and forced to build better housing.
I was hesitant to click on this Twitter post but it's actually a well written article on the topic. Thanks for sharing.
I wonder if being around so many people burns us out. Having a kid ensures there will be someone always at home, so after a day of swimming through strangers you don't get solitude at home.
While full automation has a low probability in our lives, the chances are much higher for the next generation. So in my potential child's life, they very likely wont be able to remain employed.
How do we currently treat people who aren't working right now? Terribly. This means (IMO) it's best for the child to not exist.
Perhaps you might think, "I'm smart and I will raise a smart healthy child, and that won't happen to them." Welp even if the stars align and nothing goes wrong, what kind of a future is that to leave them? Endlessly competing for the last few living wage jobs in existence? That doesn't sound like a free life to me.
Consent of the unborn is not given while creating life. Now that we have an option in weather or not we create life, we should exercise it with responsibility.
As a millennial, I don't really feel so much that I climbed the ladder as much as I held on for dear life as it was pulled up. And I didn't end up all that far up like a lot of people here. I think I'm basically doing ok and at peace with where I am now, but I can't imagine putting a kid through the things I had to go through; it all just feels so grim with the future they're facing.
Also, I'm not religious (though I did try for a bit) and I think that's a very important ingredient in fertility and certainly seems to be bringing it down as people drift away from religion. God is dead and we have killed him I suppose.
There are ~8B people in the world, up from 1B in 1800 and around 1.7B in 1900.
Lower fertility rates (as an outcome of family choice, not laws) than previous does not sound like a disaster to me and may turn out to be an important part of ensuring the survival (and comfort) of the species.
A an ever larger proportion of a population is too old to do significant amounts of work, the smaller proportion of healthy able bodied younger people is forced to pick up the slack. This goes from teachers, to truckers, to plumbers and beyond.
This burden is made even worse as most developed countries have established pension systems that act as generational wealth transfers, where younger workers pay for the pensions of the elderly, in the hopes that the next generation of children will in turn pay for their parents' pensions.
It gets worse: that large mass of retired people now represent the main block of voters, making it very difficult to enact pension reforms that will reduce the amount of money they siphon from younger generations.
It is very easy to go from a sustainable stable population to a rapid population decline that is difficult to recover from.
It is also somewhat easy to get a slow burn of a decline.
Somehow our expectations for birth rates are based on a period of a boom. Proper stats are not used for this purpose because they would clash with the prosperity narrative.
Sample ignored statistics. The baby boom was fueled by enormous fall in childhood mortality. Otherwise the growth rates are apparently near zero... Our negative percentages are likely a correction over the sudden boom, which is why we see a similar reaction worldwide. Regardless of the housing prices, income or other reasons. Even in the Global South.
Right. The current world population growth rate is about where it was at the time of World War II, and that growth rate was the highest it had been in about 8000 years. The baby boom in the 1950s and 1960s was a world-wide phenomena, and we are not at that peak now, but world population is currently growing faster than it did from 4000 BC to 1940.
Some countries, like in the Baltics, are seeing population decline, but human population is still growing fairly quickly.
And to complicate things, the population growth rate is not evenly distributed; combined with migration, it means many people get to observe a cultural transformation happening around them in real-time, which creates all sorts of reactions.
From a ecology standpoint, you're correct, it would be better for the species if birthrates flatten out.
However from an economics standpoint increasing numbers declining birthrates across the globe is disastrous.
Capitalism works by continually passing the buck to the next generation. In order to maintain our current economy we need an ever larger amount of cheap labor creating affordable products. The only two solutions to this are to have a high birth rate or to take advantage of another country's high birthrate through immigration.
Europe is seeing this as massive waves of immigration that many groups are uncomfortable with, but these immigrants are necessary to provide affordable labor in the face rapidly declining birthrates. But this economic salvation comes at a the cost of local culture. American's pride themselves on being a "melting pot" but not all European nations feel the same.
The US has long relied on immigration for this, but if you look immigration has been flattening out [0] and the impact can be felt in the US. Labor based services are getting harder and harder to get and companies that require labor intensive industries like lumber are experiencing shutdowns because they cannot find enough affordable labor [1].
Again, from a purely ecological/sustainability standpoint this is good: reduced production means reduced consumption, much better for the planet. But this also translates to reduced quality of life. As this trend continues people will continue to find it harder and harder to get goods and services that require human labor.
A lot of people I know don’t have kids because they’re not able to, and many of the others have children with developmental challenges. Something is going on. Dismissing the problem when something is accidentally affecting a whole populations’ reproductive health is frankly dumb.
Population reduction through policy is entirely different
The people you know - and I am guessing here - probably waited too long to have kids. Biologically, we should be reproducing around age 20, but that’s not viable unless you’re either rich (parents fund you) or poor (the government does).
I have no children and, barring some unusual happenstance, will not. But I knew that going into my marriage (heterosexual, we certainly could have had them).
Lyman Stone, who is screenshotted in this post, attempts to address this [1]. His conclusion is that migration is not sufficient to explain the effect, but I have not looked in detail. In the past I have found his explanations compelling but I can't vouch for this one.
I believe that means you're in agreement with the author. The point of the tweet is to counter a claim that low fertility in cities is caused by high prices; if large families leave cities for extra space then they're not doing so because of price.
> I have written frequently about the relationship between high housing density* and low fertility. The most common counter argument is that the real problem is urban prices.
Assuming this is true, how do we deliver family friendly housing in the city? It seems that we would need to get rid of most cars to make space for more voluminous housing within cities.
I'm not an expert, but I see some major flaws in this post doesn't make sense to me. Please feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood any concept.
>At 22,870 inhabitants per km², Macau is the densest jurisdiction in the world, denser than Singapore which itself suffers ultra-low fertility. Virtually everyone in Macau lives in an apartment tower. Studies (see below for a thread reviewing the literature) find that density is linked to low fertility, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if the densest place on Earth also has the lowest birthrates.
Exteremly high density will obviously lead to lower fertility since most residents barely have space for themselves. This is not what most people are talking about when asking for higher density housing. Looking at extreme cases does not mean moderate density will have the same outlook.
> Tokyo, Japan, provides a great natural experiment. What happens when you build urban high-rise towers in abundance? We once thought of Tokyo as expensive, but that is no longer true. Apartment towers have been added to the Tokyo skyline at a rapid clip, making it eminently affordable for young people.
This statement ignores a lot of the socio-economic problems in Japan. Problems such as decades economic stagnation, the extreme work culture, younger people being straddled with the burden of caring for older generations. These and many other problems combined are the reason for low fertility.
> Australia, where the pricey suburbs are much more fertile
I wonder who can afford to move to expensive suburbs ? Oh right its wealthy people.
I wonder who can afford to have enough free time to take care of children and also afford expensive child care services ? Oh right its wealthy people.
The problem isn't density, the problem is that people in child bearing age cannot afford to have children.
> New Zealand may not show what people think it does
Similar problems to Australia, people in child bearing age cannot afford to have children.
> After the war, Korea saw a housing crisis and resolved to build huge apartment towers as fast as possible. China too has gone the path of ultra-dense apartment blocks. Now both countries are stuck in an ultra-low fertility regime. They desperately try to pivot to higher birth rates, but their built housing stock dooms them. Young people in both countries are drawn to low fertility city life, and the depopulation conveyor belt runs hot.
These countries have problems similar to Japan, extreme work culture, lack of free time, lack of affordable housing, younger people being constantly burnt out. Mostly wealthy people with free time are having children.
I’m so tired of “people don’t want kids” being reported as “low fertility”.
Low fertility means “people wanting kids can’t have them”, not “people are choosing not to have them”.
The reality is the boomer and boomer+1 generations have made unending political choices that benefited them personally, and are now seeing that those choices are impacting their retirement plans, and realized their entire plan was dependent on having other tax payers look after them in a way they were unwilling to do when they were younger.
Now that they’re seeing that might not happen they’re again trying to make the predictable outcome of their choices be someone else’s problem.
I'm really tired of having "I should have children" shoved down my throat. I guess I should expect that from something called @morebirths. Now its low fertility?
I'm nearly 40, live in the densest neighborhood in Denver and I don't have a single friend here who has or wants kids. I do have tons of friends with kids - none of them live in the city. And I refuse to ever live in a suburb again.
I can't remember the last time that I saw a kid. I don't even know where the nearest school is.
edit: Downvoted for my personal anecdote, from someone who actually lives in the city. Never change, HN. Even flagged this post.
I'm not sure why you're downvoted either. I think your post is a better representation of some of the causes of low fertility than a lot of hand waving twitter posts.
I guarantee it's because I said I refuse to live in the suburbs again.
Peoples personal choice to not live in the suburbs seems to really offend some people. I'd love a big house and big yard. But I don't have kids to occupy my time. Instead I have friends all over the place that live within a few minutes walk.
I owned a house a few years ago, single, no kids in the suburbs of Austin. It was incredibly lonely. Just not the life for me. Nothing wrong with enjoying being there or anything if you do!
Low density of other children nearby and inability for children to safely travel on their own is not family friendly. I agree that if we only build one and two bedroom apartments its going to discourage larger families, but there is no reason we can't build denser three or four bedroom housing.
Though honestly I think the entire premise of this article is flawed. Cost of housing is only one of many factors. Cost of having children is higher than ever before, which housing can play a factor in.