Families in the U.S. and around the world are having fewer children as people make profoundly different decisions about their lives. NPR's series "Population Shift: How Smaller Families Are Changing the World" explores the causes and implications of this trend.
My peer set is opting to have babies in apartments even though we all grew up in single family homes because the homes we grew up in are out of sync with our wages and/or too far of a commute. We're running out of time to have kids, so it's now in apartments or never.
My parents home was a 45 min commute to the city when they bought it in '93, now it's 90+ min. Their home is worth $1.2M, which both of us being tech workers we could afford but if one of us lost our jobs the other can't float us for very long. A home, with that commute, is not worth the precariousness. All that money, all that time away from your kid (plus complicated logistics getting to / from day care that closes before our work day ends) it's not worth it.
So, babies in apartments. We actually love it. Everything is walkable, there are parks, playgrounds, pools, elevators for strollers, we walk to the market, the pediatrician, the library, daycare etc. BUT there are NO 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS. They do not exist, whether for small families, young people starting out and splitting rent, couples with remote jobs who want separate offices. 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS DO NOT EXIST so, there will be fewer children.
The lack of large apartments in the US is at least partially caused by building codes requiring two means of fire egress (meaning two separate stairwells in taller buildings) which limits the size and layout of individual apartments.
Long story short though, modern fire mitigation techniques (materials, sprinklers, fire doors) greatly reduce the risk posed by having just one staircase, which would open up a wide array of apartment layouts.
In every rich country, real estate prices have grown much faster than wages. Besides, metropolization means that you can't live easily in the countryside, where it's cheaper, anymore.
Recent right-wing ideology in the US would fight back against this. JD Vance made a comment a few years ago saying that votes should tied to the number of children one has. Elon Musk has several posts on X decrying birth rates in the US, sounding alarms about the need to counter. Perhaps these are little more than bad ideas that will fade away, but that's less certain in today's policy climate.
Giving more votes to the family to align with the amount of children they have isn't far-right. It's a reasonable policy to correct a problem in democracies, where young citizens have no representation and are as a result often the fifth wheel of the cart.
Currently western democracies are dominated by 50+ years old, who tend to vote more conservative policies, which benefit them.
Why would we spend very large amounts of the GDP to support old people through health and retirement programs, but refuse to fund quality daycare, schools and child-oriented infrastructure (playgrounds, sports clubs and so on). Especially given that a healthy and educated youth will create tomorrow's prosperity for the country. Unlike the old who have already lived their lives.
If you think that I'm exagerating, I'd suggest listening to what happens in city councils, in retired-dominated cities: they often refuse improvements for families to fund their own programs. It's not a myth, I saw it with my own eyes, and it's very rational.
The developed world should solve the cost of living crisis, as the job market deteriorates forever. Demanding more wages forces companies to become efficient or offshore.
It seems like a problem that will self-correct. If too expensive housing is keeping couples from having children, then population will decline, which will free up a lot of housing stock making prices drop, and then people can afford having children again. Maybe it is just cyclical?
Population demographics is not zero-sum. Very soon the fraction of people who are too old to work will be larger than the fraction who can. We'll lose a shit ton of able, working bodies all across the board. This will tank the econony and quality of life for everyone.
This is the exact problem Japan is facing. You should go read up on how well that's "self-correcting" (it isn't)
13 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 35.5 ms ] threadhttps://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-94348/population-shift
My parents home was a 45 min commute to the city when they bought it in '93, now it's 90+ min. Their home is worth $1.2M, which both of us being tech workers we could afford but if one of us lost our jobs the other can't float us for very long. A home, with that commute, is not worth the precariousness. All that money, all that time away from your kid (plus complicated logistics getting to / from day care that closes before our work day ends) it's not worth it.
So, babies in apartments. We actually love it. Everything is walkable, there are parks, playgrounds, pools, elevators for strollers, we walk to the market, the pediatrician, the library, daycare etc. BUT there are NO 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS. They do not exist, whether for small families, young people starting out and splitting rent, couples with remote jobs who want separate offices. 3 BEDROOM APARTMENTS DO NOT EXIST so, there will be fewer children.
Here’s a video on the subject: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM
Long story short though, modern fire mitigation techniques (materials, sprinklers, fire doors) greatly reduce the risk posed by having just one staircase, which would open up a wide array of apartment layouts.
I mean, do whatever you want just stop blaming everything else for it. You don't want kids. Don't have them.
Currently western democracies are dominated by 50+ years old, who tend to vote more conservative policies, which benefit them.
Why would we spend very large amounts of the GDP to support old people through health and retirement programs, but refuse to fund quality daycare, schools and child-oriented infrastructure (playgrounds, sports clubs and so on). Especially given that a healthy and educated youth will create tomorrow's prosperity for the country. Unlike the old who have already lived their lives.
If you think that I'm exagerating, I'd suggest listening to what happens in city councils, in retired-dominated cities: they often refuse improvements for families to fund their own programs. It's not a myth, I saw it with my own eyes, and it's very rational.
This is the exact problem Japan is facing. You should go read up on how well that's "self-correcting" (it isn't)