3 ms·

From the article: "The big gains came from the construction of apartments and condominiums, which soared 56.7%. But single-family home construction ticked up, t

From the article: "The big gains came from the construction of apartments and condominiums, which soared 56.7%. But single-family home construction ticked up, too, by 8.2%." So, nice solid growth in the "buying these houses" part of the sector, but by far bigger growth in the "people need to live somewhere" sector of apartments (which I am guessing is the bigger part of the apts-and-condos segment). Some states stopped construction during the shutdown. Nearly everywhere is now allowing it, so activity surges to catch up. I know of no evidence that births slowed during the shutdown, and the deaths weren't enough to meaningfully impact demand for a place to live. So, it's good news, but ought not to be surprising. Also from the article: "...these are the kind of gains seen after storms/hurricanes" Well, yeah, and the pandemic is in many respects more like a hurricane than it is like an economic recession.

throwanem 6y ago
I wouldn't expect to start seeing evidence for a COVID baby bust, or the lack of one, for a good few months yet. Of obvious necessity, birth rate is about a nine-month trailing indicator.
- rossdavidh 6y ago
  So, supposedly, widespread power outages lead to measurable baby boomlets, rather than busts. With all outside forms of entertainment closed, I wouldn't count on there being a baby bust at all.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Intuitively, I'd expect a substantive difference between a "we've just got to get through this and everything is fine" power outage - complete with cookouts! Can't let what's in the freezer go to waste - and the calendar-melting, interpersonally isolated anxiety hell and economic collapse, then un-collapse, then maybe collapse again? of COVID. Power outages also have much precedent in the living memory of the US, crucially including that things really will go back to normal again - while pandemics lack any such cultural familiarity. Just that uncertainty all by itself I'd expect to depress birth rate somewhat, nine months hence. (Not to mention, how do you even social distance in bed with somebody? If you're married or live-in partners, then sure, but I have to figure booty calls have plummeted lately, and that's also not a pattern you'd expect to see in a blackout.) All in all - yeah, people have time on their hands in both cases, but they're not otherwise very comparable, and I feel like, in the much higher-anxiety environment of the latter, it's considerably less likely that people will opt to pass some of that time by boning down - and on top of that, safety measures foreclose a considerable range of opportunities for doing so in the first place. That said, we'll know pretty well one way or the other by probably January or February, so for anyone not trying to front-run the diaper and formula markets, the uncertainty of the moment is probably fairly bearable. Fwiw, some Brookings economists found not wholly dissimilar reason to predict a very measurable bust, along with an interesting aside on rates of conception during and around the various waves of the 1918 flu. I don't know whether I entirely buy their analysis, but it's at least not absurd on its face; make of it what you like. https://www.brookings.edu/research/half-a-million-fewer-children-the-coming-covid-baby-bust/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/half-a-million-fewer-chil...
    - rossdavidh 6y ago
      I would think 1957 and 1968 would be more comparable, since, to say the least, there was a lot of other stuff going on in 1918 that might impact that (like the husband is away at war). Of course, I'm sure there was a lot going on in 1957 and 1968 too, but not to 1918 levels. But, you're right, we'll know soon enough. Lockdown lasted a lot longer than power outages, also.

throwanem 6y ago

I wouldn't expect to start seeing evidence for a COVID baby bust, or the lack of one, for a good few months yet. Of obvious necessity, birth rate is about a nine-month trailing indicator.

rossdavidh 6y ago
So, supposedly, widespread power outages lead to measurable baby boomlets, rather than busts. With all outside forms of entertainment closed, I wouldn't count on there being a baby bust at all.
- throwanem 6y ago
  Intuitively, I'd expect a substantive difference between a "we've just got to get through this and everything is fine" power outage - complete with cookouts! Can't let what's in the freezer go to waste - and the calendar-melting, interpersonally isolated anxiety hell and economic collapse, then un-collapse, then maybe collapse again? of COVID. Power outages also have much precedent in the living memory of the US, crucially including that things really will go back to normal again - while pandemics lack any such cultural familiarity. Just that uncertainty all by itself I'd expect to depress birth rate somewhat, nine months hence. (Not to mention, how do you even social distance in bed with somebody? If you're married or live-in partners, then sure, but I have to figure booty calls have plummeted lately, and that's also not a pattern you'd expect to see in a blackout.) All in all - yeah, people have time on their hands in both cases, but they're not otherwise very comparable, and I feel like, in the much higher-anxiety environment of the latter, it's considerably less likely that people will opt to pass some of that time by boning down - and on top of that, safety measures foreclose a considerable range of opportunities for doing so in the first place. That said, we'll know pretty well one way or the other by probably January or February, so for anyone not trying to front-run the diaper and formula markets, the uncertainty of the moment is probably fairly bearable. Fwiw, some Brookings economists found not wholly dissimilar reason to predict a very measurable bust, along with an interesting aside on rates of conception during and around the various waves of the 1918 flu. I don't know whether I entirely buy their analysis, but it's at least not absurd on its face; make of it what you like. https://www.brookings.edu/research/half-a-million-fewer-children-the-coming-covid-baby-bust/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/half-a-million-fewer-chil...
  - rossdavidh 6y ago
    I would think 1957 and 1968 would be more comparable, since, to say the least, there was a lot of other stuff going on in 1918 that might impact that (like the husband is away at war). Of course, I'm sure there was a lot going on in 1957 and 1968 too, but not to 1918 levels. But, you're right, we'll know soon enough. Lockdown lasted a lot longer than power outages, also.