8 ms·

To meet demand, US needs 4.3M more apartments by 2035

36 points by jseliger 4y ago

missedthecue 4y ago
I feel like we need 4.3M new units just to catch up to where we should be. https://i.imgur.com/2lZgEDz.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2lZgEDz.jpg
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Household formation is tricky. With total fertility rate continuing to decline, it’s important to shift away from singe family starts to higher density (duplex, quads, mid rise mixed use, and condo towers, depending on what the local market calls for); as older cohorts age out and Boomers transition into senior or assisted living, that’ll free up housing stock. TLDR take the population pyramid into account, but still build baby build. (disclosure: part time real estate investor/developer apprentice)
  - arthurcolle 4y ago
    >With total fertility rate continuing to decline, it’s important to shift away from singe family starts to higher density (duplex, quads, mid rise mixed use, and condo towers, depending on what the local market calls for) Maybe I have a dirty mind, but is the higher density supposed to help people meet others and promote reproduction or something? It seems kind of cynical that people are forced to pay more for less in modern times, especially with higher taxes. I wish I had a house vs. having a 1 bedroom priced at ~3k per month. My rent is basically the equivalent of a mortgage at this point. I don't really want to have to have a car though so I guess that limits my living options.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Higher density is more capital efficient, versus what passes for single family homes in the US. It also reduces the per unit tax burden when taxes are based on land use and property value. If you want to live on an acre of land in a 3k-5k sq ft home, you’ll have to do it in Iowa City versus say, downtown Chicago (or within ~50 miles of the/a city core). Desirable land has a cost, both from an acquisition and upkeep perspective.
- jlmorton 4y ago
  I'm not accusing you of anything, but that graph stops 3 years ago, and there have been some big changes since that time. [1] [1] https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/06/may-housing-starts-all-time-record.html https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/06/may-housing-start...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gok 4y ago
Why don't we just allow non-conforming subprime home loans again?
- umeshunni 4y ago
  The problem isn't financing, it's construction.
bluedino 4y ago
We're in luck. There are 16 million abandoned homes in the US https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-study/ https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-stud... Easily takes care of the half a million people experiencing homelessness as well.
- arbuge 4y ago
  Vacant != abandoned. Right from the article you linked, 2nd parg: "But this doesn’t mean millions of abandoned and dilapidated homes are withering away in the suburbs. Vacant homes can be unoccupied for many reasons beyond being uninhabitable. For example, a house can be vacant because it’s still on the market to be sold or rented or it’s a vacation home not currently in use."
  - DoctorNick 4y ago
    Yes, we know. They should be expropriated.
    - Asdrubalini 4y ago
      You are confusing USA with USSR.
    - jsnk 4y ago
      How do you think this should be done?
      - bredren 4y ago
        Strong financial incentives to not possess unoccupied homes. i.e. second homes are heavily taxed, out of state second homes are even more heavily taxed. Homes under management for long term housing or resale kept in unoccupied states longer than reasonably expected incur penalties. Homes kept unoccupied due to being priced out of reasonable band may do so for limited duration--every loophole has to be addressed with financial incentives. This includes reducing the business potential of domestic and foreign private equity groups picking up homes at depressed rates like what blackstone did. Residential property rental and transactions related to residential property must be way less lucrative.
kvetching 4y ago
Apartments are terrible for people. Why not talk about needs for homes? Why can't America make small 2 bedroom homes anymore as seen in 1950s suburbs. It's either a mansion or an apartment now for new housing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kredd 4y ago
  I am genuinely curious, why are they terrible for people? Grew up in one, and currently living in one as well (mind you, by choice), and know multiple families (with kids) living a relatively happy life in apartments.
  - pandaman 4y ago
    I am not sure if they are terrible for all the people but for me the noise is a huge deal: always had been sleep-deprived when I lived in apartments. On top of that there are tons of tiny things that combine together into miserable conditions: the bare minimum appliances (many apartments don't have even a washer/dryer and ones that have usually come with an electric dryer), pest infestations, mold, tobacco/weed smoke and other smells from neighbors in shared ventilation/windows, slow maintenance, elevated crime activity (an apartment complex parking is a big juicy target for any enterprising thief, as is its mailroom), your deliveries going to your neighbors and their deliveries to you (at any time of night too) etc. etc.
- lukasb 4y ago
  Well-built apartments with good light, soundproofing etc are great, and you can get amenities in the building that would be cost-prohibitive for a single-family home.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- trident5000 4y ago
  If they sold well they would be built. People would rather rent an apt that uses all their disposable income than level with reality that a tiny 2bd home is what they can afford to buy. "but the amenities, location, and view in an apt" I can assure you an expensive home has all of these.
sp527 4y ago
Much as I (a relatively young person) am in favor of more housing, isn't it also true that a surge in homebuilding would eviscerate the wealth of a lot of older Americans who are on the verge or in the midst of retirement? I feel dread whenever I look at the retirement savings numbers. So many elderly who'll have to live on a knife's edge financially.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Unless you're massively over-extended, the usual result of a housing price crash is to require you to hang around in whatever house you were in at the time of the crash (because the fixed loan payments don't change, and you can't afford to sell). But even if homebuilding increased to the point of keeping prices steady, it would probably be enough.
- throwaway1777 4y ago
  Lots of boomers did refis and helocs and don’t have any equity anyway. Of course a large portion do have equity but they are generally not the ones on a “knife’s edge”
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If we want to give money to old people, we should just give it to them. And there's no reason to prioritize the wealthiest old people. Plenty of old people don't own homes, they pay rent.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > eviscerate the wealth of a lot of older Americans who are on the verge or in the midst of retirement? Using rising home values as a retirement account is essentially just a pyramid scheme. Like, just think about how this has to work. It only functions if home values drastically increase between purchase and retirement, right? Let's say they have to double, for it to be significant for retirement savings: that means that each generation, houses are getting twice as expensive for the next set of buyers. Literally exponential growth in housing prices. This can only happen a few times in a market before only people with a lot of wealth already -- intergenerational or otherwise -- can still afford the homes; just look at the bay area for an example. I grew up in the south bay, and hardly anyone from my childhood still lives there: they can't really afford it. To buy a house there, you usually need two people in tech with high salaries (and even then it can be stretching things a bit). Is that what you want? The current situation in places that have had incredible growth in property prices is that people are funding their retirements, not from saving during their work years, but off the backs of their kids and grandkids, because they got lucky in where they chose to settle down. It's unearned wealth, plain and simple. The ideal price of housing is zero*. * okay yes obviously there's caveats there, but the fact that unlike other consumer goods where inflation is obviously held to be bad, people treat increasingly unaffordable housing as a good thing is insane.
throwaway1777 4y ago
Demographic collapse may take care of the issue. How can we need more apartments when population begins to decline?
LAC-Tech 4y ago
UN studies assume global population will peak around the 2080s [0]. Western countries rely on immigration induced population growth to keep their economies healthy. Would it not makes sense to prepare for a future where that well has run dry? [0] https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...
- junofan 4y ago
  No. Global population isn’t the rate-limiting factor for US immigration.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Maybe not yet, but it will be. The world is getting older as well. The US will find itself increasingly competing for young, working age immigrants with other western nations. People in the developing world will also have less incentive to immigrate as their nations become more and more developed (look at India - it's still a much poorer than the US, but that gap used to be a whole lot bigger).
kodah 4y ago
Articles like this miss the fact that having a shelter is one thing, but homes are also an important investment for the people that live in them. So much so that they are the default strategy of most financial planners and are only rivaled by complicated financial tools that involve insurance savings programs. I welcome the talk about more housing, but people need to remember: most of what we need aren't rentals. We need places people can own.
- delecti 4y ago
  Something cannot be an investment without scarcity, but housing is required to live. The problem is not "not enough houses to own" it's people hoarding houses as investment to the detriment of people's fundamental need to shelter.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  Germans mostly rent and it's fine. Because they have tenant protection laws.
- trinovantes 4y ago
  Here's a crazy idea: a basic human need shouldn't be an investment vehicle.
Ninjinka 4y ago
There is no such thing as "to meet demand." If there were suddenly 4.3M more apartments, prices would drop, and suddenly there would be more demand as more people believe they can afford to have an apartment. Students who previously would have lived with their parents would want their own apartment. People with roommates would suddenly want their own place.
- colinsane 4y ago
  > There is no such thing as "to meet demand. you’re talking about induced demand (i think that’s the term?), which is very real and makes the 4M figure in the article a bit misleading, but such demand isn’t likely to be infinite. consider an analogous endgame: i create a product which can dispense sushi for free. i give you a plate of 100 pounds of sushi, at no cost. you’re not going to eat it all, you’re not going to infinitely expand your demand to meet the available supply. supply really has met demand in this scenario. i think a similar thing would apply to housing. even the very well-off don’t tend to purchase the maximal number of vacation homes they could afford. and i don’t think there’s any technology short of cloning that would cause a person to desire infinite residences: you can only be in on place at any given time…
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  Excellent. Everyone should have their own place
trevorboaconstr 4y ago
ITT >but, but, apartments are bad. Or >nuke the suburbs Both these takes are wrong. We need diversified development that meets peoples needs at all levels of society. From soviet style concrete apartment blocks to 3 acre single lot McMansions and everything in between. F unbridled YIMBYISM, but especially F “BUT it will ruin neighbor character” NIMBYISM. Fill in the gaps, be empathetic, and welcome new people to the neighborhood. https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
- lemonlime 4y ago
  I'm not sure we need more suburbs. At the scale they're on today, they're unsustainable without massive subsidies from city dwellers. They're bad for the environment, bad for health, probably bad for the community in general, etc. This is not a two-equal-sides situation IMO.
  - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
    Yes. This is true, and personally I agree. But, for example, many groups in the US who have not had the privilege of living in the suburbs historically are now doing so given the opportunity. Single family housing is a status symbol and will continue to be. https://imgur.com/a/oOcq2K2 https://imgur.com/a/oOcq2K2 Urban3 has done some very interesting research into who pays for the suburbs. Guess who pays? It’s not the suburbs!! https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/
olivermarks 4y ago
'While the immigration rate stands at a record low, a reversal of this trend could significantly raise apartment demand, according to a press release on the report.' This seems off - do they mean legal documented immigrants, because there are reports of 3000 undocumented people a day illegally coming into Texas via Mexico, some of whom are being bussed to other parts of America? The concerns with 'building more apartment buildings' are resources in area - water, energy, transportation - and past disasters with places like Geneva Towers in South San Francisco which deteriorated into a crime ridden hell that had to be demolished in the '90's. https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Remembrance_of_Geneva_Towers https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Remembrance_of_Genev... I'm all for more housing but the US is a big place yet everyone seems to want to live in very small areas of it, egged on by the YIYBY crowd.
game-of-throws 4y ago
The US has a population of 329.5 million. Average household size is 2.51 people. So we need to house 131 million families - but the US already has 142 million housing units. The surplus is 3x the headline. What am I missing? https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h... https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing-units-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing...
- sushisource 4y ago
  Vacant units. Which is to say, yeah, maybe we don't need to build tons more, but we do at minimum need to use what we have and we aren't.
- aetherane 4y ago
  The market isn't perfect. The houses might not be where the demand is or the type/size needed and there will always be some unoccupied percentage due to moves, investments etc. I would assume 10% unoccupied is the minimum needed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tonymet 4y ago
if the population has been below replacement for 40 years , where are all the people coming from ?

36 points by jseliger 4y ago

I feel like we need 4.3M new units just to catch up to where we should be. https://i.imgur.com/2lZgEDz.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2lZgEDz.jpg

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Household formation is tricky. With total fertility rate continuing to decline, it’s important to shift away from singe family starts to higher density (duplex, quads, mid rise mixed use, and condo towers, depending on what the local market calls for); as older cohorts age out and Boomers transition into senior or assisted living, that’ll free up housing stock. TLDR take the population pyramid into account, but still build baby build. (disclosure: part time real estate investor/developer apprentice)
- arthurcolle 4y ago
  >With total fertility rate continuing to decline, it’s important to shift away from singe family starts to higher density (duplex, quads, mid rise mixed use, and condo towers, depending on what the local market calls for) Maybe I have a dirty mind, but is the higher density supposed to help people meet others and promote reproduction or something? It seems kind of cynical that people are forced to pay more for less in modern times, especially with higher taxes. I wish I had a house vs. having a 1 bedroom priced at ~3k per month. My rent is basically the equivalent of a mortgage at this point. I don't really want to have to have a car though so I guess that limits my living options.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Higher density is more capital efficient, versus what passes for single family homes in the US. It also reduces the per unit tax burden when taxes are based on land use and property value. If you want to live on an acre of land in a 3k-5k sq ft home, you’ll have to do it in Iowa City versus say, downtown Chicago (or within ~50 miles of the/a city core). Desirable land has a cost, both from an acquisition and upkeep perspective.
jlmorton 4y ago
I'm not accusing you of anything, but that graph stops 3 years ago, and there have been some big changes since that time. [1] [1] https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/06/may-housing-starts-all-time-record.html https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2022/06/may-housing-start...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gok 4y ago

Why don't we just allow non-conforming subprime home loans again?

umeshunni 4y ago
The problem isn't financing, it's construction.

bluedino 4y ago

We're in luck. There are 16 million abandoned homes in the US https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-study/ https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-stud... Easily takes care of the half a million people experiencing homelessness as well.

arbuge 4y ago
Vacant != abandoned. Right from the article you linked, 2nd parg: "But this doesn’t mean millions of abandoned and dilapidated homes are withering away in the suburbs. Vacant homes can be unoccupied for many reasons beyond being uninhabitable. For example, a house can be vacant because it’s still on the market to be sold or rented or it’s a vacation home not currently in use."
- DoctorNick 4y ago
  Yes, we know. They should be expropriated.
  - Asdrubalini 4y ago
    You are confusing USA with USSR.
  - jsnk 4y ago
    How do you think this should be done?
    - bredren 4y ago
      Strong financial incentives to not possess unoccupied homes. i.e. second homes are heavily taxed, out of state second homes are even more heavily taxed. Homes under management for long term housing or resale kept in unoccupied states longer than reasonably expected incur penalties. Homes kept unoccupied due to being priced out of reasonable band may do so for limited duration--every loophole has to be addressed with financial incentives. This includes reducing the business potential of domestic and foreign private equity groups picking up homes at depressed rates like what blackstone did. Residential property rental and transactions related to residential property must be way less lucrative.

kvetching 4y ago

Apartments are terrible for people. Why not talk about needs for homes? Why can't America make small 2 bedroom homes anymore as seen in 1950s suburbs. It's either a mansion or an apartment now for new housing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kredd 4y ago
I am genuinely curious, why are they terrible for people? Grew up in one, and currently living in one as well (mind you, by choice), and know multiple families (with kids) living a relatively happy life in apartments.
- pandaman 4y ago
  I am not sure if they are terrible for all the people but for me the noise is a huge deal: always had been sleep-deprived when I lived in apartments. On top of that there are tons of tiny things that combine together into miserable conditions: the bare minimum appliances (many apartments don't have even a washer/dryer and ones that have usually come with an electric dryer), pest infestations, mold, tobacco/weed smoke and other smells from neighbors in shared ventilation/windows, slow maintenance, elevated crime activity (an apartment complex parking is a big juicy target for any enterprising thief, as is its mailroom), your deliveries going to your neighbors and their deliveries to you (at any time of night too) etc. etc.
lukasb 4y ago
Well-built apartments with good light, soundproofing etc are great, and you can get amenities in the building that would be cost-prohibitive for a single-family home.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
trident5000 4y ago
If they sold well they would be built. People would rather rent an apt that uses all their disposable income than level with reality that a tiny 2bd home is what they can afford to buy. "but the amenities, location, and view in an apt" I can assure you an expensive home has all of these.

sp527 4y ago

Much as I (a relatively young person) am in favor of more housing, isn't it also true that a surge in homebuilding would eviscerate the wealth of a lot of older Americans who are on the verge or in the midst of retirement? I feel dread whenever I look at the retirement savings numbers. So many elderly who'll have to live on a knife's edge financially.

bombcar 4y ago
Unless you're massively over-extended, the usual result of a housing price crash is to require you to hang around in whatever house you were in at the time of the crash (because the fixed loan payments don't change, and you can't afford to sell). But even if homebuilding increased to the point of keeping prices steady, it would probably be enough.
throwaway1777 4y ago
Lots of boomers did refis and helocs and don’t have any equity anyway. Of course a large portion do have equity but they are generally not the ones on a “knife’s edge”
pessimizer 4y ago
If we want to give money to old people, we should just give it to them. And there's no reason to prioritize the wealthiest old people. Plenty of old people don't own homes, they pay rent.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
> eviscerate the wealth of a lot of older Americans who are on the verge or in the midst of retirement? Using rising home values as a retirement account is essentially just a pyramid scheme. Like, just think about how this has to work. It only functions if home values drastically increase between purchase and retirement, right? Let's say they have to double, for it to be significant for retirement savings: that means that each generation, houses are getting twice as expensive for the next set of buyers. Literally exponential growth in housing prices. This can only happen a few times in a market before only people with a lot of wealth already -- intergenerational or otherwise -- can still afford the homes; just look at the bay area for an example. I grew up in the south bay, and hardly anyone from my childhood still lives there: they can't really afford it. To buy a house there, you usually need two people in tech with high salaries (and even then it can be stretching things a bit). Is that what you want? The current situation in places that have had incredible growth in property prices is that people are funding their retirements, not from saving during their work years, but off the backs of their kids and grandkids, because they got lucky in where they chose to settle down. It's unearned wealth, plain and simple. The ideal price of housing is zero*. * okay yes obviously there's caveats there, but the fact that unlike other consumer goods where inflation is obviously held to be bad, people treat increasingly unaffordable housing as a good thing is insane.

throwaway1777 4y ago

Demographic collapse may take care of the issue. How can we need more apartments when population begins to decline?

LAC-Tech 4y ago

UN studies assume global population will peak around the 2080s [0]. Western countries rely on immigration induced population growth to keep their economies healthy. Would it not makes sense to prepare for a future where that well has run dry? [0] https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.deve...

junofan 4y ago
No. Global population isn’t the rate-limiting factor for US immigration.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Maybe not yet, but it will be. The world is getting older as well. The US will find itself increasingly competing for young, working age immigrants with other western nations. People in the developing world will also have less incentive to immigrate as their nations become more and more developed (look at India - it's still a much poorer than the US, but that gap used to be a whole lot bigger).

kodah 4y ago

Articles like this miss the fact that having a shelter is one thing, but homes are also an important investment for the people that live in them. So much so that they are the default strategy of most financial planners and are only rivaled by complicated financial tools that involve insurance savings programs. I welcome the talk about more housing, but people need to remember: most of what we need aren't rentals. We need places people can own.

delecti 4y ago
Something cannot be an investment without scarcity, but housing is required to live. The problem is not "not enough houses to own" it's people hoarding houses as investment to the detriment of people's fundamental need to shelter.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Germans mostly rent and it's fine. Because they have tenant protection laws.
trinovantes 4y ago
Here's a crazy idea: a basic human need shouldn't be an investment vehicle.

Ninjinka 4y ago

There is no such thing as "to meet demand." If there were suddenly 4.3M more apartments, prices would drop, and suddenly there would be more demand as more people believe they can afford to have an apartment. Students who previously would have lived with their parents would want their own apartment. People with roommates would suddenly want their own place.

colinsane 4y ago
> There is no such thing as "to meet demand. you’re talking about induced demand (i think that’s the term?), which is very real and makes the 4M figure in the article a bit misleading, but such demand isn’t likely to be infinite. consider an analogous endgame: i create a product which can dispense sushi for free. i give you a plate of 100 pounds of sushi, at no cost. you’re not going to eat it all, you’re not going to infinitely expand your demand to meet the available supply. supply really has met demand in this scenario. i think a similar thing would apply to housing. even the very well-off don’t tend to purchase the maximal number of vacation homes they could afford. and i don’t think there’s any technology short of cloning that would cause a person to desire infinite residences: you can only be in on place at any given time…
welshwelsh 4y ago
Excellent. Everyone should have their own place

trevorboaconstr 4y ago

ITT >but, but, apartments are bad. Or >nuke the suburbs Both these takes are wrong. We need diversified development that meets peoples needs at all levels of society. From soviet style concrete apartment blocks to 3 acre single lot McMansions and everything in between. F unbridled YIMBYISM, but especially F “BUT it will ruin neighbor character” NIMBYISM. Fill in the gaps, be empathetic, and welcome new people to the neighborhood. https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ https://missingmiddlehousing.com/

lemonlime 4y ago
I'm not sure we need more suburbs. At the scale they're on today, they're unsustainable without massive subsidies from city dwellers. They're bad for the environment, bad for health, probably bad for the community in general, etc. This is not a two-equal-sides situation IMO.
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  Yes. This is true, and personally I agree. But, for example, many groups in the US who have not had the privilege of living in the suburbs historically are now doing so given the opportunity. Single family housing is a status symbol and will continue to be. https://imgur.com/a/oOcq2K2 https://imgur.com/a/oOcq2K2 Urban3 has done some very interesting research into who pays for the suburbs. Guess who pays? It’s not the suburbs!! https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/

olivermarks 4y ago

'While the immigration rate stands at a record low, a reversal of this trend could significantly raise apartment demand, according to a press release on the report.' This seems off - do they mean legal documented immigrants, because there are reports of 3000 undocumented people a day illegally coming into Texas via Mexico, some of whom are being bussed to other parts of America? The concerns with 'building more apartment buildings' are resources in area - water, energy, transportation - and past disasters with places like Geneva Towers in South San Francisco which deteriorated into a crime ridden hell that had to be demolished in the '90's. https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Remembrance_of_Geneva_Towers https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Remembrance_of_Genev... I'm all for more housing but the US is a big place yet everyone seems to want to live in very small areas of it, egged on by the YIYBY crowd.

game-of-throws 4y ago

The US has a population of 329.5 million. Average household size is 2.51 people. So we need to house 131 million families - but the US already has 142 million housing units. The surplus is 3x the headline. What am I missing? https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h... https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing-units-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/240267/number-of-housing...

sushisource 4y ago
Vacant units. Which is to say, yeah, maybe we don't need to build tons more, but we do at minimum need to use what we have and we aren't.
aetherane 4y ago
The market isn't perfect. The houses might not be where the demand is or the type/size needed and there will always be some unoccupied percentage due to moves, investments etc. I would assume 10% unoccupied is the minimum needed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tonymet 4y ago

if the population has been below replacement for 40 years , where are all the people coming from ?