5 ms·

Maybe fertility rates will bounce back once housing prices come back down to earth?

by 0max 4y ago

dradtke 4y ago
Unlikely, housing is only one factor, and I don't think it's the biggest one.
echelon 4y ago
I take Zeihan with a grain of salt, but his thesis that "children were free labor for farms, but are expensive poodles for yuppies in crowded houses" rings so true. Kids distract from the modern, busy, downsized life. They're a major time and financial burden, and they only add headache. You can't make them do meaningful work for you. They get in the way in ways that were impossible a century ago. You can't hop on a plane, take off after work, or shut them away and have them mind their own business. Not like on a farm, where kids could roam free, learn independently, and help with the mountain of chores. This is tongue in cheek, of course, but there's definitely some truth to the calculus of whether or not to have children. And it's on everybody's minds.
- outside1234 4y ago
  This is not crazy - and it, along with better birth control worldwide, is why many researchers are predicting a population peak in a couple of decades.
- garduque 4y ago
  As a parent, sure, seems about right. That said, these days I think it's more about having them around when you are old, rather then when you are young. Perhaps they seem like a burden now, but I sure will appreciate two doting daughters when I'm an old curmudgeon.
  - echelon 4y ago
    > but I sure will appreciate two doting daughters when I'm an old curmudgeon. Fingers crossed. My worry(?) is that any children I potentially have would move across the country (or world) and be fully occupied / overwhelmed by their own lives.
    - opportune 4y ago
      I am a child that did this. While for some it might be permanent, for others it can just be temporary - I moved back for a year while my father dealt with a terminal illness. From my perspective, my mother can visit me just as well as I can her - I shouldn’t have to live by where she chose to live if it doesn’t work for me (and it doesn’t - the job opportunities stink and even if I did work remote, there is just a big cultural clash between me and that area). Once parents retire it is just as much on them to relocate close to me as it is I to them. When I think about my desire to have children, I frame it in terms of them getting what they want, rather than sticking around like a pet.
      - echelon 4y ago
        Parent has to do everything for the child for the child's entire life. Bad deal.
        opportune 4y ago
        You shouldn't be having children with the perspective of a financial payoff, free therapist, etc. I don’t think parenting is a bad deal for the same reason any other kind of entertainment or fulfilling lifestyle choice is a “bad deal”
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Before marriage, I made sure my partner agreed with me that if we had kids, we would not act as if our kids owed us anything. I did not want to bring people into this world just so they can work for me. If they want to, and we happen to live near, then great. If their goals take them elsewhere, then that is great also.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  If the birth drops below 1 per person (or 2 per couple), the decision to not have children may have only positive consequences for the present, but has serious implications for the future. Of course, those implications could be positive - we may figure out how to be as comfortable, fulfilled etc. with less human labor. Even so, the long term consequence of a global shift to a non-replacement birth rate are substantial (and also, duh, long term). ps. yes, i know that the opposite is also true.
- Rzor 4y ago
  It seems affordable housing, UBI and four-day workweek of sorts would be a start.
- scarface74 4y ago
  My youngest son graduated in 2020. Two and half years later, my wife and I moved to Florida to a resort community for six months and we fly around the US the other six months. That’s definitely true.
- opportune 4y ago
  That explains why parents don’t have tons of children anymore (well, also dual-income houses are a thing, and it’s just not feasible to manage the lives of more than 2-3 children to middle class standards with both parents working). But it doesn’t explain why people have to delay children so long, which likely does reduce overall fertility rates. I think it’s good that children are not viewed as an investment (note this is still the case in many cultures where communal living/financially supporting your parents is expected). But if it means fertility rates falling to drastically low SK/Japan levels we have to explore policy solutions.
  - rainsford 4y ago
    > But it doesn’t explain why people have to delay children so long, which likely does reduce overall fertility rates. I think it's much the same reason. When children are viewed as a giant economic and lifestyle cost, a lot of people will delay until they feel more ready. As things like good family housing become proportionally more expensive, it makes sense that people will want to wait until they feel more financially established in their careers and lives that they're comfortable taking on that kind of debt. And on the lifestyle front, there's more than ever that DINKs (dual-income no-kids) folks can spend their ample money and free time on, making having kids an even larger perceived opportunity cost. Why have kids in your 20s when you can't afford a house and can spend your time as a couple traveling or whatever when you can have kids in your 30s instead when you feel like you can better afford it and are maybe ready to settle down, or so the thinking goes for a lot of folks.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    I had kids young. First one at 21 and my 2nd at 23. Now I am done having kids. Talking to friends, a lot of it is, it is a major financial burden. Now in their mid to late 20s, they are waiting because they hope in the future to be more financially stable. Now my person opinion. Unless your a millionaire, your never financially "stable" enough to have kids. It is going to kick you in the "balls" one way or another. Rather it is affording diapers (not so steep) or child care (almost take a whole pay check for many people) or medical. With that said, there is a degree where if I had to do it over, I may have waited.
Aromasin 4y ago
I think more than housing prices need to come down for that to happen. We'd need young people to not be living pay-check to pay-check. To echo the other comment, this isn't the pre-1900's where children were mostly self-sustaining free labor. In the UK, the average savings (net financial wealth) at 25 - 29 years old is £3,800, but the typical person in that age range has -£100. The average UK savings for 30 - 34 year old's is around £14,500 of net financial wealth (savings like current and savings accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. less financial liabilities), but the median figure is just £1,000. By the time anyone is in a financially secure enough position to have children, they're at the stage where they're spending thousands in fertility treatment.
- rcme 4y ago
  Damn, that is super depressing
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> once housing prices come back down to earth Big assumption there. Prices have fallen moderately so far (in some places) but mortgage rates are up which means there's still an affordability problem. If prices were to "come back to earth" it would likely take a pretty serious recession to get us there (something akin to the '08 GFC) and that means even less people able to afford to buy.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The only two ways for prices to move substantially lower are to increase supply (build a lot more units) or reduce demand (have lots of people not in a position to buy).
UncleOxidant 4y ago
Don't forget the cost of childcare.
29athrowaway 4y ago
No https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
jahewson 4y ago
Unlikely. Look at Japan.

Maybe fertility rates will bounce back once housing prices come back down to earth?

by 0max 4y ago

Maybe fertility rates will bounce back once housing prices come back down to earth?

dradtke 4y ago

Unlikely, housing is only one factor, and I don't think it's the biggest one.

echelon 4y ago

I take Zeihan with a grain of salt, but his thesis that "children were free labor for farms, but are expensive poodles for yuppies in crowded houses" rings so true. Kids distract from the modern, busy, downsized life. They're a major time and financial burden, and they only add headache. You can't make them do meaningful work for you. They get in the way in ways that were impossible a century ago. You can't hop on a plane, take off after work, or shut them away and have them mind their own business. Not like on a farm, where kids could roam free, learn independently, and help with the mountain of chores. This is tongue in cheek, of course, but there's definitely some truth to the calculus of whether or not to have children. And it's on everybody's minds.

outside1234 4y ago
This is not crazy - and it, along with better birth control worldwide, is why many researchers are predicting a population peak in a couple of decades.
garduque 4y ago
As a parent, sure, seems about right. That said, these days I think it's more about having them around when you are old, rather then when you are young. Perhaps they seem like a burden now, but I sure will appreciate two doting daughters when I'm an old curmudgeon.
- echelon 4y ago
  > but I sure will appreciate two doting daughters when I'm an old curmudgeon. Fingers crossed. My worry(?) is that any children I potentially have would move across the country (or world) and be fully occupied / overwhelmed by their own lives.
  - opportune 4y ago
    I am a child that did this. While for some it might be permanent, for others it can just be temporary - I moved back for a year while my father dealt with a terminal illness. From my perspective, my mother can visit me just as well as I can her - I shouldn’t have to live by where she chose to live if it doesn’t work for me (and it doesn’t - the job opportunities stink and even if I did work remote, there is just a big cultural clash between me and that area). Once parents retire it is just as much on them to relocate close to me as it is I to them. When I think about my desire to have children, I frame it in terms of them getting what they want, rather than sticking around like a pet.
    - echelon 4y ago
      Parent has to do everything for the child for the child's entire life. Bad deal.
      - opportune 4y ago
        You shouldn't be having children with the perspective of a financial payoff, free therapist, etc. I don’t think parenting is a bad deal for the same reason any other kind of entertainment or fulfilling lifestyle choice is a “bad deal”
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Before marriage, I made sure my partner agreed with me that if we had kids, we would not act as if our kids owed us anything. I did not want to bring people into this world just so they can work for me. If they want to, and we happen to live near, then great. If their goals take them elsewhere, then that is great also.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
If the birth drops below 1 per person (or 2 per couple), the decision to not have children may have only positive consequences for the present, but has serious implications for the future. Of course, those implications could be positive - we may figure out how to be as comfortable, fulfilled etc. with less human labor. Even so, the long term consequence of a global shift to a non-replacement birth rate are substantial (and also, duh, long term). ps. yes, i know that the opposite is also true.
Rzor 4y ago
It seems affordable housing, UBI and four-day workweek of sorts would be a start.
scarface74 4y ago
My youngest son graduated in 2020. Two and half years later, my wife and I moved to Florida to a resort community for six months and we fly around the US the other six months. That’s definitely true.
opportune 4y ago
That explains why parents don’t have tons of children anymore (well, also dual-income houses are a thing, and it’s just not feasible to manage the lives of more than 2-3 children to middle class standards with both parents working). But it doesn’t explain why people have to delay children so long, which likely does reduce overall fertility rates. I think it’s good that children are not viewed as an investment (note this is still the case in many cultures where communal living/financially supporting your parents is expected). But if it means fertility rates falling to drastically low SK/Japan levels we have to explore policy solutions.
- rainsford 4y ago
  > But it doesn’t explain why people have to delay children so long, which likely does reduce overall fertility rates. I think it's much the same reason. When children are viewed as a giant economic and lifestyle cost, a lot of people will delay until they feel more ready. As things like good family housing become proportionally more expensive, it makes sense that people will want to wait until they feel more financially established in their careers and lives that they're comfortable taking on that kind of debt. And on the lifestyle front, there's more than ever that DINKs (dual-income no-kids) folks can spend their ample money and free time on, making having kids an even larger perceived opportunity cost. Why have kids in your 20s when you can't afford a house and can spend your time as a couple traveling or whatever when you can have kids in your 30s instead when you feel like you can better afford it and are maybe ready to settle down, or so the thinking goes for a lot of folks.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  I had kids young. First one at 21 and my 2nd at 23. Now I am done having kids. Talking to friends, a lot of it is, it is a major financial burden. Now in their mid to late 20s, they are waiting because they hope in the future to be more financially stable. Now my person opinion. Unless your a millionaire, your never financially "stable" enough to have kids. It is going to kick you in the "balls" one way or another. Rather it is affording diapers (not so steep) or child care (almost take a whole pay check for many people) or medical. With that said, there is a degree where if I had to do it over, I may have waited.

Aromasin 4y ago

I think more than housing prices need to come down for that to happen. We'd need young people to not be living pay-check to pay-check. To echo the other comment, this isn't the pre-1900's where children were mostly self-sustaining free labor. In the UK, the average savings (net financial wealth) at 25 - 29 years old is £3,800, but the typical person in that age range has -£100. The average UK savings for 30 - 34 year old's is around £14,500 of net financial wealth (savings like current and savings accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. less financial liabilities), but the median figure is just £1,000. By the time anyone is in a financially secure enough position to have children, they're at the stage where they're spending thousands in fertility treatment.

rcme 4y ago
Damn, that is super depressing

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> once housing prices come back down to earth Big assumption there. Prices have fallen moderately so far (in some places) but mortgage rates are up which means there's still an affordability problem. If prices were to "come back to earth" it would likely take a pretty serious recession to get us there (something akin to the '08 GFC) and that means even less people able to afford to buy.

sokoloff 4y ago
The only two ways for prices to move substantially lower are to increase supply (build a lot more units) or reduce demand (have lots of people not in a position to buy).

UncleOxidant 4y ago

Don't forget the cost of childcare.

29athrowaway 4y ago

No https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

jahewson 4y ago

Unlikely. Look at Japan.