6 ms·

Housing is artificially expensive: zoning limits the construction of denser housing thus leading to a supply shortage and high prices. Most of America is under-

Housing is artificially expensive: zoning limits the construction of denser housing thus leading to a supply shortage and high prices. Most of America is under-built and the housing problem would go away if American cities were upzoned to a gentle six-story, mixed-use density. Your points about how we must do better to make having kids less financially risky are excellent however. Better parental leave and tax incentives would help.

kahnclusions 3y ago
Housing is obscenely expensive everywhere, not just America. I didnt think Hong Kong, Taipei, London, etc, suffer from America’s zoning issues?
dcow 3y ago
Yes, but. If you’re looking for an excuse to not have a kid, you’ll find one. There’s a cultural element too.
- chrisandchris 3y ago
  Yes, sure. I'm not sure I want to give up my landhouse for a six-story building in which I share a place with hundreds... just because of "having children".
  - sambazi 3y ago
    just be glad your parents chose to err on the side of life
    - Thiez 3y ago
      Honestly, why?
    - the_gipsy 3y ago
      Is this some kind of pyramid scheme?
      - sambazi 3y ago
        exactly :)
      - rs999gti 3y ago
        Yes social programs are pyramid schemes and babies and immigrants are the new money in that scheme.
        sambazi 3y ago
        population growth was always been a factor in faction power. debatable if that has changed
  - petre 3y ago
    Actually living in a building with families is way more pleasant than living with student neighbours. Those are almost always a nuisance.
- lnsru 3y ago
  Don’t forget, that having kids is really hard. They cost time, money and require support from living environment. There must be kindergartens with sane opening times, not until 2 PM. There must be supportive employers allowing home office on 2-3 days. Especially when kids are sick. Spoiler alert: before school kids are sick at least once a month. Housing is a real problem, but one can have kids in cheaper area too. There is not need to live in super expensive big city center. Having no kids is simple very easy life without any bigger problems.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    This really is the crux of the issue, I've found. There is, at least for me and many others, simply no tangible, concrete reason to have kids, beyond the nebulous sense of pride and accomplishment, which is not necessarily always the case (postpartum depression or the lack of people who openly talk about regretting having kids as that's not socially acceptable).
    - apsurd 3y ago
      no other reason to have kids? we're biologically programmed to have kids. i don't have kids myself, but I'm shocked at how intellectual you're coloring is of the situation. Procreating is our only purpose, as a life form.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        For many species, having offspring is a no-op. The Luna moth literally has no mouth (and I'm not sure if it must scream, either), so when it procreates, it creates yet more offspring that also have no mouths. The moth does not do anything while it exists beyond procreating, as there is nothing it can do; in other words, it existing is simply a no-op, in the computer science sense. Therefore, even if procreating is our only purpose, we can still ponder what the point of doing so actually is. Since we are intellectual beings, we can decide whether it's a logical decision or not, so that we don't end up no-ops either. I've seen friends and family members where kids are born to teen parents, who then have kids as teens, who then have kids as teens, and so on. Those are the equivalent of the moths, those teens have not had the chance to grow and achieve more, they were simply procreating to procreate, and they could not get out of poverty as their entire life was only dedicated to sustenance. Personally, their lives were very sad to me. Finally, do not fall for the fallacy of appealing to nature, as just because something is natural does not mean it is moral. Many animals will forcefully mate with one another or eat their prey alive, that does not mean that humans must do the same. So too for procreation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- somedude895 3y ago
  I agree. Most people I know who don‘t want to have kids it’s primarily because they don‘t want to give up their lifestyle. Having a child means less money, less free time and less individualism. Our priorities have changed but some want to be able to have everything without compromise.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    That's true, but you can't just dismiss the fact that modern life (primarily the fact that both parents work) makes having children extremely difficult. It's getting better - especially since the pandemic - but most jobs are not remotely flexible enough to deal with school hours or sick children. Nursery is insanely expensive in most countries. I really think a mortgage style option would make a lot of sense here because it's a ton of money for a short time. Or, just make it free like some countries do (and the Tories pretended to do in the UK). Life still assumes only one parent will work. Our school regularly schedules meetings and events in the middle of the day at short notice and expects that will be fine.
    - perrygeo 3y ago
      This is something that child-free people fail to understand. It's not just about priorities and "scheduling time" to be a parent. That would be great but it's a fantasy. Reality is being on-call 24/7 to deal with the dozens of logistical problems that come up. It's not just the number of hours but their distribution across the day, the fact that you've got to coordinate 2 work schedules + n children's calendars, and the fact that parents largely don't have any control over the agenda. Does this impact parent's earning potential? Absolutely. I cannot find a single day on my calendar where my wife and I had an solid block of 8 hours to focus on work. It just doesn't happen. Thankfully I have flexible work hours otherwise it would be literally impossible. As it stands, it's merely exhausting and unsustainable.
      - hyperbovine 3y ago
        That has always been true in some form or fashion though, what you are describing is not a uniquely modern problem. To me the x-factor that makes child rearing especially challenging is lack of a support network. Mobility has made it routine to live hundreds or thousands of miles from your family in a way that did not happen before fairly recently. For most of us, our network consists only of other couples with young children who are all going through the same thing.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  The OP mentioned some women want careers and that is fine. But what about women who want families or want both? What can western societies do to encourage these women to have at least 2 children? We need taxpayers or these social benefits will be gone in a century or sooner.
Beldin 3y ago
House prices in the USA have less impact on the total world population than you might think. Similarly, the number of people living in a situation where having children is a smart financial decision for the future is a lot larger than you might think. Remember this [1] picture? Related: the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa is expected to explode further. Average age there is, according to the google infobox [2], 18.8. In other words: US-internal policies are not going to move the needle on world population much. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Valeriepieris_Circle.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Valeriep... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+sub+saharan+africa https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+sub+saharan+afri...
- jefftk 3y ago
  The problem of expensive housing in locations where housing construction is somewhere between heavily restricted and entirely prohibited is bad in the US but not limited to the US. Most rich countries have this problem.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    The problem is always expensive housing where people want to live. The zoning doesn’t make the housing expensive itself, the desirability of the location does. No one ever complains about zoning in Detroit or Cleveland. Housing can actually be fairly affordable in Europe. Berlin until about 5 years ago had incredibly affordable housing for such a nice city…then it simply got more popular until that wasn’t the case anymore. Tokyo would have similar problems if its population wasn’t actually shrinking now (as are Nagoya and Osaka), since it’s a nice place to live, and housing isn’t very restricted beyond having to rebuild everything every 30 (SFH) to 50 (apartments) years.
    - api 3y ago
      Bad zoning prevents price signals from leading to increased density and thus increased supply in areas of high demand. San Francisco should look like Hong Kong or Tokyo. If you want a quaint small town move to a quaint small town. World cities are not small towns and trying to contain them to preserve their “character” just leads to affordability crises and homelessness among other problems. If Detroit suddenly became a hot place to live and it wasn’t upzoned the same problems would start happening there.
gmd63 3y ago
Housing is expensive because speculators use it to get rich. You will not stop the artificially high cost of housing without addressing that root cause.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  Speculators are only able to speculate because at the end of the day there are people that are willing to pay that much. Even if you completely decomodify housing you'll just end up finding new ways to ration it if you don't address the supply issue.
revlolz 3y ago
Many Americans have no desire to live in a 6 story hell scapes. The idea is revolting to me personally. IMO Housing issues in America at this time are directly tied to the dominance of the fix and flip industry, corporations holding SFR and Mfr properties, high interest rates, and job inflexibility. Tax incentives help, but where Americans need federal assistance is in paid time off, college tuition assistance (self and children) , and retirement. I'm not talking about social security when I say retirement. What I mean is there needs to be incentives for companies to do better than just 401ks. Public sectors are still enjoying pensions, perhaps a tax incentive would help, but I do not necessarily have a solution there. Only a very subjective view of the problems from my perspective.
rs999gti 3y ago
Also there is plenty of housing available, just not near the jobs and amenities that young buyers want.
RestlessMind 3y ago
Housing is a non-sequitur. Looking at where children are born across the globe, those places have very high housing prices for the local wages, minimal government safety nets and higher poverty rates. Main reason seems to be that young people in advanced societies simply don't want children because the alternate childless lifestyle seems very appealing in 20s and 30s, costs of raising kids are privatized while benefits are socialized (welfare programs funded by taxes on the working generation).
elzbardico 3y ago
Yeah. All the productivity gains in the last 40 years have been going towards the side of capital while workers are left in the side of the road. The absurdly rich become richer while the middle-class shrinks. But yeah, the problem is that some people want to live in their houses with a backyard, those evil villains that don't see the advantage of living in a pigeon home for further capitalistic enhancement of the lives of fat-cat developers. Everything that exists deserves to perish. The capitalistic leviathan can never be stopped, neither questioned. What do those small folks in the path of progress think they are?
deafpolygon 3y ago
> if American cities were upzoned to a gentle six-story, mixed-use density This will not work for as long as we keep building neighborhoods that require the use of cars or make biking/walking unsafe. America also lacks a comprehensive public transportation system.

kahnclusions 3y ago

Housing is obscenely expensive everywhere, not just America. I didnt think Hong Kong, Taipei, London, etc, suffer from America’s zoning issues?

dcow 3y ago

Yes, but. If you’re looking for an excuse to not have a kid, you’ll find one. There’s a cultural element too.

chrisandchris 3y ago
Yes, sure. I'm not sure I want to give up my landhouse for a six-story building in which I share a place with hundreds... just because of "having children".
- sambazi 3y ago
  just be glad your parents chose to err on the side of life
  - Thiez 3y ago
    Honestly, why?
  - the_gipsy 3y ago
    Is this some kind of pyramid scheme?
    - sambazi 3y ago
      exactly :)
    - rs999gti 3y ago
      Yes social programs are pyramid schemes and babies and immigrants are the new money in that scheme.
      - sambazi 3y ago
        population growth was always been a factor in faction power. debatable if that has changed
- petre 3y ago
  Actually living in a building with families is way more pleasant than living with student neighbours. Those are almost always a nuisance.
lnsru 3y ago
Don’t forget, that having kids is really hard. They cost time, money and require support from living environment. There must be kindergartens with sane opening times, not until 2 PM. There must be supportive employers allowing home office on 2-3 days. Especially when kids are sick. Spoiler alert: before school kids are sick at least once a month. Housing is a real problem, but one can have kids in cheaper area too. There is not need to live in super expensive big city center. Having no kids is simple very easy life without any bigger problems.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  This really is the crux of the issue, I've found. There is, at least for me and many others, simply no tangible, concrete reason to have kids, beyond the nebulous sense of pride and accomplishment, which is not necessarily always the case (postpartum depression or the lack of people who openly talk about regretting having kids as that's not socially acceptable).
  - apsurd 3y ago
    no other reason to have kids? we're biologically programmed to have kids. i don't have kids myself, but I'm shocked at how intellectual you're coloring is of the situation. Procreating is our only purpose, as a life form.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      For many species, having offspring is a no-op. The Luna moth literally has no mouth (and I'm not sure if it must scream, either), so when it procreates, it creates yet more offspring that also have no mouths. The moth does not do anything while it exists beyond procreating, as there is nothing it can do; in other words, it existing is simply a no-op, in the computer science sense. Therefore, even if procreating is our only purpose, we can still ponder what the point of doing so actually is. Since we are intellectual beings, we can decide whether it's a logical decision or not, so that we don't end up no-ops either. I've seen friends and family members where kids are born to teen parents, who then have kids as teens, who then have kids as teens, and so on. Those are the equivalent of the moths, those teens have not had the chance to grow and achieve more, they were simply procreating to procreate, and they could not get out of poverty as their entire life was only dedicated to sustenance. Personally, their lives were very sad to me. Finally, do not fall for the fallacy of appealing to nature, as just because something is natural does not mean it is moral. Many animals will forcefully mate with one another or eat their prey alive, that does not mean that humans must do the same. So too for procreation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
somedude895 3y ago
I agree. Most people I know who don‘t want to have kids it’s primarily because they don‘t want to give up their lifestyle. Having a child means less money, less free time and less individualism. Our priorities have changed but some want to be able to have everything without compromise.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  That's true, but you can't just dismiss the fact that modern life (primarily the fact that both parents work) makes having children extremely difficult. It's getting better - especially since the pandemic - but most jobs are not remotely flexible enough to deal with school hours or sick children. Nursery is insanely expensive in most countries. I really think a mortgage style option would make a lot of sense here because it's a ton of money for a short time. Or, just make it free like some countries do (and the Tories pretended to do in the UK). Life still assumes only one parent will work. Our school regularly schedules meetings and events in the middle of the day at short notice and expects that will be fine.
  - perrygeo 3y ago
    This is something that child-free people fail to understand. It's not just about priorities and "scheduling time" to be a parent. That would be great but it's a fantasy. Reality is being on-call 24/7 to deal with the dozens of logistical problems that come up. It's not just the number of hours but their distribution across the day, the fact that you've got to coordinate 2 work schedules + n children's calendars, and the fact that parents largely don't have any control over the agenda. Does this impact parent's earning potential? Absolutely. I cannot find a single day on my calendar where my wife and I had an solid block of 8 hours to focus on work. It just doesn't happen. Thankfully I have flexible work hours otherwise it would be literally impossible. As it stands, it's merely exhausting and unsustainable.
    - hyperbovine 3y ago
      That has always been true in some form or fashion though, what you are describing is not a uniquely modern problem. To me the x-factor that makes child rearing especially challenging is lack of a support network. Mobility has made it routine to live hundreds or thousands of miles from your family in a way that did not happen before fairly recently. For most of us, our network consists only of other couples with young children who are all going through the same thing.
rs999gti 3y ago
The OP mentioned some women want careers and that is fine. But what about women who want families or want both? What can western societies do to encourage these women to have at least 2 children? We need taxpayers or these social benefits will be gone in a century or sooner.

Beldin 3y ago

House prices in the USA have less impact on the total world population than you might think. Similarly, the number of people living in a situation where having children is a smart financial decision for the future is a lot larger than you might think. Remember this [1] picture? Related: the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa is expected to explode further. Average age there is, according to the google infobox [2], 18.8. In other words: US-internal policies are not going to move the needle on world population much. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Valeriepieris_Circle.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Valeriep... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+sub+saharan+africa https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+sub+saharan+afri...

jefftk 3y ago
The problem of expensive housing in locations where housing construction is somewhere between heavily restricted and entirely prohibited is bad in the US but not limited to the US. Most rich countries have this problem.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The problem is always expensive housing where people want to live. The zoning doesn’t make the housing expensive itself, the desirability of the location does. No one ever complains about zoning in Detroit or Cleveland. Housing can actually be fairly affordable in Europe. Berlin until about 5 years ago had incredibly affordable housing for such a nice city…then it simply got more popular until that wasn’t the case anymore. Tokyo would have similar problems if its population wasn’t actually shrinking now (as are Nagoya and Osaka), since it’s a nice place to live, and housing isn’t very restricted beyond having to rebuild everything every 30 (SFH) to 50 (apartments) years.
  - api 3y ago
    Bad zoning prevents price signals from leading to increased density and thus increased supply in areas of high demand. San Francisco should look like Hong Kong or Tokyo. If you want a quaint small town move to a quaint small town. World cities are not small towns and trying to contain them to preserve their “character” just leads to affordability crises and homelessness among other problems. If Detroit suddenly became a hot place to live and it wasn’t upzoned the same problems would start happening there.

gmd63 3y ago

Housing is expensive because speculators use it to get rich. You will not stop the artificially high cost of housing without addressing that root cause.

zeroCalories 3y ago
Speculators are only able to speculate because at the end of the day there are people that are willing to pay that much. Even if you completely decomodify housing you'll just end up finding new ways to ration it if you don't address the supply issue.

revlolz 3y ago

Many Americans have no desire to live in a 6 story hell scapes. The idea is revolting to me personally. IMO Housing issues in America at this time are directly tied to the dominance of the fix and flip industry, corporations holding SFR and Mfr properties, high interest rates, and job inflexibility. Tax incentives help, but where Americans need federal assistance is in paid time off, college tuition assistance (self and children) , and retirement. I'm not talking about social security when I say retirement. What I mean is there needs to be incentives for companies to do better than just 401ks. Public sectors are still enjoying pensions, perhaps a tax incentive would help, but I do not necessarily have a solution there. Only a very subjective view of the problems from my perspective.

rs999gti 3y ago

Also there is plenty of housing available, just not near the jobs and amenities that young buyers want.

RestlessMind 3y ago

Housing is a non-sequitur. Looking at where children are born across the globe, those places have very high housing prices for the local wages, minimal government safety nets and higher poverty rates. Main reason seems to be that young people in advanced societies simply don't want children because the alternate childless lifestyle seems very appealing in 20s and 30s, costs of raising kids are privatized while benefits are socialized (welfare programs funded by taxes on the working generation).

elzbardico 3y ago

Yeah. All the productivity gains in the last 40 years have been going towards the side of capital while workers are left in the side of the road. The absurdly rich become richer while the middle-class shrinks. But yeah, the problem is that some people want to live in their houses with a backyard, those evil villains that don't see the advantage of living in a pigeon home for further capitalistic enhancement of the lives of fat-cat developers. Everything that exists deserves to perish. The capitalistic leviathan can never be stopped, neither questioned. What do those small folks in the path of progress think they are?

deafpolygon 3y ago

> if American cities were upzoned to a gentle six-story, mixed-use density This will not work for as long as we keep building neighborhoods that require the use of cars or make biking/walking unsafe. America also lacks a comprehensive public transportation system.