4 ms·

We are sinking into a fertility crisis and across time and space, urban density has always been correlated with lower fertility - is it such a bad thing if peop

We are sinking into a fertility crisis and across time and space, urban density has always been correlated with lower fertility - is it such a bad thing if people are diffusing away from the urban core? In fact if I'm not mistaken there are a fair number of quality of life measures that are worse in cities (for one thing they exacerbate wealth inequality). While they have a lot of conveniences, most people move to them primarily because they need a job.

fire_lake 2y ago
Makes sense but do you have a link? Never heard this before.
- Animats 2y ago
  > urban density has always been correlated with lower fertility It's a classic experiment with mice.[1] But downtowns are nowhere near the density for that to appear. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
  - dmix 2y ago
    There is some truth to the idea though. Imagine living in a big city and you want to have kids, having kids means you need extra living space/hospitals/schooling/cars etc. You can't just easily go buy a townhouse for cheap. Neighborhood crime also becomes a concern. So it means disrupting your life, socially, culturally, and work wise and moving to the suburbs or a small town. I doubt this is just dense urbanization<>low rates, it's mostly just modern urbanization where everyone wants to live in the city but governments/NIMBYs refuse to build any housing parents or retail/services businesses supporting children can afford. So costs are artificially exorbitant. Which brings down the birth rates, so immigration is increased who also want to live in cities, and need housing and want kids...etc. So there is both artificial downward pressures on birth rates in (modern) cities and naturally via the general chaos of cities.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > You can't just easily go buy a townhouse for cheap. But this is precisely the issue. The issue is not cities, it's housing scarcity. Housing scarcity just tends to be correlated with cities because demand there is typically high and then land owners capture the local government to constrain supply. The problem isn't housing in cities, it's the lack of housing in and around cities. What would happen if there was enough for it to be cheap?
      - katbyte 2y ago
        Well for one wages would go further people would have more money and CoL would drop.
    - katbyte 2y ago
      It’s clearly not density because if you go into some of the most dense (poor) cities in the world fertility rates are not so low. It’s a western thing likely because we have priced out families and couples can no longer afford to have kids/the large apartments needed. Need to build more two and three bedroom apartments you can actually afford and raise a family in
- ipaddr 2y ago
  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Increasing+Population+Densities+Predict+Decreasing+Fertility+Rates+Over+Time&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Incr... Part of it may be the cost, housing available, society expectations (having 3 kids is at the top of expectations). Career, starting later and perhaps too much (or too little) choice in the dating pool.
kredd 2y ago
Well, also cities are fun for younger people. Anyone that I know who lives in a city can move out if they want to, but quality of life would drop dramatically.
- djbusby 2y ago
  I've been in Oakland, SF, Seattle and now am in some far (1h away) suburb (exurb?). I feel like the quality out here is good, but the stuff to do is smaller scale. Biking is safer and the city (Boston) is a short train (or drive) away. Similar sentiment from a friend in Antioch (CA). But if I had to commute daily. Hell no.
logicchains 2y ago
Cities "exacerbate wealth inequality" because they have more high-paying jobs. That's a big part of why people pay more to live in them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
knowaveragejoe 2y ago
Cities are often cheaper to live in than suburban lifestyles, assuming you're gainfully employed and the city has a functioning real estate market. It sounds like there's a lot of office space just waiting to be converted into housing.
- Tade0 2y ago
  > Cities are often cheaper to live in than suburban lifestyles Never heard of that ever being the case, especially if you take into account living space, which is at a premium in cities. Recent example from a friend of mine: he's selling his 62m2, two bedroom apartment in a city of 650k to buy an absolute castle of 200m2 in the suburbs that also has a separate garage. He's got two children, but could give each one a room even if he had five.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    You’re assuming upper middle class living standards.
    - Tade0 2y ago
      I need to ask where exactly do you see that?
      - relaxing 2y ago
        You’ve never heard of cities being cheaper. Well you would if you heard about poor people living in cities. You know, like in the bad part of town. They can’t do that in the suburbs, because the suburbs are deliberately constructed without the infrastructure that enables cheap living in the city.
        Tade0 2y ago
        They're not actually living cheaply - just in poverty. Different thing altogether. They can't do that in the suburbs because there's hardly anything for rent there and they don't have the credit score to buy anything. My reasoning is as follows: -Real estate per unit area is more expensive in the city - that's a given. -Groceries are 30-50% more expensive because again - real estate is as well and that pushes up the price of everything. On top of that you have logistics to deal with, as you need that truck to reach the store somehow. Sure, in the suburbs you have to drive everywhere and maintain your property, but there's financial flexibility in that - you don't need the newest, most gas guzzling car or to renovate the whole place every 7 years or so. All the fathers of 4+ children that I know are in agreement that they wouldn't be able to afford having such a huge family in the city. Whoever thought it's cheaper to live in the city must be childless.
fzeroracer 2y ago
Urban density has not 'always been correlated with lower fertility'; this 'trend' has not held for the thousands of years of human history where we see the largest amount of human growth occur in and around urban city centers. The reason why this has changed relatively recently is because of the monopolization of the urban core by rentseeking corporations and landlords that simply sit on empty property and price out everyone else. The people that can afford to live in the urban core therefore can't afford to raise a family.

fire_lake 2y ago

Makes sense but do you have a link? Never heard this before.

Animats 2y ago
> urban density has always been correlated with lower fertility It's a classic experiment with mice.[1] But downtowns are nowhere near the density for that to appear. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
- dmix 2y ago
  There is some truth to the idea though. Imagine living in a big city and you want to have kids, having kids means you need extra living space/hospitals/schooling/cars etc. You can't just easily go buy a townhouse for cheap. Neighborhood crime also becomes a concern. So it means disrupting your life, socially, culturally, and work wise and moving to the suburbs or a small town. I doubt this is just dense urbanization<>low rates, it's mostly just modern urbanization where everyone wants to live in the city but governments/NIMBYs refuse to build any housing parents or retail/services businesses supporting children can afford. So costs are artificially exorbitant. Which brings down the birth rates, so immigration is increased who also want to live in cities, and need housing and want kids...etc. So there is both artificial downward pressures on birth rates in (modern) cities and naturally via the general chaos of cities.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > You can't just easily go buy a townhouse for cheap. But this is precisely the issue. The issue is not cities, it's housing scarcity. Housing scarcity just tends to be correlated with cities because demand there is typically high and then land owners capture the local government to constrain supply. The problem isn't housing in cities, it's the lack of housing in and around cities. What would happen if there was enough for it to be cheap?
    - katbyte 2y ago
      Well for one wages would go further people would have more money and CoL would drop.
  - katbyte 2y ago
    It’s clearly not density because if you go into some of the most dense (poor) cities in the world fertility rates are not so low. It’s a western thing likely because we have priced out families and couples can no longer afford to have kids/the large apartments needed. Need to build more two and three bedroom apartments you can actually afford and raise a family in
ipaddr 2y ago
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Increasing+Population+Densities+Predict+Decreasing+Fertility+Rates+Over+Time&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Incr... Part of it may be the cost, housing available, society expectations (having 3 kids is at the top of expectations). Career, starting later and perhaps too much (or too little) choice in the dating pool.

kredd 2y ago

Well, also cities are fun for younger people. Anyone that I know who lives in a city can move out if they want to, but quality of life would drop dramatically.

djbusby 2y ago
I've been in Oakland, SF, Seattle and now am in some far (1h away) suburb (exurb?). I feel like the quality out here is good, but the stuff to do is smaller scale. Biking is safer and the city (Boston) is a short train (or drive) away. Similar sentiment from a friend in Antioch (CA). But if I had to commute daily. Hell no.

logicchains 2y ago

Cities "exacerbate wealth inequality" because they have more high-paying jobs. That's a big part of why people pay more to live in them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

knowaveragejoe 2y ago

Cities are often cheaper to live in than suburban lifestyles, assuming you're gainfully employed and the city has a functioning real estate market. It sounds like there's a lot of office space just waiting to be converted into housing.

Tade0 2y ago
> Cities are often cheaper to live in than suburban lifestyles Never heard of that ever being the case, especially if you take into account living space, which is at a premium in cities. Recent example from a friend of mine: he's selling his 62m2, two bedroom apartment in a city of 650k to buy an absolute castle of 200m2 in the suburbs that also has a separate garage. He's got two children, but could give each one a room even if he had five.
- relaxing 2y ago
  You’re assuming upper middle class living standards.
  - Tade0 2y ago
    I need to ask where exactly do you see that?
    - relaxing 2y ago
      You’ve never heard of cities being cheaper. Well you would if you heard about poor people living in cities. You know, like in the bad part of town. They can’t do that in the suburbs, because the suburbs are deliberately constructed without the infrastructure that enables cheap living in the city.
      - Tade0 2y ago
        They're not actually living cheaply - just in poverty. Different thing altogether. They can't do that in the suburbs because there's hardly anything for rent there and they don't have the credit score to buy anything. My reasoning is as follows: -Real estate per unit area is more expensive in the city - that's a given. -Groceries are 30-50% more expensive because again - real estate is as well and that pushes up the price of everything. On top of that you have logistics to deal with, as you need that truck to reach the store somehow. Sure, in the suburbs you have to drive everywhere and maintain your property, but there's financial flexibility in that - you don't need the newest, most gas guzzling car or to renovate the whole place every 7 years or so. All the fathers of 4+ children that I know are in agreement that they wouldn't be able to afford having such a huge family in the city. Whoever thought it's cheaper to live in the city must be childless.

fzeroracer 2y ago

Urban density has not 'always been correlated with lower fertility'; this 'trend' has not held for the thousands of years of human history where we see the largest amount of human growth occur in and around urban city centers. The reason why this has changed relatively recently is because of the monopolization of the urban core by rentseeking corporations and landlords that simply sit on empty property and price out everyone else. The people that can afford to live in the urban core therefore can't afford to raise a family.