2 ms·

> People just don't feel content and happy to have children in dense cities. Correlation is not causation. People happily raised children in dense cities for c

by lmm 1y ago

> People just don't feel content and happy to have children in dense cities. Correlation is not causation. People happily raised children in dense cities for centuries. It was only when the postwar regime of making new housing illegal took hold, and housing prices inevitably spiralled out of control, that they stopped. > Young people are forced into unaffordable cities, where they often live in cramped shoebox-sized apartments. While beautiful spacious traditional homes are decaying just 2 hours away by car. Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in. Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish. > Put a stop to densification of larger cities, and tax (or cap-and-trade) the office space in dense areas. Killing the most economically productive parts of the country is not going to magically make other parts more productive, it's just going to destroy the whole country's economy. The causes of the population decline are a) women marrying later, or not marrying at all, because they have the option of a career and prefer that b) families that want to give their children a good future having few children, mainly because of the cost of education. Those are the things you need to address if you want to change it.

cyberax 1y ago
> Correlation is not causation. People happily raised children in dense cities for centuries. London is an example of such a city. Its population in 1750 was 750000 people. It was not a "large city" at all by current standards. > Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in. Oh, I agree. However, for the price of an apartment in Tokyo, you can build a _new_ home with all the modern amenities. > Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish. Yeah, like "microapartments" where you can cook food while sitting on a toilet. Very well suited for hikikomori, great for raising 3 children! > Killing the most economically productive parts of the country is not going to magically make other parts more productive, it's just going to destroy the whole country's economy. It won't kill anything, it will just move jobs out of large cities. We've already had a "dry run" of this during the pandemic. > amilies that want to give their children a good future having few children, mainly because of the cost of education. Europe has free (or cheap) education. Yet birth rates are even lower than in the US. > Those are the things you need to address if you want to change it. Then why people moving out of cities have a greater fertility rate?
- lmm 1y ago
  > London is an example of such a city. Its population in 1750 was 750000 people And its population in the 1930s, with a healthy fertility rate, was 11 million. > for the price of an apartment in Tokyo, you can build a _new_ home with all the modern amenities. Maybe - bear in mind that building costs are much higher out in the country. But assuming you build a big house, what would you do with it? I guess all the cleaning will help make life less boring. > It won't kill anything, it will just move jobs out of large cities. We've already had a "dry run" of this during the pandemic. The pandemic did a lot of economic damage, and many jobs stayed in the cities or are rushing to return there now. > Europe has free (or cheap) education. But much stronger womens' rights and correspondingly low marriage rates. > Then why people moving out of cities have a greater fertility rate? In Japan? Maybe because of all the cash subsidies for moving out with children.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
trinix912 1y ago
> Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in. Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish. How practical is raising kids in a 20m2 studio? Especially if you've got multiple. I'd bet not nearly as practical as in a house. Plus the recent trend of building lots of smaller apartments instead of a bit bigger and way more practical ones.
- lmm 1y ago
  20 is maybe going too far, but a bigger space is often just harder to keep clean, especially with kids. Of course if you're raising kids in a city apartment you'll want them spending a lot of time out of the house (whether that's parks, community centers, just shopping, ...) but that's a good healthy practice anyway.

by lmm 1y ago

cyberax 1y ago

> Correlation is not causation. People happily raised children in dense cities for centuries. London is an example of such a city. Its population in 1750 was 750000 people. It was not a "large city" at all by current standards. > Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in. Oh, I agree. However, for the price of an apartment in Tokyo, you can build a _new_ home with all the modern amenities. > Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish. Yeah, like "microapartments" where you can cook food while sitting on a toilet. Very well suited for hikikomori, great for raising 3 children! > Killing the most economically productive parts of the country is not going to magically make other parts more productive, it's just going to destroy the whole country's economy. It won't kill anything, it will just move jobs out of large cities. We've already had a "dry run" of this during the pandemic. > amilies that want to give their children a good future having few children, mainly because of the cost of education. Europe has free (or cheap) education. Yet birth rates are even lower than in the US. > Those are the things you need to address if you want to change it. Then why people moving out of cities have a greater fertility rate?

lmm 1y ago
> London is an example of such a city. Its population in 1750 was 750000 people And its population in the 1930s, with a healthy fertility rate, was 11 million. > for the price of an apartment in Tokyo, you can build a _new_ home with all the modern amenities. Maybe - bear in mind that building costs are much higher out in the country. But assuming you build a big house, what would you do with it? I guess all the cleaning will help make life less boring. > It won't kill anything, it will just move jobs out of large cities. We've already had a "dry run" of this during the pandemic. The pandemic did a lot of economic damage, and many jobs stayed in the cities or are rushing to return there now. > Europe has free (or cheap) education. But much stronger womens' rights and correspondingly low marriage rates. > Then why people moving out of cities have a greater fertility rate? In Japan? Maybe because of all the cash subsidies for moving out with children.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

trinix912 1y ago

> Those old houses look great in instagram photos but they're not very fun to actually live in. Young people are rightly prioritising places that are good to live instead of the boomer square feet fetish. How practical is raising kids in a 20m2 studio? Especially if you've got multiple. I'd bet not nearly as practical as in a house. Plus the recent trend of building lots of smaller apartments instead of a bit bigger and way more practical ones.

lmm 1y ago
20 is maybe going too far, but a bigger space is often just harder to keep clean, especially with kids. Of course if you're raising kids in a city apartment you'll want them spending a lot of time out of the house (whether that's parks, community centers, just shopping, ...) but that's a good healthy practice anyway.