3 ms·

The drop in fertility rate is directly liked to migration into dense cities. They are just not a good place to have children. The US resisted the fertility dro

The drop in fertility rate is directly liked to migration into dense cities. They are just not a good place to have children. The US resisted the fertility drop for much longer, because of higher suburban population.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 1y ago
> The US resisted the fertility drop for much longer, because of higher suburban population. It was immigration, but next generation of all immigrants (native born) adopts host country total fertility rate in this context. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/08/hispanic-women-no-longer-account-for-the-majority-of-immigrant-births-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/08/hispanic-... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/26/5-facts-about-immigrant-mothers-and-u-s-fertility-trends/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/26/5-facts-a... https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FT_19.07.16_ImmigrantFertility_2.png https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FT_19... visually nails this. Now, would these people have had a higher birth rate if they remained in their LATAM countries? The data indicates no. Latin America’s Baby Bust Is Arriving Early - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-05-22/latin-america-s-baby-bust-is-coming-ahead-of-schedule https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-05-22/latin-... | https://archive.today/EPMAU https://archive.today/EPMAU - May 22nd, 2025 Population Prospects and Rapid Demographic Changes in the First Quarter of the Twenty-first Century in Latin America and the Caribbean - https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/dc566b9e-b3ef-44e9-a167-995614696404/content https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/dc5... - 2024
- cyberax 1y ago
  In 2003 the average fertility rate was around 2.03 It started falling to 1.6 around 2008 ( https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/fertility-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... ) which coincided with the millennials getting into the child-bearing age. And the millennials are much more likely to live in cities, even though they don't want that: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-living-country.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-livin...
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
This is probably a factor, but I think it’s a mistake to treat cities not being suited for raising children as a hard, immutable fact. They’re bad because rent continues to soar which clashes on two fronts (kids are expensive already and increase space requirements) and we as a society have decided to build our urban spaces (suburbs included) to be explicitly not friendly to children, families, or anybody not driving and to instead favor adults with money to spend. These are things we could change, should we want to. The other thing to look at is why people have migrated into cities, and the answer is pretty simple: it’s where the good employment prospects are. The further yet get away from urban cores the worse those get: fewer jobs, worse compensation and benefits, greater risk of being stuck between jobs for long periods of time. Anybody worried about birthrates should be embracing remote work and making sure they compensate their employees well.
- ars 1y ago
  It's not just rent, it's also transportation. Transporting young kids with a car is easy, public transportation is much harder until they are 10 or so. For example try transporting a sleepy kid, or more than 1 young kid at the same time. Cities are cars don't get along very well, which makes them less friendly to kids. Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the parents need to take you far you have a car available.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    Transportation can be a challenge, but I don’t agree that a car is a requirement. When I’m in Japan it’s common to see parents carting around a kid or two on an appropriately kitted out bike for example. That wouldn’t be as practical in a sprawling suburb, but it can work in denser cities. > Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the parents need to take you far you have a car available. This varies a lot depending on the suburb. There are many that are endless house-deserts where you’re not doing anything without a ride. The one where I live is much more broken up, but sidewalk coverage is patchy at best.
rangestransform 1y ago
I read some unsubstantiated claim about cities being bad for fertility because there’s an abundance of things to do that aren’t popping out children
- cyberax 1y ago
  And you'll be doing them, whether you like it or not.
mcmoor 1y ago
Any data for this? I think this maybe the real answer because unlike other explanations, this one can actually acquire proof from before modern ages. Simply because it's known that cities fertility rates were always negative and have to constantly pull people from countryside.
- cyberax 1y ago
  It's a well-known phenomenon. E.g.: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-008-9163-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-008-9163-9 It's been eroding lately, but mostly because fewer younger people can afford to live in suburbs. By "afford", I don't mean monetary cost, but the lack of easily accessible jobs. I'm investigating that, and I believe that it's even _worse_ than the simple fertility rate shows. If you look specifically at the number of parents with two or more children, suburbs completely demolish cities when you control for the average income. Controlling for the average income is needed because of the two poles of fertility: desperately poor people, and happy content people ("reversed J-curve"). And cities in the US disproportionally concentrate desperately poor people.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 1y ago

> The US resisted the fertility drop for much longer, because of higher suburban population. It was immigration, but next generation of all immigrants (native born) adopts host country total fertility rate in this context. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/08/hispanic-women-no-longer-account-for-the-majority-of-immigrant-births-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/08/hispanic-... https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/26/5-facts-about-immigrant-mothers-and-u-s-fertility-trends/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/26/5-facts-a... https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FT_19.07.16_ImmigrantFertility_2.png https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FT_19... visually nails this. Now, would these people have had a higher birth rate if they remained in their LATAM countries? The data indicates no. Latin America’s Baby Bust Is Arriving Early - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-05-22/latin-america-s-baby-bust-is-coming-ahead-of-schedule https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-05-22/latin-... | https://archive.today/EPMAU https://archive.today/EPMAU - May 22nd, 2025 Population Prospects and Rapid Demographic Changes in the First Quarter of the Twenty-first Century in Latin America and the Caribbean - https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/dc566b9e-b3ef-44e9-a167-995614696404/content https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/dc5... - 2024

cyberax 1y ago
In 2003 the average fertility rate was around 2.03 It started falling to 1.6 around 2008 ( https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/fertility-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... ) which coincided with the millennials getting into the child-bearing age. And the millennials are much more likely to live in cities, even though they don't want that: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-living-country.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-livin...

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

This is probably a factor, but I think it’s a mistake to treat cities not being suited for raising children as a hard, immutable fact. They’re bad because rent continues to soar which clashes on two fronts (kids are expensive already and increase space requirements) and we as a society have decided to build our urban spaces (suburbs included) to be explicitly not friendly to children, families, or anybody not driving and to instead favor adults with money to spend. These are things we could change, should we want to. The other thing to look at is why people have migrated into cities, and the answer is pretty simple: it’s where the good employment prospects are. The further yet get away from urban cores the worse those get: fewer jobs, worse compensation and benefits, greater risk of being stuck between jobs for long periods of time. Anybody worried about birthrates should be embracing remote work and making sure they compensate their employees well.

ars 1y ago
It's not just rent, it's also transportation. Transporting young kids with a car is easy, public transportation is much harder until they are 10 or so. For example try transporting a sleepy kid, or more than 1 young kid at the same time. Cities are cars don't get along very well, which makes them less friendly to kids. Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the parents need to take you far you have a car available.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Transportation can be a challenge, but I don’t agree that a car is a requirement. When I’m in Japan it’s common to see parents carting around a kid or two on an appropriately kitted out bike for example. That wouldn’t be as practical in a sprawling suburb, but it can work in denser cities. > Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the parents need to take you far you have a car available. This varies a lot depending on the suburb. There are many that are endless house-deserts where you’re not doing anything without a ride. The one where I live is much more broken up, but sidewalk coverage is patchy at best.

rangestransform 1y ago

I read some unsubstantiated claim about cities being bad for fertility because there’s an abundance of things to do that aren’t popping out children

cyberax 1y ago
And you'll be doing them, whether you like it or not.

mcmoor 1y ago

Any data for this? I think this maybe the real answer because unlike other explanations, this one can actually acquire proof from before modern ages. Simply because it's known that cities fertility rates were always negative and have to constantly pull people from countryside.

cyberax 1y ago
It's a well-known phenomenon. E.g.: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-008-9163-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-008-9163-9 It's been eroding lately, but mostly because fewer younger people can afford to live in suburbs. By "afford", I don't mean monetary cost, but the lack of easily accessible jobs. I'm investigating that, and I believe that it's even _worse_ than the simple fertility rate shows. If you look specifically at the number of parents with two or more children, suburbs completely demolish cities when you control for the average income. Controlling for the average income is needed because of the two poles of fertility: desperately poor people, and happy content people ("reversed J-curve"). And cities in the US disproportionally concentrate desperately poor people.