Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

zillow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 359 posts

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#31

Post by sandworm101 »

jetrink wrote: post #28
sandworm101 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA. There are plenty more factors impacting teenage pregnancy than the cost of rent. I also hesitate to talk about teenage pregnancy rates in any sort of positive light. There is a very fine line between a 18yo married to her "high school sweetheart" who has a great job, and an unwed 17yo highschool senior who, in 1958 society, had a very rough…

> I'd suggest that the later was the more common. I doubt that was the case. According to the CDC[1], less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s. In 1960, the birth rate for teenagers aged 15-17 was a quarter that of teenagers aged 18-19. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

"Births" ... not pregnancies. There is a monumental difference. We know about the births because they are vital stats. But for the pregnancies, at best, we know about the reported pregnancies, the girls who went to doctors and those doctors contributed to the stats. That doesn't cover the girls who did not see doctors nor those who, for whatever reason, did not carry the child to term.

>> less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s.

And exactly how many of those occurred less than 9 months after the wedding? Being pregnant and unmarried in 1958, even temporarily, was not a happy place from which to start adult life.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#32

Post by pitt1980 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #9

Keep in mind that there is probably a significant selection effect going on there. In other words, if you don't plan on having children, expensive cities are still an option for you. Whereas if you plan on having children, they are not.

Considering the ratio of career gains that go to those working in a few expensive cities, even if this is largely selection effects, I'm not sure this paints a very rosy picture of the society we're creating.

I'm reminded of how few heads of EU states are parents

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-childless-leaders-mean-...

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#33

Post by dragonwriter »

gnadx wrote: post #2

Seems like it's more likely home prices are the key factor, not home values. Subtle but important difference I'd say. If you can't afford a place to live, you probably can't afford to have children.

It's more likely that people deciding not to have children have more money to spend, which, given supply constraints on housing, increases market clearing prices for housing.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#34

Post by lr4444lr »

sandworm101 wrote: post #25
lkrubner wrote: post #20

From previous: " In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. In the USA, the happiest year for this ratio was 1958, when people were spending 22% of their income on rent, on average. Not by coincidence, this was the peak year of the Baby Boom. In some sense, it was the best year in history to be a young white…

>> which is why 1958 remains the peak year for teenage pregnancy in the USA. There are plenty more factors impacting teenage pregnancy than the cost of rent. I also hesitate to talk about teenage pregnancy rates in any sort of positive light. There is a very fine line between a 18yo married to her "high school sweetheart" who has a great job, and an unwed 17yo highschool senior who, in 1958 society, had a very rough…

Did you mean the former?

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#36

Post by jetrink »

sandworm101 wrote: post #31
jetrink wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd suggest that the later was the more common. I doubt that was the case. According to the CDC[1], less than 15% of teenage births were to unmarried teenagers in the 1950s. In 1960, the birth rate for teenagers aged 15-17 was a quarter that of teenagers aged 18-19. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_10.pdf

"Births" ... not pregnancies. There is a monumental difference. We know about the births because they are vital stats. But for the pregnancies, at best, we know about the reported pregnancies, the girls who went to doctors and those doctors contributed to the stats. That doesn't cover the girls who did not see doctors nor those who, for whatever reason, did not carry the child to term. >> less than 15% of teenage bir…

That would imply 15-20% of teenagers aged 15-17 having abortions annually. I find that hard to believe.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#37

Post by baddox »

lkrubner wrote: post #20

From previous: " In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. In the USA, the happiest year for this ratio was 1958, when people were spending 22% of their income on rent, on average. Not by coincidence, this was the peak year of the Baby Boom. In some sense, it was the best year in history to be a young white…

In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs.

All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money.

I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this article, but I’d like to see that metric used.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#38

Post by orangecat »

ekianjo wrote: post #12
plassma wrote: post #4

“Children are expensive”

They are expensive because we want them to be. We have never had so much disposable income and so few children in History.

As income potential increases, so does the opportunity cost of raising children. If you're making $50k/year, you're not giving up month-long European vacations by having kids. If you're making $500k/year, you might be.

Re: Birth Rates Dropped Most in U.S. Counties Where Home Prices Grew Most

#39

Post by geodel »

baddox wrote: post #37
lkrubner wrote: post #20

From previous: " In nations in the West, an important limiting factor is the ability to get one’s own apartment. That is, the ratio of average male wage to average rent. In the USA, the happiest year for this ratio was 1958, when people were spending 22% of their income on rent, on average. Not by coincidence, this was the peak year of the Baby Boom. In some sense, it was the best year in history to be a young white…

In pretty much every analysis involving housing costs, I try to mention that percentage of income spent on housing is not a great metric. A better metric is absolute income minus housing costs. All else being equal, I would gladly earn $1 million per year and spend 75% of it on rent, because that remaining 25% would be a heck of a lot of money. I doubt this metric would significantly change the conclusions of this ar…

While you are right, it is an exceptional scenario to earn that kind of money. So it is statistically insignificant to calculate absolute income minus rents etc.
Post reply on HN