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

131–140 of 359 posts

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

#131

Post by TeMPOraL »

toasterlovin wrote: post #49
pitt1980 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

This stage of the demographic transition is a huge problem, IMO. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a ratchet (as in, it only moves in one direction): Basically, two incomes are useful, so both people in a relationship pursue careers. Now they have more money to compete on the housing market. This seems like a good move, so others follow suit. At first this is largely a win for people who pursue this r…

You're spot on about the basic underlying mechanic. A mechanic like that can be found directly causing or partially contributing to almost all the problems we face today.

Obligatory link going deep into this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.

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

#132

Post by baybal2 »

firic wrote: post #107
knuththetruth wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US solved the problem in the postwar period by taxing the wealthy at high rates, providing subsidized housing and education, and numerous other social democratic benefits to their population. This, combined with liberal immigration policies, resulted in tremendous growth.

and of course by bombing all of the competitors factories making the US a monopoly in manufacturing.

>and of course by bombing all of the competitors factories making the US a monopoly in manufacturing.

But also making them poor enough to not to be able to buy anything from America. This is 9 out of 10 people pulling out this argument forgot.

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

#133

Post by raspie »

johnrob wrote: post #127
toasterlovin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This stage of the demographic transition is a huge problem, IMO. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a ratchet (as in, it only moves in one direction): Basically, two incomes are useful, so both people in a relationship pursue careers. Now they have more money to compete on the housing market. This seems like a good move, so others follow suit. At first this is largely a win for people who pursue this r…

Solution: create a surplus of homes. That will detach price from income. Nothing else will work. (Note: we did this with food and it successfully kept prices low)

Not necessarily. The least affordable housing markets tend to be bigger cities. Growing the cities further will not necessarily make housing in those cities more affordable. There's a positive feedback loop between cities being bigger being more desirable.

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

#134

Post by baybal2 »

asdsa5325 wrote: post #21
kanox wrote: post #13

Correlation is not causation. Low birth rates and high home values are both also highly correlated to education and women in the workforce and high income and economic growth and trendy hipster bars and many other nice things. Picking just two items and claiming that "people don't have children because homes are expensive" is not very enlightening at all.

Literally from the article: > As a further caveat, the correlation observed here is by no means proof that home value growth causes fertility declines. One alternative explanation could be the possibility that there is clustering into certain counties of people with careers that pay well enough for expensive homes but make it difficult to have children before 30; this could cause both trends observed in the chart abo…

What they seem to forget to talk about at all are that people are moving around, and especially in US.

Moving to quieter town then you are well off and stable career-wise is certainly what a lot of people do.

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

#135

Post by nostrademons »

defterGoose wrote: post #115
tanilama wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, the hiking home prices benefits this generation the most as well.

In some alternate reality where everyone's goals and chosen locale are identically that of their parents, yes.

In theory, if your goals and chosen locale are not identical to your parents, you can sell their house for cash and use the cash to buy a house in your chosen locale.

In practice, a large percentage of the population are getting screwed because a.) their parents lost their home in the foreclosure crisis, the bank repossessed it, and it got sold to a private investor b.) their parents had inadequate savings and needed to take out a reverse mortgage, and most of the home equity goes to the bank by the time they die c.) their parents got divorced and their evil stepmother got the house or d.) their parents live in one of the many regions where housing prices are stagnant or declining but the kids need to live in an expensive region to have a job.

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

#136

Post by baybal2 »

Karishma1234 wrote: post #93

I think this is a wonderful way to tackle climate change. Higher housing if leads to lower birth rates then it might be good for planet. I wonder if there is analysis been done as to what birth rates we need to achieve to ensure the planet is fit to live for our kids.

If ~25% of American debt and fund market is dumped on property market, I believe they can simply buy all of the housing stock.

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

#137

Post by someguydave »

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.

That's because the disposable income is mainly going to bid up the price of real estate. Nobody is making more real estate and the existing owners patronize the government to lock out competition. The federal government then pours gas on the fire by subsidizing demand through housing loan guarantees.

Meanwhile, as the young prospective parents work harder than ever to save for children, the government claims that they aren't producing enough new citizens to keep the welfare state going. This is taken as justification for bringing in immigrant labor. This suppresses wages for everyone, making saving and reproducing harder.

No, I don't believe the free market is a zero-sum game. But it's not exactly free either.

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

#138

Post by Swizec »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #124
hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won’t, because you were smart and rented instead. :)

If you were smarter you'd have commuted in from the suburbs and banked the money for retirement.

That’s 2+ hours per day of your life that you’re never getting back. You can always make more money, but time lost is gone forever.

How much is 2x5x52 = 520 hours worth to you?

If you’re selling your time for even just $100/hour that’s $52,000/year right there. With a 300k salary your hour is worth way more than $100. For your family, it’s priceless.

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN