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

151–160 of 359 posts

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

#151

Post by 4ad »

labster wrote: post #73
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…

Immigration will offset the demographic implosion, at least if current trends continue. But speaking as someone who studied climate science, a temporary population reduction can only be a good thing for long-term human survival. We're above the carrying capacity of Earth for humans, and though we've done a lot of tricks to expand capacity, we're currently putting a large swath of the biosphere in danger. If there are…

I don't think most people have a problem with having a smaller population in general, they have a problem with the shift in the age distribution. Having less people is fine, having few young people who have to care for a general aging population is not.

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

#152

Post by tathougies »

hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #109
anoncoward111 wrote: post #90

There's correlation here, but likely not causation. The real underlying cause in the drop in birth rates is an increase in working hours, an increase in commuting times, an increase in college tuition and health care costs, and also an increase in divorce rates. These days, even getting married is an expensive financial arrangement. Having kids is just another layer on that. Housing prices have increased because of c…

Getting married is expensive? How so?

Getting married in a traditional way is cheap, but most people blow off tradition to get some fancy pinterest barn, with fancy pinterest lights, with some fancy pinterest minister, some fancy pinterest vows, and fancy pinterest invitations. We paid $80 for a marriage license. The church was free. The ceremony was free. The celebrant was free. The wedding was free. We also got married in the most beautiful church in San Francisco (in my opinion at least)

We were going to use the church hall for the reception, but my parents wanted us to get another reception venue. That would have been free. A traditional cake and punch reception with some music would have set us back maybe $300, but even that could have been foregone. My wife's parents didn't do any of that. Just got married the old-fashioned way.

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

#153

Post by 4ad »

flashman wrote: post #41
Robotbeat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is ridiculous. Wages have never been higher, and there have never been more people. There are incredibly strong network effects from having more people (in cities, etc), and the benefit of international trade relies on more people to enable better specialization. All kinds of incredibly important markets, like semiconductors (including computer chips, solar power) and even mining rely on having a lot of people t…

> Wages have never been higher Except that "in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today." [ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor... ]

In the US, not in the rest of the world, the majority being 3rd world countries.

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

#154

Post by daveFNbuck »

ido wrote: post #129
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In SF the suburbs are called Silicon Valley and are also expensive.

There are also suburbs across the bay that are cheaper.

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

#155

Post by divanvisagie »

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.

Yeah when I see stuff like this I'm reminded of this relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/925/

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

#156

Post by vkou »

mylons wrote: post #130
hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

haha, but what if it doesn't pop and we see something like Japan's economy from the early 90's on? High prices that never come down, combined with wage stagnation? We're kind of already seeing it now.

You can then move to a flyover state in the mid-west, and buy a palace for the $100,000/year you were stashing away.

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

#157

Post by majidazimi »

someguydave wrote: post #137
ekianjo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Exactly this. This is an interminable stupid loop.

1. People want their own house, 2 cars, ....

2. So they work more, to earn more.

3. In some cases you need to study more, to get better job.

4. Women also get involved in this shitty loop.

5. Getting loans are easier now. However housing supply is not sufficient. So prices go higher.

6. People end up working/studying more, because they need even more money now.

7. They end up having 1 child.

8. Now, since government wants more workers (1 child is not sustainable), they have to bring immigrants.

9. It is getting dangerous now. Corporations lobby politicians, to keep minimum wages at a very low level.

10. Ambitious immigrants are ready to work like a horse. (Don't feel offended, I'm also an immigrant)

11. Corporations bully current employees to work more, since if you don't work more, there is an immigrant out there to replace you.

12. People have to work even more to satisfy their employers.

13. Go to 1.

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

#158

Post by watwut »

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

Shotgun marriage. They did not wanted 16 years old to marry to 17 years old sweathearth and have birth as 17 years. Men were supposed to be able to feed familly already at the time of marriage.

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

#159

Post by nilkn »

nostrademons wrote: post #119
manfredo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow. Assuming the $1 million is post tax, it equates to $250,000 post tax and nearly entirely disposable income. Compared to, say, someone making $200,00 post tax and spending only 25% of that on rent it is strictly better. The point that the above commenter is making is that if the percentage of income spent on rent is higher, but the purchasing power adjusted income is higher it can cancel out. I'…

I think he's saying that as absolute incomes get higher, commuting cost as a percentage of income drops, because commuting cost is largely fixed regardless of income. And so it makes more sense to live in a low-COL region and commute to a high-COL region. For the average person, flying to work every day is unrealistic. If you are making $1M/year, it suddenly becomes very realistic. Same day roundtrips between SFO and…

There are a variety of private jet subscription offerings popping up, including Surfair: https://www.surfair.com/us/membership-pricing/ That one is only $2k/month for unlimited trips between a few locations in California. I don't know how restrictive their scheduling options are, though (i.e., could you actually commute daily with the service?).

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

#160

Post by ben_w »

ido wrote: post #129
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In SF the suburbs are called Silicon Valley and are also expensive.

Sufficiently expensive that when I consider Silicon Valley jobs in my future, I also consider getting a pilot license and commuting by plane from the central valley.
Post reply on HN