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

321–330 of 359 posts

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

#321

Post by nradov »

vkou wrote: post #301
0x445442 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially with the type of technical work that's so predominate on the west coast. A lot of that work could be moved to cheaper interior parts of the country.

Yet for some reason tech giants insist on building more opulent, centralized megaoffices in unaffordable areas. Perhaps it is because they do not bear the brunt of these costs.

One reason is that the executives who make the decisions on office locations can easily afford to live nearby. And most of them prefer to live in fashionable areas.

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

#322

Post by anoncoward111 »

rsynnott wrote: post #304
anoncoward111 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the rent, salary, taxation, net worth and expectancy data for denmark's 5 million danes is comporable to the AVERAGE american city/suburban resident of similar background in the USA we just have 100 million people that are literally in debt up to their eyeballs and die horrible unhealthy deaths every year. im not saying this system is justified, im saying it skews our statistics. the US is like south africa-- a delib…

So, wait, are you saying "the US doesn't have a social mobility problem, except for the large social mobility problem it has"? I don't really follow.

The US absolutely, 100% has a social mobility problem. This social mobility problem is particularly prevalent among the bottom 33% of income earners/wealth owners in US society (aka +100m truly poor people).

However, when you control for this group of people (aka remove them from being counted), the US middle class is basically the same as the Danish middle class, in terms of mobility, income, life expectancy and so on.

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

#323

Post by alsetmusic »

ck425 wrote: post #297
toasterlovin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck the job. Do your one kid a favor and have another kid. Siblings are just about the most useful things you can have in life.

As someone with 4 siblings I'm going to have to disagree with this. Siblings aren't inherently good things to have in life. I know plenty of only children who have never wanted a sibling and plenty of folk who are largely indifferent to their siblings. It depends massively on the personality of the people involved.

> I know plenty of only children who have never wanted a sibling and plenty of folk who are largely indifferent to their siblings.

Then there are siblings who are a literal burden on their families. Some people just use others and walk all over everyone. Someone in my extended family tried to burglarize the home of someone else in the family. That’s not someone I want in my family.

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

#324

Post by someguydave »

majidazimi wrote: post #157
someguydave wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

Yes, precisely this. Taken from a cynical perspective it appears that many people are making large personal sacrifices to bid-up the prices of real estate held by rich urban landowners, as well as to fund the welfare state.

With respect to real estate, I would suggest that the government at least stop pouring fuel on the fire. End all real estate tax subsidies, including mortgage interest tax deductions. End all government real estate loan guarantees. End any favorable tax treatment of real estate as an asset.

On the supply side, the government should greatly curtail restrictions on property development. I think some concern about the quality of housing is justified, but nearly all zoning should be eliminated.

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

#325

Post by labster »

intopieces wrote: post #259
labster wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is the carrying capacity of earth for Humans? I recall in the 70s there was hype about the “Population Bomb” but those fears were never borne out. As well, what makes you think we will reach an equilibrium for good neighborhoods? Some housing will be abandoned, causing blight; blight causes good neighborhoods to become less desirable, and they spiral down from there. Detroit is a great example of what happens wh…

It's really hard to say what the carrying capacity is, because unlike other species, humans keep modifying their environment. Without clothing, the answer is probably a few million. Without agriculture, the number is south of half a billion. With mechanized agriculture, large-scale land use changes, and artificial fertilizer, we can probably still double our current population. But at the cost of stressing the rest of the environment. I'd guess the "safe" level is somewhere in the low billions, i.e. 1-5 billion.

I was mainly talking about the SF case, where lower global population should make it more affordable rather than causing things to be abandoned. This is what is playing out in Tokyo, which is still growing while the countryside is abandoned. As for the small towns, it sucks, but dying small towns has been a thing for quite a while now as agriculture has become more mechanized. Detroit's kind of the odd man out being a depopulating metropolis, so I'd actually argue that it's a terrible example, at least for the next 100 years.

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

#326

Post by smileysteve »

jdavis703 wrote: post #266
iguy wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What baddox's comment (about only the difference mattering) misses is this: what if you need another bedroom? In other words, it's ignoring the fact that houses come in many sizes. Anyone spending 75% of income on housing has an enormous incentive to choose a slightly smaller apartment. And is completely unable to contemplate expanding slightly. What if you want two kids... and the second one turns out to be twins? C…

Me and my sister shared a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment for a few years. I recentlty had neighbors that had a one bedroom with two kids. I'm not sure where this requirement of one bedroom per child comes from. Really, that's just a luxury.

> I'm not sure where this requirement of one bedroom per child comes from. Really, that's just a luxury

Relavent

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=552528...

> The average American house size has more than doubled since the 1950s; it now stands at 2,349 square feet.

> Back in the 1950s and '60s, people thought it was normal for a family to have one bathroom, or for two or three growing boys to share a bedroom. Well-off people summered in tiny beach cottages on Cape Cod or off the coast of California

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

#327

Post by intopieces »

labster wrote: post #325
intopieces wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the carrying capacity of earth for Humans? I recall in the 70s there was hype about the “Population Bomb” but those fears were never borne out. As well, what makes you think we will reach an equilibrium for good neighborhoods? Some housing will be abandoned, causing blight; blight causes good neighborhoods to become less desirable, and they spiral down from there. Detroit is a great example of what happens wh…

It's really hard to say what the carrying capacity is, because unlike other species, humans keep modifying their environment. Without clothing, the answer is probably a few million. Without agriculture, the number is south of half a billion. With mechanized agriculture, large-scale land use changes, and artificial fertilizer, we can probably still double our current population. But at the cost of stressing the rest o…

On a global scale, SF is tiny. Fewer than 1m people in a state of 44m, a country of 350m, and a world of 7,000m.

The impact of global population on SF is and will be negligible.

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

#328

Post by CalRobert »

DrJones1098 wrote: post #223
labster wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The issue is that the U.S. isn't overpopulated. India, China are tho.

Worth remembering that the average person in the US emits far more than the average person in India or China.

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

#329

Post by PhasmaFelis »

jexah wrote: post #217
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite significant even within much more common ranges. If you make $60K/year and spend 25% of it on rent, you net nearly 20% more than someone who makes $40K and spends 5% on rent. Looking solely at percentage of income spent on housing will lead you to a very wrong conclusion in that circumstance.

You're forgetting about income tax.

Then factor that in as well. The divide between $60K/25% and $40K/5% will still be substantial.

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

#330

Post by labster »

intopieces wrote: post #327
labster wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really hard to say what the carrying capacity is, because unlike other species, humans keep modifying their environment. Without clothing, the answer is probably a few million. Without agriculture, the number is south of half a billion. With mechanized agriculture, large-scale land use changes, and artificial fertilizer, we can probably still double our current population. But at the cost of stressing the rest o…

On a global scale, SF is tiny. Fewer than 1m people in a state of 44m, a country of 350m, and a world of 7,000m. The impact of global population on SF is and will be negligible.

I'm not getting your point. The thing about global trends is that they are global, which means that they'll apply to all of the large cities. Some large cities might have other trends that might hide the signal, like falling into the ocean, but the point is the global mass migration.
Post reply on HN