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

331–340 of 359 posts

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

#331

Post by someguydave »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #192
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…

One issue here is that, taken as a whole, the vast majority of real estate in the US is incredibly cheap. In some places you can get land literally for free, generally with the condition that you build (or park - some even allow mobile homes) a home on that land. But as education has increased so has the desire of people to live and work in the most desirable areas in the US where the highest paying jobs are. It's no…

Unfortunately, even in rural areas you must convince the local government to bless your proposed property development. This puts the brakes on many ideas in the embryonic stage.

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

#332

Post by tathougies »

arendtio wrote: post #182
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…

Since when you need to be married to have kids? Sounds like correlation, but likely not causation.

Well if a father wants to have unassailable parental rights over his children, he still ought to be married. If he's okay being beholden to the mother's whims, then there's no need for marriage.

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

#333

Post by shados »

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.

Maybe.

Right now though, my 401k has been doing 15-18% for the last couple of years. My condo has been going up in value by about 13%/year, but I put 20% down and I think I'm at 30-35% equity, and my monthlies are cheaper than an equivalent rental.

The rent + invest vs buy + bank on property value debate is age old, and I won't restart it here, but so far, I'm not doing terrible.

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

#334

Post by ck425 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #313
ck425 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there's not, because one lifeform's existed can effect others. Additionally when debating if life should come to be, the lifeform in question can't have an opinion until after the fact.

Think about the kind of life you think would have been better off not existing. Surely there are people alive whose life fits your criteria. Now imagine telling one of these people that it would have been better if they never existed. Probably they'll tell you where you can stick your notions.

I'm not suggesting someone goes and tells them, that would just cause more pain. I'm suggesting we stop that life from existing in the first place.

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

#335

Post by ck425 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #314
ck425 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think that life insurance, disability insurance, and a social safety net are good things, then you think that siblings are a good thing.

I don't expect my siblings to be any of those for me. It's incredibly unfair to put those expectations on family.

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

#336

Post by ck425 »

alsetmusic wrote: post #323
ck425 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That too. I was more suggesting that some of us aren't particularly close with our family or people people. That and you can not particularly like someone without them being horrible, sometimes personalities just clash or are indifferent to each other.

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

#337

Post by [deleted] »

mkirklions wrote: post #281
wil421 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea and the majority of people don’t make anywhere near 400k. You still need a huge low paid workforce to get things running. Firemen, police, teacher, retail and grocery workers, cleaners, bus drivers, plumbers and the like.

None of those positions are low paid outside of teenage retail/grocery workers. Fire/police/teacher/plumbers are very well paid. Cleaning is hit and miss, specialty cleaning is borderline extortion. Still, I know that most cleaning people get paid min 15$/hr. At 15$/hr, 30k/yr is plenty to live.

[deleted]

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

#338

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #312
CalRobert wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm conflicted because the carbon footprint of another kid is substantial. Then again, individual action is utterly meaningless. With ~8billion people it just doesn't matter what I do. Only large-scale action that brings about systemic changes matters. And hey, maybe one of my kids will be the one to help fix it! Then again, if people viewed 2 as a nominal max then we'd still be on the right path (a bit below replace…

FWIW, if you care about the environment, the right move is to have kids. All species expand to fill their ecological niche. If you abstain from having children, their spots will just be taken up by other people's children. We are powerless to influence the number of people, but we can influence the proportion of people who have an environmentalist bent. I hear you about the career thing. I have sacrificed immensely t…

> FWIW, if you care about the environment, the right move is to have kids.

This couldn't be more wrong. Every new life is another body consuming resources.

> All species expand to fill their ecological niche.

This doesn't apply to humans. Unlike other animals, we've mastered agriculture and can produce our own food. But there are still non-renewable resources that we're constantly consuming and will eventually run out of, but we'll continue to reproduce.

> If you abstain from having children, their spots will just be taken up by other people's children.

This implies the inverse, that if I choose to have children, someone else will react by choosing not to. If I choose not to, that won't cause someone else to have more to "take up my spot". There will still be fewer children.

> We are powerless to influence the number of people

On an individual scale, yes. My choice to not have children has no significant impact on the population. But lots of people choosing to not have children does. Your argument is similar to the one made by people who don't vote because they think their one vote won't change the outcome of the election.

> but we can influence the proportion of people who have an environmentalist bent.

This part is at least true.

Post reply on HN