Live data from Hacker News

America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

theatlantic.com

11–20 of 443 posts

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#11
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'll do it though. It used to be that the cities had lots of single-income families. They only had to compete with each other in the bidding war for good housing. Women entered the job market due to birth control and legal changes, so now we have lots of two-income households in that bidding war. Same-sex couples also became legal, adding even more two-income households. Meanwhile, low-cost forms of housing were l…

> "Women entered the job market due to birth control and legal changes..." the argument that dual-income households becoming necessities for home ownership and raising a family is plausible, if unsupported. but the quoted causal relationship above is not even plausible, let alone supported. women entered the job market because they wanted to realize their ambitions and support their families, just like men. other soc…

It's not the full story but is definitaly part of it. Without birth control and legal changes, women would not have been able to follow their ambitions; it's difficult to work when you're pregnant for the 8th time and anyway are not legally allowed to without your husband's permission.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#12
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'll do it though. It used to be that the cities had lots of single-income families. They only had to compete with each other in the bidding war for good housing. Women entered the job market due to birth control and legal changes, so now we have lots of two-income households in that bidding war. Same-sex couples also became legal, adding even more two-income households. Meanwhile, low-cost forms of housing were l…

> "Women entered the job market due to birth control and legal changes..." the argument that dual-income households becoming necessities for home ownership and raising a family is plausible, if unsupported. but the quoted causal relationship above is not even plausible, let alone supported. women entered the job market because they wanted to realize their ambitions and support their families, just like men. other soc…

> the argument that dual-income households becoming necessities for home ownership and raising a family is plausible, if unsupported.

"Elizabeth Warren’s book, The Two-Income Trap, explained Before she was a politician, Warren wrote a controversial book about family life and economics.

The “two-income trap,” as described by Warren, really consists of three partially separate phenomena that have arisen as families have come to rely on two working adults to make ends meet:

* The addition of a second earner means, in practice, a big increase in household fixed expenses for things like child care and commuting.

* Much of the money that American second earners bring in has been gobbled up, in practice, by zero-sum competition for educational opportunities expressed as either skyrocketed prices for houses in good school districts or escalating tuition at public universities.

* Last, while the addition of the second earner has not brought in much gain, it has created an increase in downside risk by eliminating an implicit insurance policy that families used to rely on."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18183091/t...

> women entered the job market because they wanted to realize their ambitions and support their families, just like men. other societal changes may have aided or hindered that ambition to various effect, but they don't form the driving force as you state.

Regardless of why, increased labor participation from woman joining the workforce in greater numbers than previously [1] was going to drive inflation for inelastic goods and services like housing, childcare, and education. It now has become a prisoner's dilemma: participate in the treadmill or find a way off.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/women-in-the-workforce-be... (PDF, page 2)

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#13
post #5
post #4

> There are many reasons New York might be shrinking, but most of them come down to the same unavoidable fact: Raising a family in the city is just too hard. Harder than in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, up to 80s? Millions of dirt poor immigrants raised children in the city just fine, and tons of working and middle class people were born and raised there. I seriously doubt it's "too hard" in any other sense, except job/ren…

That'll do it though. It used to be that the cities had lots of single-income families. They only had to compete with each other in the bidding war for good housing. Women entered the job market due to birth control and legal changes, so now we have lots of two-income households in that bidding war. Same-sex couples also became legal, adding even more two-income households. Meanwhile, low-cost forms of housing were l…

I don’t think this is entirely true. Keep in mind that while earners have increased, households used to be much bigger, with more children and more extended relatives living together. And children and even young unmarried women used to work. So purely single income households weren’t a particularly long time.

A bigger issue is that a lot of formerly big housing, at least in New York, has now been subdivided, since the whole is less than the sum of its rents. You are also seeing a large rise in people willing to be roommates with people they don’t know, so if you have three income-earning singles they’ll outbid a two-income family. And students are a special case of that, since the rents will go as high as their student loan balances can sustain.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#14
I look at it a little differently. The urban cores in the USA are actively hostile places for anyone to be. You step outside your door...into an empty hallway of doors. You take an elevator or stairs down to a place with a few mailboxes, then step outside.

Outside, you have a narrow strip of concrete, possibly with a few trees, that you are allowed to inhabit. Beyond it is as asphalt with two ton steel contraptions whizzing past at speeds that will maim or kill you.

There are a few places you can go from here. There are a few parks, where you can have some green space, along with the sound of the steel contraptions. There are other strips of concrete throughout the city between the contraptions' domain and the buildings. There are places you can pay to be allowed to occupy for a time. There are places you are paid to be for some number of hours each day. And there's the public library if you can reach it.

If you're responsible for just you and have access to a ready stream of money, you can cobble together an okay existence from this. You escape into intellectual pursuits in your small housing box. You spend lots of hours at the place you are paid to be. You visit your friends' small housing boxes. You spend some money to have somewhere else to go from time to time.

If you have small children, this changes. Intellectual pursuits? They can't read yet, so your only option is parking them in front of videos. It hurts to see their faces go slack and their motions grow spastic. You spend time taking them to visit their friends in other boxes and meeting their friends at the park. You breathe a sigh of relief when they enter school, since now they have a place to be analogous to the place you are paid to be. You can't let them outside to play on the narrow strips of concrete. One false move and some yahoo in a steel contraption has killed them.

If you want families in the city, bulldoze the major urban cores and replace them with low rise cohousing communities. Cars are parked on the edge. Everyone lives in spaces that face onto communal spaces. Community centers become focal points in each block, along with lots of other public space, indoors and out, instead of turning it all over to commercial interests. Short of that, if you want to raise a family and you have the means, you buy your own place that has its own small park and inside space to play. Everyone is cut off and must own the same amenities because of the tyranny of commercial space and cars over the ground level of the city.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#15
post #4

> There are many reasons New York might be shrinking, but most of them come down to the same unavoidable fact: Raising a family in the city is just too hard. Harder than in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, up to 80s? Millions of dirt poor immigrants raised children in the city just fine, and tons of working and middle class people were born and raised there. I seriously doubt it's "too hard" in any other sense, except job/ren…

Yeah seriously. We're Catholic (the crazy kind who eschew birth control and have tons of babies). We live in the SF area and are moving to Portland and plan on buying in the city. We have lots of friends in SF who have large enough families (3 - 8 kids). These are not super wealthy people. Well, I mean, they save their money and spend wisely so they have enough. They are not hotshot doctors, lawyers, or software engineers. Many are construction workers and other 'blue-collar' jobs, with wives who stay at home, and lots of kids. The difference is that they see their vocation as having and providing for children, and my other colleagues at work... do not.

Most also own a home, that they bought... by saving money. They do not come from privileged backgrounds, and at least one family immigrated to this country.

Re: America’s urban rebirth is missing actual births

#19
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Women entered the job market due to birth control and legal changes..." the argument that dual-income households becoming necessities for home ownership and raising a family is plausible, if unsupported. but the quoted causal relationship above is not even plausible, let alone supported. women entered the job market because they wanted to realize their ambitions and support their families, just like men. other soc…

> the argument that dual-income households becoming necessities for home ownership and raising a family is plausible, if unsupported. "Elizabeth Warren’s book, The Two-Income Trap, explained Before she was a politician, Warren wrote a controversial book about family life and economics. The “two-income trap,” as described by Warren, really consists of three partially separate phenomena that have arisen as families hav…

yah, that's good supporting evidence for the 2-income trap.

incidentally, my first foray into student loans made me realize a similar trap formed by government guaranteed student loans combined with the inability to discharge them via bankruptcy. those factors practically guarantee rising educational costs due to risk-free money flowing to both educational and financial institutions.

Post reply on HN