"I suppose that lower housing cost, which is harder than people think to achieve, might help on the margin. But it doesn't seem to be driving why people like this aren't having kids."
Housing costs and housing situations *do* matter a great deal!
The TFR in Seoul, Bangkok, Beijing, Singapore, and Shanghai is all in the range of 0.7 to 1.0 …
"I suppose that lower housing cost, which is harder than people think to achieve, might help on the margin. But it doesn't seem to be driving why people like this aren't having kids."
Housing costs and housing situations *do* matter a great deal!
The TFR in Seoul, Bangkok, Beijing, Singapore, and Shanghai is all in the range of 0.7 to 1.0 births per woman -- what is called ultra-low fertility. (The data are in the @BirthGauge twitter feed.) And in each of these cities the housing on offer consists essentially of expensive apartments in high rises. Terrible for families.
Suburbs and rural areas everywhere have much higher fertility rates than cities. Living space has been an important factor for being able to have a family throughout human history and it is certainly a factor now.
And most importantly, housing is a factor that is amenable to policy influence, compared to other factors. For example, religiosity strongly affects fertility rate but it is hard to imagine passing public policy in America that encourages religiosity.
I think the fact that you're referencing East Asia is the most critical aspect holding those together. Being East Asian does appear to be very bad for TFR.
That said, it's true that cities destroy fertility. But it's not clear to me that housing cost is the reason. There are lots of more affordable urban metros then NYC or SF and they too have low fertility. Perhaps density itself depresses TFR? Self sorting of people by preference? Other factors?
Lower urban TFR has been true for essentially all of civilized history. But since most people didn't live in cities, it didn't matter.
You might know this is called the urban graveyard effect -- cities are always and everywhere a demographic sink.
I think it might be true that moving people from 800 sq. foot apartments to 2500 sq. foot houses on 1/4 acre lots would increase fertility noticeably. I bought my first house as a single man, and I noticed almost immediately that I started feeling an urge to fill my house with a family, which I hadn't felt as an apartment-dweller.
But there's no serious public policy proposal to get to that drastic of a change, and any realistic gains in affordable housing will have a negligible effect on fertility. People will either move to a slightly larger home, which won't be enough to trigger a psychological change, they'll keep living in the same small apartment and spend more money on other consumption.
"I suppose that lower housing cost, which is harder than people think to achieve, might help on the margin. But it doesn't seem to be driving why people like this aren't having kids."
Housing costs and housing situations *do* matter a great deal!
The TFR in Seoul, Bangkok, Beijing, Singapore, and Shanghai is all in the range of 0.7 to 1.0 births per woman -- what is called ultra-low fertility. (The data are in the @BirthGauge twitter feed.) And in each of these cities the housing on offer consists essentially of expensive apartments in high rises. Terrible for families.
Suburbs and rural areas everywhere have much higher fertility rates than cities. Living space has been an important factor for being able to have a family throughout human history and it is certainly a factor now.
And most importantly, housing is a factor that is amenable to policy influence, compared to other factors. For example, religiosity strongly affects fertility rate but it is hard to imagine passing public policy in America that encourages religiosity.
I think the fact that you're referencing East Asia is the most critical aspect holding those together. Being East Asian does appear to be very bad for TFR.
That said, it's true that cities destroy fertility. But it's not clear to me that housing cost is the reason. There are lots of more affordable urban metros then NYC or SF and they too have low fertility. Perhaps density itself depresses TFR? Self sorting of people by preference? Other factors?
Lower urban TFR has been true for essentially all of civilized history. But since most people didn't live in cities, it didn't matter.
Yes, more good thoughts.
You might know this is called the urban graveyard effect -- cities are always and everywhere a demographic sink.
I think it might be true that moving people from 800 sq. foot apartments to 2500 sq. foot houses on 1/4 acre lots would increase fertility noticeably. I bought my first house as a single man, and I noticed almost immediately that I started feeling an urge to fill my house with a family, which I hadn't felt as an apartment-dweller.
But there's no serious public policy proposal to get to that drastic of a change, and any realistic gains in affordable housing will have a negligible effect on fertility. People will either move to a slightly larger home, which won't be enough to trigger a psychological change, they'll keep living in the same small apartment and spend more money on other consumption.