cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/53484820

If you scroll to the bottom of the article, they post their sources, including studies published in peer reviewed journals. I'm sure most of us see this headline and go, "Duh," but here we have hard data. Every time our billionaire and political overlords wring their hands about birthrates, the collective response from all of us should be, "fuck you, pay me, or kick rocks."

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 1 year ago

The Oroborous can do nothing but consume its own tail. It will never understand why this happens. Billionaires should not exist.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Can't afford a nest, yeah the birds aren't gonna lay the eggs.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-ended-march-2025/

    New Zealand is at roughly 1.6, and our housing market is pretty cooked as well, although the situation is improving.

    So yeah, that tracks.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Don't forget that even doing the multi generation home means that there is little space for human expansion there. So while I grew up with my great grandparents the room they used up is now my siblings. Even in my cousins house they only got their own room because their great grandma died and grandfather died. Then my other cousin took over the 2 car garage and turned it into a living suite. And the Basement? Last cousin took it over. These are just adults that cant do any better. How are they going to find room for kids unless someone else dies?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Where is the new study? They have sources at the bottom but which one is the actual study they talk about?

    CTRL+F for "Study" only has the word in the title and in three links in the sources, all of which are from several years ago. I realise it's medium.com, which usually sucks, not real journalism, but how can you make a write-up about a purported new study without mentioning or linking to it once in the article...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It's nice to see an actually study confirming what I have been saying for years now.

    The only surprise for me is that this is happening in places like Germany which have higher salaries rather than only places like my native Portugal which for Europe has shit salaries.

    I have a Finance Industry background and lived in Britain for a decade before I came back to my home country, and Britain was about 5 - 10 years ahead in their realestate bubble, so it was painfully obvious to me when I arrive in Portugal that high house prices (in a country with shit salaries in European terms) was causing the country to have one of the most aged populations in the World:

    • Houses are too expensive so young people in their early career can't afford them, hence continue living with their parents much longer (the average age to leave one's parents' home in Portugal is 34!!!) thus delaying starting a family.
    • Even after they start a family, to actually have a child, then need a bigger place to have a bedroom for the child, and for a second child they often need to get an even bigger place (if it's a boy and a girl they need 3 bedrooms, or somebody is going to be sleeping in the living room) were again high realestate prices are an impediment.
    • Then there's the problem that housing costs are so out of line with salaries that even the middle class needs TWO working adults to pay for the rent or mortgage of a one bedroom in any large city (which is usually were the best paying jobs are). Childbirth means one person being out of the workplace for at best 6 months, which isn't too bad in Europe for people with good jobs as they get paid time off (though it affects people's career progression), except that work legislation has in the last 3 decades been "liberalized" so that most young people don't have an actual job - they have totally insecure gigs or at best 3 or 6 months contracts - so childbirth means losing one income from work for 6 months, leaving only ONE adult earning to pay for rent or mortgage to which now add the costs of having a child.
    • Then on top of this come the costs of raising a child.
    • Meawhile there are the risks for would be mothers and their would be babies as they get closer to their menopause as it becomes more risky for women to have children, something which certainly at least the more well educated couples consider.

    So because of high housing costs relative to incomes and insecure employment (for certain early in one's career, for some for a lot longer), people massivelly delay just starting a family until they can earn enough to actually be able to afford their own home, then delay the having their first child until they can actually afford the time off work for one member of a couple or having climbed enough the career path that they have an actual secure job were they get paid time off AND until they can afford the costs of raising a child AND can afford to move to a house with a room for the child (or at least have a prospect of being able to do so in a few years before the child reachers their teenage years).

    So all this so that in their mid to late 30s they can have just 1 child.

    Then for the second child it's yet more "climb the career until you can afford to raise more children" AND "earn enough to upsize your home to have one more room" and at this point people start worring about the risks for the mother and the baby of "having a child in your 40s", plus people are getting a bit fed up with the decades of nothing but fighting (extra nasty in Portugal which has a "working long hours" culture) just to be able to get another kid

    So most people give up on having a 2nd child - the overwhelming majority of couples I know here only have 1 child.

    Remember, 2 children per person is still below the 2.4 average need to merely maintain population size.

    (Oh, and on the "funny" side, all this shit then leads to government choosing to import immigrants "because working-age population is falling" which then leads to other problems due to the higher rate of cultural misunderstanding and collisions when people with different cultures arrive in large numbers without enough time to integrate, all of which boosts the anti-immigration Far-Right)

    The solution, IMHO is two fold:

    • Build lots and lots of public housing which is sold or rented at cost. This was actually what happened in the 80s and it worked. Its what works in places like Singapore (which is a fucking Authocracy and yet doesn't have this problem of Western "Democracies"). This attacks the problem of low supply and excessive margins on the Supply side of the Supply-Demand inballance in realestate.
    • Forbid ownership of realestate in Portugal for non-resident people or companies and locally registered companies where the controlling interest is directly or indirectly in the hands of non-residents. This is absolutelly compatible with EU regulations (and, I believe, Denmark already does it) since it does not discriminate on nationality, only residency (which means that Portuguese nationals who are non-residents get the same treatment). Also realestate tax should increase exponentially with the number of residential properties somebody owns. This attacks the problem on the Demand side of the Supply-Demand inballance in realestate.
  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'd also bring in the ripple effect of this. We know there's not enough children being born.

    There's not going to be a workforce to pay our pensions when we get old. I'm less likely to spend my money on a dependant, when I should be buying property as a commodity so that I can have means to live at old age.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The flip side is that assuming we have continued rise in productivity, there should be more to go around between less people. So we don’t need more wealth or resources, just better ways to distribute them. Wealth taxes are already being proposed in lots of places. UBI is also proposed in lots of places too. We need less billionaires, not forced childbirth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This is such an important finding if true. Does anyone have an idea about how reliable this is/ know of other news outlets reporting this as definitively?

    I see sources which corroborate the thesis here and I'm asking if there are other news or policy outlets which agree with this.

    Reason I think this is important is because falling birthrates are blamed on all kinds of reasons which are typical societal scapegoats. I've heard everything from immigrants, to women having jobs, to porn, and even videogames. I'd love it of we could focus on things that actually matter

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I have a single child and I regret bringing him into this hell hole planet. I strongly believe that we are on the verge of ecological ruin. The oceans are overfished and becoming dangerously acidic. Drinkable water is being depleted. Soil nutrients are declining. Fascism is rising rapidly. We're on the wrong side of the Hubbert curve, so everything is going to get progressively more expensive. Food production will drop as we lose the inputs for the Haber Bosch process. The decline will not be linear and some of the tipping points are already in our rear view mirror.

    The cost of housing is just one of many reasons why people might not want children, although normalcy bias hides the truth from many.

  • source
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • 39 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 143 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Turns out people don't want kids when they're stuck in their moms basement with no future

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You guys have your own basement?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Ikr. I live in the living room dorm with 3 generations and 2 families.

    The family next door is nice and rich, they are on the first door to the left and they can afford a whole room for their family of four.

    I never should have had that avocado toast back in 2008.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 94 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wow, there was no way to see this one coming.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not only pay! Also create a safe and reliable social security net that would effectively kick in in case of need! Also build low income but good quality housing close to the jobs that are paying you and close to social contacts. Also install a minimum wage that is actually meaningful to sustain a family on 1.5 salary, if not even higher.

    That’s why saying “I don’t care about politics” is shortsighted. Politics enters constantly into your life and influences your options and decisions.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    When people say they don’t care about politics it’s mainly because they’re so utterly disenfranchised they avoid it rather than feel frustrated at their complete lack of ability to change anything, all while getting into arguments with friends and neighbors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No shit Sherlock

    We never got the chance to have kids but all my family and friends have a bunch. All I see is how everyone is struggling to get by. The only way this current generation can survive is if their parents help them out with everything .... housing, food, employment, education, health, child care. If you don't have parents who are able or capable, you're not going to make it.

    In the 80s and 90s it was possible to get by on your own and make a bit of a living if you worked hard enough. It's not possible any more and I have no idea how any one under the age of 20 can survive the future without wealthy parents. And the scary part is that those wealthy parents are dying off ... in the next 20/30 years, those wealthy parents are expecting to have their kids look after them in old age. Those kids will be debt looking after themselves in 20/30 years and either won't have the energy or money to look after their parents.

    I'm screwed as far as I can see ... we don't have any dependants so by the time I get old and feeble, I'm going to be pushed into a corner of some dumpy old age home and left to die in my own dirty diaper.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago*

    Kind of. I was a teen in the 80s and had kids in the 90s and 00s. The 80s were hard, the economy was not great, where I live you can always get a job (even now, and even back then) but to make rent we had 6 people working the minimum wage jobs. 3 couples in one house.

    I did buy a shitty house cheap (there don't seem to be any of those anymore) but then we had 4 people living on 15k a year, could not maintain a house, could not improve much because the insurance was so high.

    Downtown was dead, Ybor was dead, there was blight and violence, so much violence and crime.

    Now it seems everything is fancy and safe and pretty and so expensive. Downtown has apartments but out of reach on a regular salary, you still need 6 minimum wage workers to rent a house.

    As Hayes Carll says in his American Dream song: "Nothing changes, even when it wants to."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    And when you smash their nests, birds don’t lay eggs

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Oh cool, another blindingly obvious study that is going to be ignored by everyone with the power do do anything about it.

    Yes, we are aware. Now... fix it?

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    “I'd like to raise a family. Let's see what a 4-bedroom condo costs in the city with decent schools and transit. 2 000 000 USD? Hah. No kids it is, then.”

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Who could ever have guessed that family’s need proper housing that’s affordable.

    Who could have ever predicted that 2 square centimeters at 9 quintillion dollars is a disaster in the making?

    No way anyone one could have seen this coming with the multiple looming catastrophes that could upend life!

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    see also: it used to be possible to support a family on one income

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You know you hit on something here probably unexpectedly.

    Ive been bothered by the way the housing market is going against all logic "how can it just keep going up????"

    I blamed all sorts of things but stopped when I think I found the formula.

    The entry price of housing is in your area is equal to the borrowing power of the AVERAGE household. Seriously test it, go and find the average household income in your area, go to a mortgage calculator and work out what the amount they can borrow is.

    So, back when say 15% of houses were dual income, housing was affordable on a single income. But when it tips over, house prices go up. Because johnny landscaper and carol hairdresser can get a loan for $1m that is the entry level house price in your area. Because they will always maximise their purchase.

    So what happens, given that logic, when mortgage times go from 25 to 30 years? The household has more borrowing power - house prices up.

    Buuut. If the price of eggs stay high, borrowing power decreases. If interest rates go up, prices go down.

    Now finally then. What happens when we start moving our parents / grandparents into the house? What about if - on average - we will split the mortgage with a larger household size? It will become the average, and when it's the average, it will be the rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    only in USA, certainly not where I'm from

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I’m British 🤷‍♀️ not saying it was the case everywhere but it was possible/within reach for a fair amount of people here, or at least one full time and one part time working parent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Lowering birthrates is a fascinating problem

    It's a global problem that has affected nearly every country. There are so many different explanations going around, and we can always compare the explanations to different countries and their birthrate

    For the commodification of housing as an explanation, I can think of examples in favor of it, and that contradict it. It's a more compelling explanation than others though

    In favor: Japan was the first country to reach extreme housing commodification levels. For about 30 years from the mid-50s to the mid 80s, Japanese housing and real estate values exploded. Very famously, the land under the imperial palace was worth more than all the real estate in California combined. Japan followed this period about 20 years later by becoming the first country to start experiencing significant birthrate decline

    China could be a good example here. Their birthrate has collapsed at the same time their housing did, but the time frame is completely different than Japan. It's tough to use them both as an example when they have such drastically different apparent results

    Against it: The countries generally considered to have the worst housing crisis at the moment are New Zealand, Canada, and the US, yet the countries with the lowest birth rates are South Korea and Taiwan. Housing in South Korea and Taiwan is moderately commodified, but certainly nowhere near as badly as other countries

    Japan can also be an argument against it here. For the past 20+ years, housing has been extremely cheap in Japan. They thoroughly solved their housing crisis. If housing commodification is a driving cause for lowering birthrates, why has it only had a small rebound?


    As an aside, Japan solved their housing crisis by implementing an inheritance tax (which took 20+ years to really have an impact), and completely re-working zoning to be permissive by default after the bubble popped. More countries should do that, because housing is now cheaper in central Tokyo than it is in "cheap" mid-size American towns like Fargo, ND

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    "The fertility collapse in the West is not primarily about women choosing careers over children, nor about cultural rejection of parenthood, nor about access to contraception. These factors exist, but they explain only part of the story."

    Yeah, except you can't tell how big impact each of those factors has. Or maybe you can but this article doesn't say it. They simply list bunch of factors and claim that housing is the most important one without providing any evidence. All they really show is that housing is a factor which I don't think anyone sane was arguing against.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Getting more expensive to live now.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If the problem is wages, wouldn't we expect to see Singapore, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Taiwan, or the US to be leading in fertility rate? They are all near the top of per capita PPP

    Singapore and Taiwan are near the absolute bottom for fertility rate (Taiwan also has relatively affordable housing)

    Perhaps wealth inequality is a confounding factor here? Of those countries, only the US has particularly high wealth inequality. Japan and South Korea are among the lowest for wealth inequality

    Further, when you look at the fertility rate, how many high income countries do you see with fertility rates above replacement? Very few. Then take a look at the break down by high/middle/low income countries. It's a very strong negative correlation between income and birth rate

    Finally, a very interesting country to look at: North Korea. North Korea has consistently had a steady decrease in fertility rate since the 60s. The vast majority of North Koreans do not receive wages of any kind. They do not have to pay for housing. They largely do not feel economic fluctuations... until things collapse

    Which brings me to: The Arduous March. In 1995 the food supply collapsed. Within the course of a year, life expectancy dropped by 10 years. The death rate doubled. Infant mortality doubled. Yet the fertility rate continued a steady ~2% decline per year. Why?

    There is a baseline decrease in fertility rate, independent of current individual economic or social conditions. Supporting this is the global birthrate decline. Global fertility rate peaked around 1960


    Here is where I stray from data to draw my own conclusions: My hypothesis, based on these data points, is that modern advanced manufacturing, especially in electronics cause dispersed (e.g. air borne) environmental factors that have had the largest effect on birthrate

    This explains why Japan was hit first. Why Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Singapore have the lowest birth rates in the world now. It explains why sub-Saharan Africa has the highest birth rates. Then individual variance in a region, like Switzerland compared to Italy and Finland, is then explained by all the other factors such as wages, housing commodification, women's rights, cost of child rearing, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What do they even mean by commodification? There's literally houses out there but the prices are ridiculous and others are just holding onto property without listing them. The housing is there. They're just rigging it and gatekeeping the rest of us.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Instead of people buying a house because they need a home, they are purchasing the house as a way to make more money. Instead of living in the house, they rent it out, and the renters just end up paying the mortgage. The owner holds the property for a certain amount of time, then sells the house after it appreciates and makes a profit. Houses that they already own can be used to leverage for more loans to purchase even more. Houses are no longer seen as a place to live, or a home, they are now seen as a way to generate income. If people that have money keep buying more and more houses without living in them, they end up creating scarcity, which drives up prices. Commodification is the process of turning something, such as a good, service, idea, or cultural artifact, into a commodity that can be bought and sold in a market. This often changes the item's original meaning or significance by transforming its social or cultural value into an economic one based on supply, demand, and price. Now, the very things we need just to survive, food, shelter, water, and medical care are being comodified to pump as much profit from it as possible. Juxtapose this with wage stagnation despite increased productivity in the past century and inflation, it's pretty clear that corporate entities would rather see us dead for short term profits than keep us as customers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Commodification is not the right word here. Financialization is the usual one.

    Commodification implies that housing is being mass produced and prices are dropping as profit margins fall. That’s clearly not what’s happening.

    Financialization implies that housing has become an investment that is increasingly targeted by the finance industry. This is actually happening a lot more than people think. Finance companies have full time real estate staff who are out there buying up housing on a daily basis.

  • source
  • parent