> from the south and have never once heard anything like this
I should have added that I've typically heard it in liberal suburbs, not rural America.
Good, recent example is this thread [1] right here on HN (in particular this comment [2]).
I should have added that I've typically heard it in liberal suburbs, not rural America.
Good, recent example is this thread [1] right here on HN (in particular this comment [2]).
Most things are the same price or cheaper as a percentage of median income today except housing. That’s because housing is treated as investment meant to appreciate, leading to perverse incentives to artificially restrict supply.
IMHO housing is the economic problem in the Western world. Most of the reason younger people feel poorer than their parents is housing. Most of the pressure on families is housing. The demographic collapse issue is due in part to housing costs. Real estate is cancer and the most important economic battle of today is finding a way to break the real estate market.
All the people panicking over demographics should be in favor of state and federal density mandates, telework where possible, and zoning reform.
The same is true for healthcare. Pfizer needs to demonstrate ongoing growth to their shareholders; insurance companies are bound by the ACA to a maximum profit margin so can only increase profits by growing costs; half the new commercial real estate in my area is medical buildings going up.
I think you may be right about the overall problem, but I'm not sure I agree that density is the solution.
People starting families don't just want a house, what they want is enough space. Mothers want a yard they can send the kids out into when they need a moments peace, closets to store everyone's junk, and bathrooms big enough to walk into while pregnant.
I think disaggregating populations into more medium and small cities would help keep costs down and give people more space.
All of this also means said mother can't go to the corner to pick up supplies, but must drive to the store. There isn't an abundance of neighbors to help out or restaurants with cheap delivery; everything must be done themselves.
The notion that families require low density is very culturally-specific and a choice more than a necessity. Yes, four people need more physical space than two, but not to the extent of modern suburbia.
Most of human history has been spent in much lower density living situations than we have now, and I'm pretty confident there is a negative correlation between housing density and fertility.
there is no need for each home to have their own garden. but a multi story building with a dozen or more families that can share one.
take a look at some cities in germany. stuttgart, ruhrgebiet, and many others. they are actually a lot of small cities close together with lots of green space in between. each has their own shops, offices, schools, etc within walking distance and an extensive public transport network to connect them.
We need a multi pronged approach. Basically any policy that improves housing affordability without too much negative or perverse incentive elsewhere should be favored.
And increasing density only works up to a point. Once you can no longer increase density, the prices start climbing back up.
I think rezoning for more mixed use neighborhoods is a good idea, and some high-density living is good (not everyone has kids, or wants to have them) but I am skeptical of increasing density in general.
searching for an answer i found this:
https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/data-study-on-...
which observes that crime increases up to a density of 500 people per square mile, but then decreases as the population density increases further.