Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing.

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.

View on HN

> The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing.

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.

> 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

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.

There is value in mixed use neighborhoods - low density doesn't automatically mean suburban sprawl.

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 a middle ground between low and high density.

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.

Density increase isn’t the only angle. That’s why I also listed telework, transportation, etc.

We need a multi pronged approach. Basically any policy that improves housing affordability without too much negative or perverse incentive elsewhere should be favored.

Density also comes with it's own problems - crime, pollution, disease, and a loss in personal freedom necessary to keep those other problems at bay. None of that is ideal for family formation.

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.

exactly how does density increase crime?

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.

Housing isn't the only aspect, by far. Our family healthcare insurance premium is double our mortgage, and it goes up more than inflation (and wage growth) every year.

Yeah health care is another problem but the cost disease here is not as deeply entrenched in the economy as housing. The whole real estate market and a giant chunk of the financial system runs on the idea that housing must always go up, which necessitates that it must become less affordable over time.

> The whole real estate market and a giant chunk of the financial system runs on the idea that housing must always go up, which necessitates that it must become less affordable over time.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com