plunging birthrate

[patb]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.

[Eugene]

The article greatly exaggerates the decline in birth rates. (Or rather, manages to create an impression of such without quoting any relevant figures.) Figures through 2007 are here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Birth rates per 1,000 population are slightly down compared to 1980, because there are more older people around. In 2007, white fertility rates were at the highest level in several decades.

There was some decline because of the recession, but I’m not sure if it constitutes a real demographic shift or just a postponement (just like the baby boom came about because many families postponed having children during the 30’s and the WWII).

At the current trend, we normally need to add 1 million housing units per year to compensate for new household creation, and this trend should hold for at least a couple of decades. But household creation is also systematically postponed these days: just see here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-05-04-Census-Households-Demographics_n.htm

In San Diego, the average household size spiked from 2.78 to 2.93 in the last four years. We’ve been steadily gaining population, and we’ve been gaining children, and there has been almost no new construction for a while, but there is no upward pressure on house prices (for now), because people are more likely to live with parents or roommates, compared with 2007. I’d guess that it’s mostly for economic reasons and not because people suddenly started liking living with in-laws. So there we also have accumulating pent-up demand.

[Eugene]

The article greatly exaggerates the decline in birth rates. (Or rather, manages to create an impression of such without quoting any relevant figures.) Figures through 2007 are here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Birth rates per 1,000 population are slightly down compared to 1980, because there are more older people around. In 2007, white fertility rates were at the highest level in several decades.

There was some decline because of the recession, but I’m not sure if it constitutes a real demographic shift or just a postponement (just like the baby boom came about because many families postponed having children during the 30’s and the WWII).

At the current trend, we normally need to add 1 million housing units per year to compensate for new household creation, and this trend should hold for at least a couple of decades. But household creation is also systematically postponed these days: just see here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-05-04-Census-Households-Demographics_n.htm

In San Diego, the average household size spiked from 2.78 to 2.93 in the last four years. We’ve been steadily gaining population, and we’ve been gaining children, and there has been almost no new construction for a while, but there is no upward pressure on house prices (for now), because people are more likely to live with parents or roommates, compared with 2007. I’d guess that it’s mostly for economic reasons and not because people suddenly started liking living with in-laws. So there we also have accumulating pent-up demand.

[Eugene]

The article greatly exaggerates the decline in birth rates. (Or rather, manages to create an impression of such without quoting any relevant figures.) Figures through 2007 are here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Birth rates per 1,000 population are slightly down compared to 1980, because there are more older people around. In 2007, white fertility rates were at the highest level in several decades.

There was some decline because of the recession, but I’m not sure if it constitutes a real demographic shift or just a postponement (just like the baby boom came about because many families postponed having children during the 30’s and the WWII).

At the current trend, we normally need to add 1 million housing units per year to compensate for new household creation, and this trend should hold for at least a couple of decades. But household creation is also systematically postponed these days: just see here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-05-04-Census-Households-Demographics_n.htm

In San Diego, the average household size spiked from 2.78 to 2.93 in the last four years. We’ve been steadily gaining population, and we’ve been gaining children, and there has been almost no new construction for a while, but there is no upward pressure on house prices (for now), because people are more likely to live with parents or roommates, compared with 2007. I’d guess that it’s mostly for economic reasons and not because people suddenly started liking living with in-laws. So there we also have accumulating pent-up demand.

[Eugene]

The article greatly exaggerates the decline in birth rates. (Or rather, manages to create an impression of such without quoting any relevant figures.) Figures through 2007 are here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Birth rates per 1,000 population are slightly down compared to 1980, because there are more older people around. In 2007, white fertility rates were at the highest level in several decades.

There was some decline because of the recession, but I’m not sure if it constitutes a real demographic shift or just a postponement (just like the baby boom came about because many families postponed having children during the 30’s and the WWII).

At the current trend, we normally need to add 1 million housing units per year to compensate for new household creation, and this trend should hold for at least a couple of decades. But household creation is also systematically postponed these days: just see here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-05-04-Census-Households-Demographics_n.htm

In San Diego, the average household size spiked from 2.78 to 2.93 in the last four years. We’ve been steadily gaining population, and we’ve been gaining children, and there has been almost no new construction for a while, but there is no upward pressure on house prices (for now), because people are more likely to live with parents or roommates, compared with 2007. I’d guess that it’s mostly for economic reasons and not because people suddenly started liking living with in-laws. So there we also have accumulating pent-up demand.

[Eugene]

The article greatly exaggerates the decline in birth rates. (Or rather, manages to create an impression of such without quoting any relevant figures.) Figures through 2007 are here:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Birth rates per 1,000 population are slightly down compared to 1980, because there are more older people around. In 2007, white fertility rates were at the highest level in several decades.

There was some decline because of the recession, but I’m not sure if it constitutes a real demographic shift or just a postponement (just like the baby boom came about because many families postponed having children during the 30’s and the WWII).

At the current trend, we normally need to add 1 million housing units per year to compensate for new household creation, and this trend should hold for at least a couple of decades. But household creation is also systematically postponed these days: just see here

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-05-04-Census-Households-Demographics_n.htm

In San Diego, the average household size spiked from 2.78 to 2.93 in the last four years. We’ve been steadily gaining population, and we’ve been gaining children, and there has been almost no new construction for a while, but there is no upward pressure on house prices (for now), because people are more likely to live with parents or roommates, compared with 2007. I’d guess that it’s mostly for economic reasons and not because people suddenly started liking living with in-laws. So there we also have accumulating pent-up demand.

[mp7444]

Thank you Eugene! I’ve been curious about this for a while. It seem in the past couple of years, several friends of us were pregnant (or the wives were). I thought it’s a baby boom time once again!

Also, it’s amazing that the sex ratio for M/F is 105:100 since 1980 to 2010! What a consistency!

[mp7444]

Thank you Eugene! I’ve been curious about this for a while. It seem in the past couple of years, several friends of us were pregnant (or the wives were). I thought it’s a baby boom time once again!

Also, it’s amazing that the sex ratio for M/F is 105:100 since 1980 to 2010! What a consistency!

[mp7444]

Thank you Eugene! I’ve been curious about this for a while. It seem in the past couple of years, several friends of us were pregnant (or the wives were). I thought it’s a baby boom time once again!

Also, it’s amazing that the sex ratio for M/F is 105:100 since 1980 to 2010! What a consistency!

[mp7444]

Thank you Eugene! I’ve been curious about this for a while. It seem in the past couple of years, several friends of us were pregnant (or the wives were). I thought it’s a baby boom time once again!

Also, it’s amazing that the sex ratio for M/F is 105:100 since 1980 to 2010! What a consistency!

[mp7444]

Thank you Eugene! I’ve been curious about this for a while. It seem in the past couple of years, several friends of us were pregnant (or the wives were). I thought it’s a baby boom time once again!

Also, it’s amazing that the sex ratio for M/F is 105:100 since 1980 to 2010! What a consistency!

[ctr70]

This is just purely anecdotal from my circle and what I’ve observed, and I have NO data to support this…but it seems like:

1. People are having much smaller families than when I was growing up in the 70’s and 80’s (1-2 kids is the norm now vs. 3-5 kids then…my parents had 6 kids born in the 1960’s and 1970’s)

2. College educated higher income people especially seem to be either having no kids at all, or having them much later in life than the past

3. I am not as sure of trends in terms of family size and age having children within the lower income, lower educational levels (I would assume it to be larger families and having children at earlier ages)

[ctr70]

This is just purely anecdotal from my circle and what I’ve observed, and I have NO data to support this…but it seems like:

1. People are having much smaller families than when I was growing up in the 70’s and 80’s (1-2 kids is the norm now vs. 3-5 kids then…my parents had 6 kids born in the 1960’s and 1970’s)

2. College educated higher income people especially seem to be either having no kids at all, or having them much later in life than the past

3. I am not as sure of trends in terms of family size and age having children within the lower income, lower educational levels (I would assume it to be larger families and having children at earlier ages)

[ctr70]

This is just purely anecdotal from my circle and what I’ve observed, and I have NO data to support this…but it seems like:

1. People are having much smaller families than when I was growing up in the 70’s and 80’s (1-2 kids is the norm now vs. 3-5 kids then…my parents had 6 kids born in the 1960’s and 1970’s)

2. College educated higher income people especially seem to be either having no kids at all, or having them much later in life than the past

3. I am not as sure of trends in terms of family size and age having children within the lower income, lower educational levels (I would assume it to be larger families and having children at earlier ages)

[ctr70]

This is just purely anecdotal from my circle and what I’ve observed, and I have NO data to support this…but it seems like:

1. People are having much smaller families than when I was growing up in the 70’s and 80’s (1-2 kids is the norm now vs. 3-5 kids then…my parents had 6 kids born in the 1960’s and 1970’s)

2. College educated higher income people especially seem to be either having no kids at all, or having them much later in life than the past

3. I am not as sure of trends in terms of family size and age having children within the lower income, lower educational levels (I would assume it to be larger families and having children at earlier ages)

[Author]

Posts