plunging birthrate

[Arraya]

When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.

Interestingly the US has bucked the trend of the other mature industrialized countries. Thankfully most the world’s population growth is in dramatic decline that started in the 60s, with some going negative. All studies indicate this trend will continue and is speeding up. Max population numbers continually get lower as time goes on and data comes it. The best estimates now suggest a peak near mid-century, probably under 9 billion, and long decline after that.

This trend still does nothing to address the issues associated with massive over consumption and unsustainable nature of the whole project spiraling towards a social train wreck. For some reason, pointing this out, makes me a freak.

Interestingly, we have pushed this behavioral trajectory on “emerging economies” putting them on a collision course with the west in resource competition. Well, unless, we are going to get another earth to support these trajectories, it won’t end well.

[briansd1]

More boys than girls will lead to a global reduction in birth rates, eventually.

It will be interesting to watch what happens in China in the next few decades.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/08/gender-selection

[briansd1]

More boys than girls will lead to a global reduction in birth rates, eventually.

It will be interesting to watch what happens in China in the next few decades.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/08/gender-selection

[briansd1]

More boys than girls will lead to a global reduction in birth rates, eventually.

It will be interesting to watch what happens in China in the next few decades.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/08/gender-selection

[briansd1]

More boys than girls will lead to a global reduction in birth rates, eventually.

It will be interesting to watch what happens in China in the next few decades.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/08/gender-selection

[briansd1]

More boys than girls will lead to a global reduction in birth rates, eventually.

It will be interesting to watch what happens in China in the next few decades.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/08/gender-selection

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]…In the mean time, we saw the birth of the exurb. We filled all the useful space within reach of major cities, up to the edge of federally protected wilderness, with low-density detached housing….[/quote]

I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.

I agree with the rest of your post except for the outcome. I don't think there are enough public/private partnerships in place or enough capital interested in building low-income apts unless the Section 8 program is dramatically expanded. Even if City permit fees were waived, the numbers wouldn't pencil out.

If young families can't afford to live here (in the way they wish to) in the future, they won't. It's as simple as that. Not every region in the country is for everyone.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?

[Author]

Posts