The drop in fertility rate is directly liked to migration into dense cities. They are just not a good place to have children.
The US resisted the fertility drop for much longer, because of higher suburban population.
The drop in fertility rate is directly liked to migration into dense cities. They are just not a good place to have children.
The US resisted the fertility drop for much longer, because of higher suburban population.
> The US resisted the fertility drop for much longer, because of higher suburban population.
It was immigration, but next generation of all immigrants (native born) adopts host country total fertility rate in this context.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/08/hispanic-...
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/26/5-facts-a...
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FT_19... visually nails this.
Now, would these people have had a higher birth rate if they remained in their LATAM countries? The data indicates no.
Latin America’s Baby Bust Is Arriving Early - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-05-22/latin-... | https://archive.today/EPMAU - May 22nd, 2025
Population Prospects and Rapid Demographic Changes in the First Quarter of the Twenty-first Century in Latin America and the Caribbean - https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/dc5... - 2024
In 2003 the average fertility rate was around 2.03
It started falling to 1.6 around 2008 ( https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... ) which coincided with the millennials getting into the child-bearing age. And the millennials are much more likely to live in cities, even though they don't want that: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245249/americans-big-idea-livin...
Any data for this? I think this maybe the real answer because unlike other explanations, this one can actually acquire proof from before modern ages. Simply because it's known that cities fertility rates were always negative and have to constantly pull people from countryside.
It's a well-known phenomenon. E.g.: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-008-9163-9
It's been eroding lately, but mostly because fewer younger people can afford to live in suburbs. By "afford", I don't mean monetary cost, but the lack of easily accessible jobs.
I'm investigating that, and I believe that it's even _worse_ than the simple fertility rate shows. If you look specifically at the number of parents with two or more children, suburbs completely demolish cities when you control for the average income.
Controlling for the average income is needed because of the two poles of fertility: desperately poor people, and happy content people ("reversed J-curve"). And cities in the US disproportionally concentrate desperately poor people.
This is probably a factor, but I think it’s a mistake to treat cities not being suited for raising children as a hard, immutable fact. They’re bad because rent continues to soar which clashes on two fronts (kids are expensive already and increase space requirements) and we as a society have decided to build our urban spaces (suburbs included) to be explicitly not friendly to children, families, or anybody not driving and to instead favor adults with money to spend. These are things we could change, should we want to.
The other thing to look at is why people have migrated into cities, and the answer is pretty simple: it’s where the good employment prospects are. The further yet get away from urban cores the worse those get: fewer jobs, worse compensation and benefits, greater risk of being stuck between jobs for long periods of time. Anybody worried about birthrates should be embracing remote work and making sure they compensate their employees well.
It's not just rent, it's also transportation. Transporting young kids with a car is easy, public transportation is much harder until they are 10 or so.
For example try transporting a sleepy kid, or more than 1 young kid at the same time.
Cities are cars don't get along very well, which makes them less friendly to kids.
Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the parents need to take you far you have a car available.
Transportation can be a challenge, but I don’t agree that a car is a requirement. When I’m in Japan it’s common to see parents carting around a kid or two on an appropriately kitted out bike for example. That wouldn’t be as practical in a sprawling suburb, but it can work in denser cities.
> Suburbs are really nice for kids, basically zero car traffic, you can play in the street, easily go to parks. And when the parents need to take you far you have a car available.
This varies a lot depending on the suburb. There are many that are endless house-deserts where you’re not doing anything without a ride. The one where I live is much more broken up, but sidewalk coverage is patchy at best.
Fertility rates can be wildly swung by outliers, and while it is possible to walk with five kids under the age of six, it is a maneuver that requires substantial logistical support or specialized equipment (which can be as hard or harder to store than a car).
https://www.communityplaythings.com/products/outdoor/kinderv... Things like this are 1% or so of the cost of a suburban house! That’s noticeable!
> When I’m in Japan it’s common to see parents carting around a kid or two on an appropriately kitted out bike for example.
Yes, and now look at their fertility rates.
I’m not saying that Japan has it all figured out, just that cities can be built to allow many families to thrive without a car. Japan has their own set of issues w.r.t birthrate, but it’s partially a different set than those seen in the US.
OK. Can you get a double stroller into busy Tokyo subway during the rush hour?
Probably not, but I barely see strollers over there anyway, and it’s also rare to take kids on the train/subway during rush hour. Kids are usually carried or toted in one of those front-body-kid-carriers (sorry don’t know the name) until they can walk, after which they walk (or for longer rides, get taken on a bike). If I see little kids on the train it’s most often before or after rush hour during the slower times.
A lot of American norms don’t carry over.
Thank you for illustrating exactly why dense cities are inimical to having more than one child.
Suburbs might not be friendly to children but they're quite friendly to the parents of small children. When you're pressed for time and need to cook dinner or something it's super convenient to be able to send the kids into the back yard or their own separate bedrooms, knowing they'll be fairly safe and contained for a while.
Remote work is a great option for many people but it simply isn't feasible for any job that can't be done through a computer. We should set economic policies that encourage job growth in suburban and rural areas rather than trying to squeeze everything into a handful of dense cities.
I read some unsubstantiated claim about cities being bad for fertility because there’s an abundance of things to do that aren’t popping out children
And you'll be doing them, whether you like it or not.