zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
The ratio of housing cost vs real income almost tripled over the last 20 years in Sweden. Add a looming climate crisis and a self-fulfillment-oriented culture and you get very few new babies.

>>brtkdo+T5
> The ratio of housing cost vs real income almost tripled over the last 20 years in Sweden

I think this is all that needs to be said on these articles.

(There's a lot more that _could_ be said, such as how few actual birthing HN readers there are, but I think the economics is really simple at the root of it.)

Besides, even the countries with really the worst outlook and conditions aren't falling all that fast. Russia since the high point of the 1990s: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-popula...

>>pjc50+57
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

I'm very much a believer that housing costs are at the root of a whole lot of what's wrong with... everything.

It's long past debate and long past time for neighborhoods to come up with a "vision." We need state and national level mandates for zoning reform and density increase, and if you're against it too bad. NIMBYs had 50 years to come up with something other than obstructionism.

>>api+xs
What people actually seem to want is the ability to use the planning system to veto their neighbours having children.

People vehemently do not want density increases around them or "changes to the character of the neighbourhood", and if driving the birth rate down helps with that goal then they're fine with it.

>>pjc50+RD2
Yep, and this is what has to be crushed.