Cities being dependent on workers being present at commercial office buildings appears to be a uniquely American problem.
Most of my American friends I know turn to the suburbs as a default for "family" style living once they have kids. Imagine their bemusement when they go to a place like Amsterdam or Tokyo and see plenty of families with small children walking around. Heck, you don't even have to go far to see how a city can be a great place for a family, just look at Boston.
Cities, when done correctly, are a better place to raise a family than the suburbs. And yet, when done incorrectly, are terrible.
"Cities, when done correctly, are a better place to raise a family"
The birth rates say otherwise. Cities universally have very very low rates of childbirth. So low that they usually have to depend on a constant inflow from rural areas just to maintain their population. Its a pattern observed across the entire world. And its remarkably clear from the numbers.
You could argue there are a couple of exceptions. If the child is going to be a musician then perhaps a city is better. But I suspect you are confusing being born with millions in a trust fund with living in a city. Those aren't the same thing.
You're conflating the opportunity cost of having a child with the actual logistics of raising a child.
Cities are by definition economical logistical hubs. It's where the jobs and opportunities are. Most people aren't saying "gee I better pack up and move to suburbia before having a child" it's more like "having a child could cost me my high-paying job so I better not". And that issue is exacerbated in the U.S. with the worst parental-leave policy among developed nations. Regardless though, the trend will still exist in countries with generous parental-leave policies because having a child is an opportunity cost in an urban environment. That doesn't mean the environment itself isn't conductive to raising the child. Completely different stories.
Counterpoint. The US has a higher birth rate than any country in Europe. Many of which have your parental-leave policies. BTW, there is absolutely no correlation between governmental policies and birth rate. You can't bully people into have kids. Population density is the most strongly correlated factor with birth rate.
> And that issue is exacerbated in the U.S. with the worst parental-leave policy among developed nations.
NYC's TFR was 1.55 in 2021. London's TFR was 1.35 in 2024. Paris TFR was 1.27 in 2024. Other US cities are not really comparable to the European ones, but the broader point is that parental leave has nothing to do with TFR. Norway and Sweden have TFRs around 1.44 while the US has it 1.6-1.8
> it's more like "having a child could cost me my high-paying job so I better not"...having a child is an opportunity cost in an urban environment
At least in the US and speaking generally, people with high incomes in urban areas move to suburbs once they have kids. I would like to see a citation for your "opportunity cost" claim, because high income jobs also come with good benefits like generous parental leave policies.
Cities being dependent on workers being present at commercial office buildings appears to be a uniquely American problem.
Most of my American friends I know turn to the suburbs as a default for "family" style living once they have kids. Imagine their bemusement when they go to a place like Amsterdam or Tokyo and see plenty of families with small children walking around. Heck, you don't even have to go far to see how a city can be a great place for a family, just look at Boston.
Cities, when done correctly, are a better place to raise a family than the suburbs. And yet, when done incorrectly, are terrible.
"Cities, when done correctly, are a better place to raise a family"
The birth rates say otherwise. Cities universally have very very low rates of childbirth. So low that they usually have to depend on a constant inflow from rural areas just to maintain their population. Its a pattern observed across the entire world. And its remarkably clear from the numbers.
You could argue there are a couple of exceptions. If the child is going to be a musician then perhaps a city is better. But I suspect you are confusing being born with millions in a trust fund with living in a city. Those aren't the same thing.
You're conflating the opportunity cost of having a child with the actual logistics of raising a child.
Cities are by definition economical logistical hubs. It's where the jobs and opportunities are. Most people aren't saying "gee I better pack up and move to suburbia before having a child" it's more like "having a child could cost me my high-paying job so I better not". And that issue is exacerbated in the U.S. with the worst parental-leave policy among developed nations. Regardless though, the trend will still exist in countries with generous parental-leave policies because having a child is an opportunity cost in an urban environment. That doesn't mean the environment itself isn't conductive to raising the child. Completely different stories.
Counterpoint. The US has a higher birth rate than any country in Europe. Many of which have your parental-leave policies. BTW, there is absolutely no correlation between governmental policies and birth rate. You can't bully people into have kids. Population density is the most strongly correlated factor with birth rate.
> And that issue is exacerbated in the U.S. with the worst parental-leave policy among developed nations.
NYC's TFR was 1.55 in 2021. London's TFR was 1.35 in 2024. Paris TFR was 1.27 in 2024. Other US cities are not really comparable to the European ones, but the broader point is that parental leave has nothing to do with TFR. Norway and Sweden have TFRs around 1.44 while the US has it 1.6-1.8
> it's more like "having a child could cost me my high-paying job so I better not"...having a child is an opportunity cost in an urban environment
At least in the US and speaking generally, people with high incomes in urban areas move to suburbs once they have kids. I would like to see a citation for your "opportunity cost" claim, because high income jobs also come with good benefits like generous parental leave policies.