Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Nope. It's universal. The denser the city, the more child-hostile it is.

Maddy Novich, https://www.instagram.com/cargobikemomma/, for one, may disagree with you. Interview:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PoKcQRlDGs

She has three kids IIRC.

> Just imagine getting into Tokyo subway with a stroller for 2 kids. There's a reason why Tokyo fertility rate is below 1.

Hong Kong has always been dense, and it used to have a fertility rate of ~5:

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINHKG

Further, all US states, regardless of how urban or rural they are, have fertility rates with basically the same slope:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

In every industrialized, Western-ish society rates dropped during the 1970s, regardless of initial or final density.



> She has three kids IIRC.

I haven't seen this in the transcript?

> Hong Kong has always been dense, and it used to have a fertility rate of ~5

I'm going to save this quote. It goes next to: "Yes, Tokyo now is too expensive, but just 10 years ago you could dream about getting a house there".

> Further, all US states, regardless of how urban or rural they are, have fertility rates with basically the same slope:

Yes. Toxic urbanization has not spared the US. But it affected the US less than other countries because the suburbs put up a fight.


> just 10 years ago you could dream about getting a house there

yeah, when comparing with other cities[1] it is way more affordable.

[1] https://www.timeout.com/hong-kong/news/hong-kong-has-once-ag...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: