More Square Footage Leads To More Kiddos?

I saw commentary on this piece in today's NYT on a few sites today. It makes an interesting argument: the rise in average house square footage (or, in other words, the relative ease with which a give amount of space can be had by the population, on average) has provided the means (not sure if they are going as far as to say 'an incentive') for American families to have more children.

In most developed countries (of the OECD variety), fertility rates are markedly lower than in the US. The cost of housing is also much higher, making it difficult for young couples to afford much space in which to raise a family...possibly leading to having fewer kids. One big example would be Italy; housing is markedly more expensive (not so much housing stock to go around) there and the economy is not exactly going gangbusters...which has led to -- get this -- 82% of men under 30 still living with their parents. Talk about mommas' boys! They also have an abysmal fertility rate: 1.29. In comparison, the US is at 2.1 (roughly replacement rate).

UCLA prof Matthew Kahn is quoted too (his blog is worth reading), with a different argument: so many of these newer, high square footage homes in the US are in outlying areas (where land is cheap), leading to longer commute times, serving as a drag on the return to the workforce of women post-child...leading to more of them staying out of the workforce once they get out, and having more babies.

A falling camel attracts many knives?

I finished reading Mark Steyn's America Alone on the plane up to Detroit (kind of appropriate, eh?) tonight. It is a bit alarming, but not much that was 'new' information, so not really all that surprising. I'd seen bits and pieces of the same data in news stories over the years, but Steyn rolls it all up to paint a pretty depressing picture (one that I can't say I disagree with).

He spends plenty of time on immigrant birth rates in Europe as compared to the native population, discussing how he thinks this will change the makeup of Europe in decades to come. The one area he touches on (but doesn't delve into nearly enough,) is how he sees America being changed demographically during the same span -- and if this change allows American exceptionalism (one of the themes of the book) to persist.

The post's title is ripped off from one of the final chapters. He says that it is an old Arabic proverb taken from the opening of Prayers for the Assassin. It's another way of saying that 'the street' respects the strong and savages the weak (backing the strong horse, and all that...).

The book ends with a passage from a late 19th century Sir Arthur Conan Doyle book (The Tragedy of the Korosko). It's almost funny to read -- one of the characters lamenting how Great Britain is forced to be the policeman to the world...even conspiracy theories that Great Britain invented a threat! Echoes of the present...

I recommend the book.

Short takes on other recent reads:

• Sam Harris' A Letter To A Christian Nation was last (too short, too lightweight; I liked The End of Faith better).
• William Easterly's The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics: Thumbs Up - Funny, Sad
• Chris Anderson's The Long Tail: Why The Future of Business is Selling Less of More. 256 pages for something that could have been communicated in 10.