Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8638633)

I don't think young people have changed one bit, in America.

Originally Posted by llamaorama (Post 8639929)

I imagine the bigger trend is money. Rich areas probably have fewer kids. I think that's the big picture trend, the correlation with the built environment is a weak one and probably just a spurious claim.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8640010)

The Clean Air Act, the phasing out of leaded gas, and the steady removal of lead from the built environment has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime and teenage pregnancies. So yes, young people have changed a lot.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8640018)

The reduction in murder etc. has also been pinned on other factors like policing style (which I doubt) and the availability of legal abortions (which seems like a likely factor).

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640096)

You're kidding, right?

Crime rates before the 1960s and out of wedlock births were MUCH lower than what we saw in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Somehow lead and air didn't impact crime until the 1960s...?

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640096)

You're kidding, right?

Crime rates before the 1960s and out of wedlock births were MUCH lower than what we saw in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s. Somehow lead and air didn't impact crime until the 1960s...?

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)

Poor people still have a lot of kids.

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)

Out of wedlock children exploded in the 1970s right when abortion became legal. Crime also exploded at about the right time.

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)

You guys are basically saying anything liberals love is good and causes good things lol

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640098)

Poor people still have a lot of kids.

Originally Posted by eschaton (Post 8640340)

Poor people still have more kids than everyone else. IIRC only the bottom 25% and the top 1% in the U.S. actually are reproducing at above the replacement rate. But they don't have "a lot" of kids any longer.

Looking at the most recent census data, here are the average number of children per family household with kids under 18 by education level:

Less than HS: 2.23
HS Grad: 1.96
Some college: 1.92
Bachelors or higher: 1.86

Further, the average number of children per family for TANF recipients - though it varies from year to year - is typically less than 2. For example, this study from 2012 found an average of 1.8 per household.

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8640166)

Quite a false leap you're making. Nothing in your sentence was claimed by anyone.

A few other things changed in the 60s...do you suppose any of that impacted crime? Social mores and drug availability for example.

I wish basic logic was taught more often.

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8640659)

I was responding to this sentence:

"The Clean Air Act, the phasing out of leaded gas, and the steady removal of lead from the built environment has resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime and teenage pregnancies."

There were no qualifiers in that statement. My basic logic is that of course this person probably thinks there were other reasons, but none were stated in the only qoute I saw.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8638589)

Here's how Sun Belt sees it:

1] Cities are becoming more child-less than they have in the past
Why?
A] Cities are becoming more expensive.
B] Cities are growing older and less diverse.
C] Some parts of some cities are emptying out and therefore the overall student population appears to be dropping, despite some other successful/desireable outliers -- [Steely's situation].

2] Today's young people put off marriage and have kids much later into their mid 30s.
A] They got a whole lot of F'n to do in their 20s.
B] They want to be able to postpone adulthood, drink beer, play corn hole at the local watering hole until 2 am.
C] They have a huge debt burden and can't afford kids, even though they love to point out how successful they are.
D] Some don't want kids -- to SAVE THE EARTH!!! Kids breathe oxygen and produce carbon while consuming natural resources.

3] Those that want kids, have already grown up and left for the suburbs in their mid 20s, where life is more affordable.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8639857)

informative read on the topic from citylab:


full article: https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01...ldfree/580372/

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8639136)

Schools are certainly an important part of the location equation when you have kids. That said, a TREMENDOUS amount of "school quality" is really just a measure of the socio-economic status of the students who happen to attend the school.

Our neighborhood city school garners a middling rating from the major school ratings agencies, but 30% of the students are from low-income families. When you control for that low-income student population, test results aren't all that radically different from a typical suburban elementary school.

My kids will also be provided with a far more realistic picture of the way the world really is than I was ever afforded growing up in Wilmette (wealthy upper middle class northshore burb). There is real value in socio-economic mixing, but that will never be quantified by a fucking Great Schools algorithm.

.

Originally Posted by dave8721 (Post 8641131)

A better characterization of those top 10 cities of fewest children is that they are geographically small. Miami, SF, Seattle, DC..etc. Cities with big borders will have higher % if children because those big borders will include those inner ring neighborhood areas that tend to have more kids than city centers.

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR (Post 8641405)

my priority is what's best for my kids