Just imagine getting into Tokyo subway with a stroller for 2 kids. There's a reason why Tokyo fertility rate is below 1.
I do wish the subway had more elevators. But once you move beyond those early days with a stroller… I have six playground within a twenty minute walk, a giant park a few minutes away. There’s a zoo nearby, the beach (and aquarium) is less than 45 mins on the subway, there are countless museums in the city… all in all its rich in child friendly activities and child-friendly methods of reaching them.
(I’m not there with my kids yet but from talking to older parents: an understated benefit of the city is that kids are able to exercise independence much more easily. They’ll be taking the subway to and from high school, if they want to meet a friend they can just… go. Rather than rely on a parent driving them everywhere)
> Just imagine getting into Tokyo subway with a stroller for 2 kids. There's a reason why Tokyo fertility rate is below 1.
This is a glaring example of hunting for data that supports a preexisting belief, rather than basing beliefs on empirical data.
To point out how absurd this logic is, consider that it fails to consider the fertility rate of Japan as a whole outside urban areas, as well as failing to account for the many other extremely dense cities outside Japan that do have very high fertility rates.
That's not universally true; it depends on what housing policies exist.
> That is the real reason for low fertility rates in big cities. People who want children have to be either rich, or move further away.
This is not universally true either.
The correlation is undeniable for any developed country, especially the US. Developing countries are a bit different they are only now starting the second demographic transition.
> To point out how absurd this logic is, consider that it fails to consider the fertility rate of Japan as a whole outside urban areas, as well as failing to account for the many other extremely dense cities outside Japan that do have very high fertility rates.
LOL. No, they don't: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01975/
While Tokyo has one of the worst fertility rates, it's not like the rest of Japan is doing particularly well. Also, I was staying in Azabujuban and I was surprised by the amount of kids I saw there.
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.
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.
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...
LGR - SimTower - PC Game Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ToEDrhxo0
Yoot Tower: The Sequel to SimTower
On the other hand, with all the poking I've done at it over the years, I think I now have the most complete knowledge of the save file format for anyone who doesn't have access to the source code.
1. Pass off an opinion as fact
2. Posit a straw man
3. Tether an unrelated fact as correlation.
I bet one could wire an llm instructed to such a formula to obsfucate otherwise fruitful public discourse.
That's a nice theory but all over the developped world, the countryside has lower fertility rate than the cities.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db297.htm
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/demography_2021/b...
[3] https://www.mof.go.jp/english/pri/publication/pp_review/fy20...
I love to drive therefor I buy a car I love to drive.
America is largely rural. Comparisons to Europe aren't appropriate outside of the proper metros.
My "city" of 5K is considered "urban" according to the 2020 census. There are nearly zero services in this "city", only a couple of restaurants, the largest employer is the school district, and it's surrounded by farms and mountain forests. It takes 15 minutes by car to get to the next town over on a two lane highway.
If you want to get to any real city, you're looking at a 30-45 minute drive at highway/freeway speeds.
So yes, there may be more individuals in "urban" areas, but not all "urban" areas are functionally urban. My "urban city" per the 2020 census is no LA, Austin, or Portland.
Bicycling with little kids is just not practical for a lot of it, and the nearest bus stop is a four hour walk (12 miles).
Do large cities and suburban neighborhoods deserve public transportation? Sure. Is that a universal answer? No. Not even close. There are farm fields out here larger than many towns. Roads, vehicles, and fast on demand transportation are a necessity for the geographic super majority of the US.
> Where I live the temperature swings from -40 to over 100F with very high humidity every year.
Some of these HN comments are wild. Where do you live? I struggle to think of a place with a temperature range like that.