Why does San Francisco now have fewer children per capita than any of America's largest 100 cities? An anonymous reader writes:
A move to the suburbs began in the 1970s, but "The tech boom now reinforces the notion that San Francisco is a place for the young, single and rich," according to the New York Times. "When we imagine having kids, we think of somewhere else," one software engineer tells the paper. The article describes "neighborhoods where employees of Google, Twitter and so many other technology companies live or work" where the sidewalks make it seem "as if life started at 22 and ended somewhere around 40."
Or is San Francisco just part of a larger trend? "California, which has one of the world's 10 largest economies, recently released data showing the lowest birthrate since the Great Depression. And the Los Angeles Times argues California's experience may just be following national trends. The drop "likely stems from the recession, a drop in teenage pregnancies and an increase in people attending college and taking longer to graduate, therefore putting off having children, said Walter Schwarm, a demographer at the Department of Finance."
So is this part of a larger trend -- or something unique about San Francisco? The New York Times also quotes Richard Florida, author of
The Rise of the Creative Class, who believes technology workers are putting off families when they move to the Silicon Valley area because they anticipate long working hours. There's also complaints about San Francisco's public school system -- 30% of its children now attend private schools, the highest percentage of any large American city. But according to the article, Peter Thiel believes that San Francisco is just "structurally hostile to families."
Re:Deliberately missing the forest for the trees
By ShanghaiBill
•
2017-Jan-22 12:55
• Score: 4, Informative
• Thread
stop immigration which is stealing our jobs.
This is the Lump of Labor Fallacy. Immigrants increase the supply of labor, but they also increase the demand for goods and services, and generally do so disproportionately thus reducing unemployment. This is not just economic theory. When Poland joined the EU, nearly every country threw up barriers to Polish laborers. The exceptions were Britain and Sweden. Can you guess which two countries had the greatest reduction in unemployment over the next few years?
If you walk down a street in San Francisco, you will see more brown faces than white, and hear chatter in several languages. It has one of the highest immigrant populations of any major city in America, and one of the lowest unemployment rates.
The notion that immigration causes unemployment is one of those things that is "simple, obvious, and wrong". It is a real shame that the Democrats didn't stand up to Trump on this issue (and many others) and speak the truth. Instead, they just tried to go "stupid-lite" and lost, because you can't out-stupid the Donald.
Re:Fewer children per capita?
By unixisc
•
2017-Jan-22 12:58
• Score: 4, Interesting
• Thread
Not just that, that's the most family hostile city out there. Imagine if you live somewhere: parking is a nightmare anywhere you go within the city. You'd ultimately find parking far enough that you might as well have taken MUNI. But living w/o a car ain't too comfortable either, since one does have to do things like groceries often (or do they deliver home?) So w/ all that congestion, that's one of the least healthy places to live.
If you have money to burn, just move a little out to Daly City or Brisbane, or on the other end, in Marin county or Oakland, and you'd get a lot more bang for buck in terms of living
Re: Deliberately missing the forest for the trees
By ShanghaiBill
•
2017-Jan-22 13:26
• Score: 4, Informative
• Thread
Belgium didn't put up borders for the Polish workers either
Wrong. Belgium kept barriers in place as long as the EU allowed ... and suffered the negative consequences that you describe for exactly the opposite reasons than you think.
Re:Deliberately missing the forest for the trees
By JustAnotherOldGuy
•
2017-Jan-22 13:29
• Score: 4, Interesting
• Thread
I've been to San Francisco many, many times over the last 30 years and I've never understood why so many people want to live there. It's crowded, noisy, and expensive.
If I had to guess why so many people want to live there I'd have to say it's because they've been told that "everyone wants to live there" - that it's the cool place to be.
As far as I'm concerned it's one of the most expensive and impractical places to live that I've ever seen (and I've traveled the US extensively).
Yes, the weather is generally nice, but there are quite a few places with nice weather. Yes they have a good nightlife and culture, but so do lots of other places.
FFS, San Francisco is not the center of the universe. If you feel some dire need to live in a place with a reputation for being trendy and popular, be prepared to pay out the ass for it.
Most of the people living in craptastic little studio apartments in San Francisco are paying double what my house payment is, sometimes triple. I hope that whatever you're getting for that money is worth it.
Not a lot of recent San Francisco experience, but
By King_TJ
•
2017-Jan-22 14:06
• Score: 3
• Thread
I can definitely tell you the same things could be said about Washington DC. Not only are the housing costs sky high, but even if you want to pretend families living and working in that area are all wealthy enough so that's a non-issue? (And trust me, that would be a poor assumption.) The city itself isn't conducive to having a family at all. You really can't get around easily with an automobile. At best, you're going to have to get REALLY good with tedious parallel parking almost every time you need to go someplace and get used to circling around blocks multiple times, hunting for a space. Most of the time, you're going to have insane traffic gridlock on top of that, ensuring you're late to plenty of doctor's appointments and other things you need to take your kid(s) to. The preferred mode of transit is the Metro system, which is really not workable for a family. It's fine for the couple who has only one kid that's still a baby (though a stroller is going to be a big pain navigating the metro stations and getting it onto and off of crowded metro trains). But if you're like many of us, who have a few kids and/or pre-teens? You're looking at paying full price for each fare for them, and issuing each of them their own metro pass to keep filled with funds. A short trip during "peak" operating hours will set a family of 6 back at least $25 or so, round trip. You could use Uber or a cab, but same problem with it getting expensive quickly.
I think it's a general theme for cities with lots of high income job offerings, really. They cater to the individual employee or contractor working there, and to the idea that they may have a partner (whether business partner or relationship) with them. Once you get married and have kids? You're no longer their core focus, because after all -- you're committed to a lot of other responsibilities besides your work-life at that point.