• WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    People want stability before they have kids. Generous government benefits matter little if you’re living in a cardboard box. No one wants to raise a child in a cardboard box. Look up the cost of housing in the Nordic countries. They aren’t the socialist paradise you’re making them out to be.

    • Frostbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      29 days ago

      It’s more nuanced than that. Wages are comparable high, and there are some tax regulations that makes owning less expensive. Renting is still not the norm in Norway. Second+++ apartments/houses are severely taxed in a recent new regulation (incidentally making renting more expensive as they were sold off)

      Outside some “metropolitan” areas like Oslo you can find lex expensive homes. But you are correct that prices have started to be our of reach of many, and stability is key for starting a family.

      And Norway is by no means a paradise, but it seems more agreeable than the US.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        The median household income in Norway is 590,000 NOK. The median total housing expense is about 158,000 NOK. Thus the median Norwegian household is spending about 27% of their income on housing. This is pretty comparable to the US, where the median figure is 26%.

        This is the median across the whole population, and of course, for younger people that amount should be higher. Really it seems that the US and Norway are about the same when it comes to housing affordability.

        It gets worse however if you look at actual home prices and not just monthly payments. The average home price in Norway is about 5,000,000 NOK.. That means the average home costs about 8.5x the average income. In the US, the median home price is about $430,000., while the median household income is about $77.5k. The average home in the US thus costs about 5.5x the average income.

        Homes in the US are cheaper than in Norway, while US incomes are higher. The median household income in Norway is the equivalent of $54,000. Also, the median home in the US is larger than that of Norway.

        This is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that US consumers have to pay more out of pocket for healthcare, childcare, and commuting costs than their Norwegian equivalents do. But really, it shows that even after the subsidies, Norway is no more affordable for new parents than the US is. If anything, it’s probably more affordable in the US. Yes, you can always move to a rural area in Norway to get cheaper housing, but you can do the same in the US. People live in those bigger, more expensive, cities because they provide better job opportunities and better salaries.

        My real point is that we can’t just point to the more generous welfare state of the Nordic countries as an example for how birthrates can’t be solved with financial incentives. A lot of people like to point to countries with generous welfare states like Norway and say, “look, even countries like Norway, who heavily subsidize healthcare, childcare, and have generous parental leave still have low birth rates!” Typically people who make these arguments want to argue for restricting women’s reproductive autonomy.

        But it really does come down to housing. And in both Norway and the US, the cost of homeownership is getting way beyond what people of childbearing age can afford. That is the fundamental problem. There’s something very deep and instinctive about the places we live in. Having a truly stable place to live, ideally a place you own and can easily afford, is the single greatest way to encourage people of childbearing years to have children. People want to provide a stable environment for children to grow up in. They don’t want to live in a place where their landlord could kick them out on a whim. They don’t want to be reliant on a government-subsidized apartment that could be taken away from them tomorrow if eligibility rules are changed. People want either very reliable and affordable rental space or ideally a home they own on their own and can’t be evicted from. That is the kind of stability people seek before they have children.