The Real Reason Birth Rates Are Falling - Lyman Stone

The backlash, Stone suggests, stemmed from differing perspectives between those with children and those without. Many critics focused on the absence of nightlife or boutique venues, missing the point that much walking is social—walking to neighbors, parks, or schools—rather than purely utilitarian. Stone highlights that families prioritize safety, proximity to parks, and schools over trendy urban amenities. This episode underscores how walkability is a nuanced concept, deeply tied to lifestyle and family needs rather than just urban density or climate.

Population Density and Fertility Patterns

Stone delves into the complex relationship between population density and fertility, noting that while dense urban areas often correlate with lower fertility rates, the story is more intricate beneath the surface. Crowded living conditions, particularly a high ratio of adults to bedrooms, tend to suppress fertility, but this is not always synonymous with high population density. For example, rural areas with a single high-rise apartment building can have crowded housing without being densely populated overall.

He argues that the type of housing matters significantly. Dense single-family homes or townhouses with tree-lined sidewalks tend to support higher fertility rates compared to high-rise apartments surrounded by open parkland. These townhouses provide the space and amenities families desire, such as garages and yards, while maintaining density. Stone’s research suggests that urban planning should focus on creating family-friendly dense housing rather than just increasing density through towers, as the former better supports fertility and community cohesion.

Housing Affordability and Its Impact on Fertility

Housing affordability emerges as a critical barrier to family formation. Stone acknowledges that when people say housing costs prevent them from having children, they are telling the truth. The price of housing relative to young adults’ incomes has skyrocketed, especially in neighborhoods that are safe, clean, and orderly—qualities families prioritize. This economic pressure leads many young adults to live with their parents longer, delaying marriage and childbearing.

Stone’s studies show that in metropolitan areas with the highest housing costs relative to income, young adults have lower marriage and fertility rates. He emphasizes that it’s not just about building more apartments but about building the kinds of homes people want for raising families—dense single-family homes or townhouses that are affordable and accessible. Without such housing options, fertility rates will continue to decline as young adults struggle to establish stable family lives.

Fertility Preferences and Social Contagion

A fascinating theme in Stone’s discussion is the contagious nature of fertility preferences. He explains that people’s desires for family size are heavily influenced by their social networks. For instance, having friends or coworkers who have children increases the likelihood that an individual will also have children. This contagion effect operates through social learning, where observing others’ parenting experiences reduces fears and misconceptions about child-rearing.

Stone highlights that fertility preferences are not fixed but evolve with experience. When people have their first child, they often revise their preferences upward, realizing that parenting is more rewarding than anticipated. Conversely, in social environments where few people have children, the contagion effect works in reverse, reinforcing childlessness. This dynamic helps explain rapid shifts in fertility rates and underscores the importance of social context in family formation decisions.

The Role of Mobile Phones and Media in Fertility Decisions

Stone discusses emerging research on how mobile phone and internet access influence fertility preferences. Surprisingly, increased access to mobile technology leads people to adopt more concrete and inflexible fertility goals, moving away from vague or flexible family size ideals. This concretization means individuals specify exact numbers of children they want, which can increase psychological pressure and dissatisfaction if those goals are unmet.

Moreover, while mobile phone users often maintain similar fertility desires as non-users, they are less likely to intend to have the number of children they desire. Stone speculates that exposure to Western media and social hierarchies may cause people to rationalize having fewer children due to perceived economic or social constraints. The visibility of childless lifestyles on social media, contrasted with the hidden joys of parenting, may also contribute to this trend.

Cultural and Religious Influences on Fertility: The Georgian Case

Stone presents a compelling case study from Georgia, where a popular religious leader successfully increased fertility rates through a unique intervention. The leader offered to personally baptize any third or higher-order child born to married Georgian Orthodox couples, becoming their godparent. This act leveraged the cultural and religious significance of godparenthood, which is akin to family kinship in Eastern Orthodox tradition.

The intervention led to a notable rise in fertility from 1.6 to 2.2 within 18 months, without changing the number of children women said they wanted but increasing the number they intended to have. This case illustrates how altering social status hierarchies and cultural norms can effectively encourage higher fertility without retraditionalizing women’s roles or reducing workforce participation. It highlights the power of culturally resonant pronatalist policies.

Fertility Desires Versus Intentions and the Role of Life Circumstances

Stone distinguishes between fertility desires (ideal number of children) and fertility intentions (planned number of children), noting that intentions are often lower due to life circumstances. Factors such as mental health issues, lack of stable relationships, poor work histories, and incarceration contribute to a gap between desires and intentions. These “bad life outcomes” reduce the likelihood that people will realize their fertility goals.

He emphasizes that fertility preferences are socially learned rather than genetically determined, shaped by horizontal cultural influences like peers and community rather than just parental modeling. This socialization process means that exposure to family-oriented social networks can increase fertility desires, while isolation or childless networks can suppress them. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for addressing fertility declines.

Male Socioeconomic Status and Its Complex Role in Family Formation

Stone explores the nuanced role of male socioeconomic status in marriage and fertility. Contrary to popular belief, a larger income gap favoring men over women does not necessarily increase marriage rates. Instead, what matters more is the relative income of young men compared to older men, as women often compare potential partners to their fathers’ socioeconomic status rather than their male peers.

This dynamic means that when older men accumulate wealth disproportionately, younger men face stiffer competition for marriage prospects, as women seek partners who can provide insurance against income volatility during child-rearing years. Stone argues that fathers’ economic status sets a benchmark that young men must meet, influencing marriage and fertility patterns. This insight sheds light on intergenerational economic competition and its social consequences.

Social and Cultural Challenges in Young Men’s and Women’s Relationships

Stone addresses the growing social disconnect between young men and women, particularly in East Asian societies like Korea. He notes that young women in these countries have become highly progressive and successful academically but face limited workplace opportunities, leading to frustration and resentment. Meanwhile, young men’s social attitudes remain more traditional, creating a cultural mismatch.

This divergence manifests in differing perceptions of sexual assault, gender roles, and relationship expectations, contributing to social tension and declining fertility. Stone attributes some of these dynamics to intense educational pressures, rigid work cultures, and the rise of childless celebrity role models in K-pop, which shape youth culture and family formation attitudes. These factors create a challenging environment for young adults seeking to form families.

Gender Roles, Workload, and the Myth of the “Double Shift”

Stone challenges the widespread belief that women bear a “double shift” of paid work and domestic labor. He cites research showing that married mothers and fathers report nearly identical total workloads when combining paid and unpaid work, with women sometimes reporting slightly more leisure time. However, he acknowledges that women working full-time may experience a second shift if their partners do not share domestic responsibilities equitably.

He also discusses how the types of work men and women do differ in satisfaction levels. Women’s work, including childcare and domestic tasks, often provides higher momentary satisfaction despite cultural narratives that undervalue it. Stone critiques societal failure to recognize parenting as a meaningful, civilization-building endeavor, which contributes to the undervaluation of women’s domestic labor and the persistence of gendered expectations.

The Social Psychology of Conformity and Fertility Norms

Stone reflects on the human tendency toward conformity and how it shapes fertility norms. He explains that in ancestral environments, conformity was essential for group survival, making deviations from social norms potentially dangerous. This deep-rooted conformism means that changes in family size norms can spread rapidly once a new “normal” is established.

He argues that fertility behaviors are highly sensitive to shifts in cultural expectations, which can pivot quickly and dramatically. This explains why fertility rates can change rapidly across societies and why social contagion effects are so powerful. Stone’s insights highlight the importance of cultural narratives and social acceptance in shaping reproductive behavior.

The Soft Bigotry of Male Expectations and Intergenerational Dynamics

Finally, Stone discusses the concept he terms the “soft bigotry of male expectations,” where men’s socioeconomic prospects are judged against the standard set by their fathers rather than their peers. This intergenerational comparison creates pressure on young men and contributes to social resentment and difficulties in forming families. He suggests that overindulgence or “spoiling” by parents can harm young men’s future marriage prospects by inflating expectations and creating mismatches.

Stone also touches on societal attitudes toward men who fall behind economically, noting that men are often blamed for their failures and receive less social support than women in similar situations. This dynamic exacerbates challenges in male family formation and contributes to broader demographic trends. His analysis calls for a nuanced understanding of economic, social, and cultural factors influencing fertility and family life.