The US fertility rate has hit a historic low in 2024, continuing a decline that began nearly two decades ago. Rising housing prices have emerged as a significant factor contributing to this trend.
Earlier this summer, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that the birth rate dropped to below 1.6 children per woman, down from 2.1 in 2006.
Over these past 20 years, more women have opted to delay or forgo having children altogether. Experts cite various influences, including societal changes, with escalating housing costs being a leading concern.
Data from Realtor.com® reveals that homebuying has become significantly burdensome from 2006 to 2024.
Back in 2006, the median price for a detached home stood at $221,923, which, when adjusted for inflation, translates to about $343,806 in 2024. Yet, the median sales price this year is pegged at $410,100, showing a stark increase of over $66,000 in real value since 2006.
In the same 18-year span, the total US fertility rate has fallen from around 2.1 births to under 1.6 births per woman.
Insights from Experts
Hannah Jones, a senior economic research analyst at Realtor.com, notes, “Larger homes that could fit growing families are increasingly unaffordable for many. With home prices rising much faster than wages, some couples may choose to delay homeownership or remain in smaller spaces, which inadvertently limits their family size.”
Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research, published in 2012, found a strong link between housing prices and family planning decisions.
In their paper, titled “Home Prices and Birth Rates: Impact of the Real Estate Market on Decisions to Have a Baby,” authors Lisa Dettling and Melissa Schettini Kearney explained that a 10% increase in home prices can cause roughly a 1% drop in birth rates.
Their study examined data from 66 metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2006, during which time the fertility rate remained stable, despite steadily rising home sales prices.
The findings highlight that climbing home prices significantly elevate the costs associated with raising children—costs that extend beyond just food or childcare—thereby suppressing birth rates.
Essentially, as housing becomes pricier, the financial implications of starting a family escalate, causing some couples to hit the brakes on having children or to decide on having fewer kids overall. This research suggests that fluctuations in housing prices may even carry more weight than job market stability when it comes to fertility choices.
“Rising home prices are crucial factors influencing a couple’s decision to expand their family,” Dettling and Schettini Kearney write.
Jones adds that, for potential parents, the financial strain of competing for scarce, costly housing could make having more children seem not only unfeasible but even risky.
Interestingly, for those who already own homes, surging property values might actually promote birth rates. For many households, owning a home constitutes a substantial portion of their wealth. As property values increase, homeowners might feel more financially secure, potentially leading them to have children sooner or more of them.
Moreover, families who own their homes might leverage their home equity to cover child-related costs like education.
Additional Factors Influencing Fertility Rates
Nevertheless, rising housing costs are just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to national fertility trends. There have been times when both home prices and birth rates rose together.
Jones explains that in the early 2000s, easier credit and economic growth made larger homes within reach for more families. With a stronger financial base, many chose to have more children even amid increasing housing costs.
However, from 2008 to 2011, both home prices and birth rates fell significantly.
“The housing crisis and the Great Recession not only plummeted home values but also prompted job losses that delayed or disrupted family planning,” Jones points out.
Even as home prices have started to rise again since 2012, fertility rates continue to drop, indicating that the post-recession economic landscape poses growing challenges to starting families.
In simpler terms, as the economic hurdles for purchasing larger homes increase, many Americans are either having fewer children or delaying starting a family altogether, further contributing to the decline in fertility rates.
Jones asserts, “While this isn’t the sole reason for the downturn in fertility, it represents a significant structural barrier to family growth in today’s economy.”
The Geographic Influence on Fertility Rates
Where you live also plays a key role in family planning.
According to research from 2012 by Dr. William Abu Clark, a geography professor at UCLA, women in high-cost housing markets like New York City or Boston tend to postpone having their first child by three to four years.
Clark notes that pricier metropolitan areas often attract women holding advanced degrees who prioritize career advancement. They suggest that while expensive housing may set a barrier for early family building, it doesn’t necessarily correlate with a lower number of children born by the end of the year compared to more affordable areas.
Thus, even if women delay their first child to focus on their careers, researchers believe there’s potential for them to fulfill their family aspirations later on.
Concerns Around Low Fertility Rates
The historically low birth rate, falling below 1.6 children per woman, has raised alarms in Washington, prompting recent actions from President Donald Trump aimed at enhancing access to in vitro fertilization and even considering “baby bonuses” to encourage higher birth rates.
However, Dr. Leslie Root, a fertility and population policy researcher at University of Colorado Boulder, argues there’s no immediate cause for concern.
She explains, “We view this as part of a broader trend of delayed fertility. The US population is still growing—we see more births than deaths,” as she noted to the AP.
Indeed, many Americans are marrying later, and women are increasingly waiting to become mothers for various reasons, including financial constraints and job uncertainties. Researchers largely agree that this trend is likely here to stay.
