Feb072012
Did loan owners stop having sex due to the housing bust?
A new study shows a strong correlation between house prices and birth rates. When the housing bubble inflated, so did… well, birth rates. When housing went flaccid, so did… birth rates. When housing began to inch up in 2009, so did… birth rates. The correlation is so strong, studies postulate a cause and effect. So I ask you, did loan owners stop having sex due to the housing bust?
Housing Bust, Baby Bust
Fertility falling: And baby makes three.
The collapse in the housing market is bad for fertility, which could imperil long-term economic growth.
Updated: February 4, 2012 | 9:34 a.m.
February 2, 2012 | 6:00 p.m.
Say you bought a sprawling ranch-style house in 2007, with a guest room just begging to be turned into a nursery. If you lived in Las Vegas, that house today would probably be worth barely a third of what you paid. If you bought in Phoenix or Miami or Detroit, it would be worth about half your purchase price. In every case you’d most likely be underwater on your mortgage, with no hope of tapping your equity for a loan to defray the cost of a new crib and Winnie-the-Pooh wallpaper. Ask yourself: Is that the sort of world into which you’d want to bring a child?
No way, economists suggest—at least not compared to the world at the height of the housing boom.
As couples face a recession and a possible loss of income, they become more fiscally conservative, and many consciously delay procreation. But the problem is not only in their mind. I think part of the drop in birth rate is primal. Believing they are rich and empowered makes men lascivious. Facing the reality they are broke and helpless lessens libido. It’s just the way men are.
An emerging set of economic research shows that rising housing prices lift the fertility rate, too. Amid the current housing crash, in contrast, birth rates are falling like a Slinky descending the stairs. This could be bad news for the American economy and for the financing of social services in decades to come. Even a modest decline in fertility could stick the United States with the sort of aging pains that Europe and Japan are grappling with today.
If the ratio of workers to those receiving benefits drops, then taxes must go up on the workers, or benefits must be curtailed. Neither option is palatable. Today’s babies will be paying my social security benefits — assuming there are benefits when I get there.
The link between home values and family values is borne out by complex mathematical formulas developed by two University of Maryland economists, Lisa J. Dettling and Melissa Schettini Kearney. It starts with the simple calculation that every prospective parent makes: Can I afford to raise a child? (Or, for current parents, another child?) Helpfully, the Agriculture Department annually tallies up the costs of child-rearing. For a typical married couple, the department said in its latest report, housing accounts for a third of those costs—as much as food and child care combined.
You might think, then, that rising housing prices might discourage would-be parents. That appears to be true for people who figure they’d need to buy a home to accommodate a baby. Indeed, among renters, a 10 percent rise in housing prices reduces the fertility rate by 1 percent, Dettling and Kearney reported in a paper late last year. But that change, the economists found, is swamped by a reverse effect among couples that already own homes: A 10 percent rise in housing prices increases homeowners’ fertility by 4.5 percent. That’s because rising prices make homeowners feel wealthier. Thinking of their home as a nest egg, they save less and spend more, and they can borrow against their equity.
So Ponzis had more children. Great. Like we need more of them… not.
Homeowners use some of that newfound wealth, according to evidence that Dettling and Kearney cited, “to fund their childbearing goals.” Similarly, a recent paper by Purdue University economist Keith Mumford and Cornell’s Michael Lovenheim concludes that the “large recent variation in the housing market could have sizable demographic effects that are driven by the positive effect of housing wealth on fertility.”
Am I the only one appalled by the idea that couples believe the house is supposed to support their children? Is rising house equity supposed to pay for children’s sports activities growing up, their car when they turn 16, their college education later on? I find this idea insane, but apparently much of America has come to accept it as an entitlement — an entitlement we need to reinstate by reflating another housing bubble. No need to work and produce anything. No, Americans merely want the appreciation fairies to do the work for them.
These days, this bodes poorly for the birth rate—and for the economy. The drop in home values from 2006 to 2010, Dettling and Kearney found, corresponded to a 4.3 percent decline in births. And when housing prices plummet, as they have since the real-estate bubble burst in 2007, homeowners spend a lot less.
I can’t say I am surprised loan owners are not spending today like they did during the bubble. Once they blew through the unsustainable borrowed money, they are only left with debt and debt service payments. Not much disposable income is left over.
This goes far to explain why the U.S. economy has struggled to regain its stride after the Great Recession and also why the Obama administration—after years of fumbled efforts to help stabilize the housing market—released a proposal this week to help underwater homeowners refinance their mortgages at lower rates.
It isn’t right to say Obama’s housing policy has failed. Obama’s housing policy has lead to unprecedented affordability.
Prices continue to decline nationwide, according to the Case-Shiller housing index released this week—and so does the birth rate. After reaching a recent peak of 2.1 babies per woman in 2007, the nation’s fertility rate has shrunk to 1.9 babies per woman, according to the Census Bureau. The states where prices have plunged the most—led by Nevada, Arizona, and Florida—have also seen their fertility rates fall more sharply than in any other state.
The correlation between house prices and birth rates is remarkable. The bubble rally was much more fun for loan owners than the bubble bust.
People suffer in direct proportion to their unfulfilled sense of entitlement. Unfortunately for loan owners, the housing bubble gave them an enormous sense of entitlement, so now they are suffering terribly.
Does anyone have the average mortgage balance that originated from 2005-2007?
I check both Fannie and Freddie and couldn’t find it.
CoreLogic would be the only place to get that, but you would have to pay for it. Otherwise, these are the numbers I have for some now-defunct OC lenders:
Nationwide Loan Amt – $209,000
California Loan Amt – $342,000
OC Loan Amt – $447,000
Well there’s a lot to comment on here. First and foremost, the old saw I learned as an applied math/stats geek applies here, namely that “correlation does not imply casuality.”
That being said, it just makes plain sense that if household formations are down (which IrvineRenter has adequately documented) then fertility rates would also probably decline.
Another, to me, painfully obvious observation, is that the states with the biggest bubbles (housing and fertility) and crashes are also highly correlated with high levels of illegal immigrants; and hispanic fertility rates of been increasing while non-hispanic white and black fertilities have been decreasing. According to http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org: “fertility rates also declined slightly overall among non-Hispanic whites (from 62 births per 1,000 women in1980 to 58 births per 1,000 women in 2005)*. Fertility rates among Hispanics, however, increased from 95 births per 1,000 women in 1980 to 108 per 1,000 women in 1990 Birth and Fertility Rates before declining to 93 per 1,000 in 1998*. The fertility rate has since slightly increased to 99 births per 1,000 Hispanic women in 2005).” Since the economic crash, we have seen a substantial reverse migration occurring as labor jobs, particularly in construction, have dried up.
Since we have about a month’s worth of sale data. Some cities have seen double price drops in December….
Get your property Reassessed if your market value is below your current Assessed value
I think dropping birth rates are good.
It is true that any one generation benefits from the next one being bigger, but it is not a sustainable long term model for our species that every generation has their retirement taken care of by a larger next generation. Natural resources are strained enough as they are.
With 42% of the US budget dedicated to entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) and another 20% dedicated to national defense, lower birth rates could lead to fewer taxpayers. The US will have to increase immigration, raise tax rates or lower entitlements. Or maybe just discover a massive hidden oil field under the states of Nebraska and Kansas. Something’s gotta give.
Not too worried about birth rates. Even if the US birth rates decline, there’s an almost endless supply of labor from immigration (legit and non-legit). Even skilled labor. There are tons of people waiting patiently in line at US embassies trying to emigrate to the US and start a new life here.
I am curious about U.S. divorce rates though. See Century 21 “Suzanne” commercial to see what I mean. In a lot of cases, divorce is absolutely the right move for keeping the peace and one’s sanity, but it does have a social and economic/financial impact on the community. Divorce tends to impact incomes, savings, entitlements and investing, which I suspect affects the potential buyer pool. The transition of divorce might mean splitting up assets and choosing to rent vs. own. At the same time, a divorce can have the unintended consequence of forming new relationships and families, and possibly enable new demand for homes.
Very interesting subject. I remember that countries like Germany and the Netherlands have become increasingly alarmed at low birthrates for many years and what it might mean to their economic strength in the future (tax-paying workforce vs. an aging, entitlement-receiving population).
“and possibly enable new demand for homes.”
– I wanted to add “and new demand for rental properties also”.
Divorcees I know can’t stop talking about “the house” they had to “give up” or sell because of the settlement, etc. It royally sucks. One lady I know won’t sign a mortgage ever again unless it’s solely in her name.
Divorce rates have been dropping during this recession out of financial necessity. Many unhappy couples choose to continue living together and stay married even if they can’t stand the sight of each other. This is because they can’t sell the house, or one spouse is out of work and financially dependent on the other.
Great point. Divorce has got to be hell. Once you’re through it, you’re not always better off or completely free, but you’re more free than before. Two angry rats in a cage is never good, especially if children are involved. Which then leads to the question of how that trend you described correlates with domestic violence cases or even child abuse cases? One could reasonably predict those sad stats to rise. The social costs of the great housing bubble crash probably won’t get much attention for another 2 or 3 years, but it is a very interesting subject to me.
It’s so simple …. demographic shifts point to much lower OC home prices ahead. But, the most damage done to pricing-power is the fact that as time is passing, secure income is becoming increasingly scarce. The loss of faith is clearly evident.
A black social worker in San Gabriel who lives alone paying $2400/mo rent tells me her caseload went way up because of increased child abuse cases since the economy soured. And that means more overtime! I mean, thats really sad.
My non serious reply is that the Duggars are taking up my slack.