Obtaining housing increases the average probability of having a child by 3.8% and the number of children by 3.2%.
For 20 to 25-year-olds, the corresponding effects are 32% and 33%.
pull down to refresh
related posts
87 sats \ 5 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9 Jan
Very interesting, though I wonder how much of it is housing vs. simply a wealth effect.
reply
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Jan
Geez, are you a professional economist or something?
They should have given the one group a housing voucher and the other cash, but then you'd have to control for how much of the cash was spent on housing.
Alternatively, they could have done some sort of intent to treat design and just teach one group how to use real estate sites, fill out housing paperwork, etc. Then, if that group used more housing attribute the difference to the intervention and proceed from there.
reply
39 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9 Jan
Ah, but is the program scalable?
reply
39 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Jan
Who cares? We're dispassionate scientists, not political activists.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @realBitcoinDog 10 Jan
I’ll take one house please.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 10 Jan
Sorry, you got randomized into the group that only gets training on how to use real estate websites and fill out paperwork
reply
47 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 9 Jan
Do you think this only applies to Brazil, or could it be true in other countries?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @zuspotirko OP 9 Jan
The cause and effect sound intuitive to me (which is not enough to prove a theory ofc) but therefore I assume it to be universal.
Someone in another comment here mentioned nuclear vs kinship families. Which might be an interesting aspect to investigate
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 Jan
Nah, I'm stupid lmao. Brazilian culture would have been exactly the kind of culture I was talking about. I just assumed the paper was talking about western (UK, US Australia) family culture of 1 couple and their children per household.
reply
48 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 9 Jan
I don't think that's the only factor but surely plays a big role in family formation.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Milkman9000 9 Jan
In large part thanks to currency debasement and people using real estate as an inflation hedge and investment, when bitcoin is what they need.
Predictably all the politicians can do is suggest more taxes .
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jon_Hodl 9 Jan
Not at all surprising. Luckily Bitcoin fixes this.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 9 Jan
Yup! Spread the joy!
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @TheBTCManual 17h
I agree generally that obtaining a house can lead to more family creation, but not when you're leveraged to the tits to do so, if you don't have much dispossible income after covering your home, you're less likley to pop one out
As for the quality of home that also comes into play, if you're in a tiny ass flat you might also be less inclined
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @nym 17h
I think there is also a correlation between new home ownership and the age of the folks moving in being child bearing age.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 16h
That's also a good point, we can see that with elder millenials who put it all on getting a home in a big city, a portion of them choose to be dinks because A they're overleveraged and have very little savings and B they might feel they're too old now to start a family
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 10 Jan
fuck, that's a nice paper. Gotta dive in
@remindme in 2 days
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @oklar 9 Jan
Makes pefect sense to me.
I imagine that less than 50 years ago the difference would be that Access to Capital would replace Access to Credit.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Shugard 9 Jan
So free housing for everyone to save the fertility rate!
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 Jan
deleted by author