I came across some interesting numbers from Finland today and then, as the way my brain works, thought about it context of another problem that is often cited in the news recently. The one from Finland is about men without children, where almost 50% of 35-year old men are childless. For reference, in 1990, the same metric was at 30%. This is higher than other Nordic countries, but all are pretty high apparently. Though, it is hard to compare the numbers globally, because not many countries keep the records in this way.
After writing about relationships a lot over the years here, I have often found people (men) push back, saying that they don't need relationships, as they are messy, and a lot of younger people don't want kids, citing environmental concerns, but largely coming down to loss of individual freedoms and too much responsibility. However, assuming that the trend is consistent in most countries, it sets up some other things to consider. However, assuming that the trend is consistent in most countries, it sets up some other things to consider.
So, the other story is around the "housing crisis" where in many places, there is somehow not enough housing, let alone affordable housing, available. But, if population growth is slowing (aging population), how is this happening? Immigration gets the blame of course, but I don't think this is the only cause of the issue, because if people are not having children and are less likely to commit to relationships, it also means that there is a higher demand on housing overall, as there will be more people "living alone" than otherwise.
Couple this with the increasing breakdown of relationships and marriages, and that puts more stress on the housing market, as couples become singles, needing two residences instead of one. This also changes what kinds of housing are in demand, as a family with children would probably be looking at family homes, which are larger and probably further outside cities. However, singles would be looking for apartments and closer to urban areas to better facilitate their lifestyle.
The "plan" I have seen mentioned in Australia is to increase development of high density housing areas of three- to four-storey buildings with "commonality of design" for fast approval and development. This is a solution of course and it is one that has been tried and tested in many cities around the world with varying results. For instance, a story I read from Australia cited it happening in Paris and how beautiful it is - which it is.
“Humans like that because looking at a street full of terrace houses or Haussmann-era Paris streets or boulevards is attractive on the eye.”
Ha!
Are people really expected to buy into the idea that there is going to be the same kind of style put into developing packet homes now as there was put into the design for remodeling Paris in the 1850s?
Expectation
Reality
Finland actually has a lot of these cookie-cutter, often pre-fabricated buildings made to fill the gap in housing after the war. They followed a communist style of design, albeit likely somewhat better executed, in order to make them cheap and repeatable. The prewar buildings can be quite beautiful - the post-war, well...
But, what is going to be interesting is what happens in the future, because, while there might be a shortfall in housing now, if there is indeed an aging population issue and younger generations aren't having as many children, what happens to these housing projects in a generation from now? Who is going to be living in them? Rather than scarcity, there is going to likely be a housing glut, with heavy over supply.
And, when all the homes are based on the same or similar model, there is nothing to actually set one apart from the other, which means that the value of all is reduced. If someone is looking to buy, they don't need to care about the house, just the area, because one apartment is the same as the one next door, and similar to the one down the street.
This kind of housing might solve the short-term needs for affordable residence, but the long-term repercussions might not be that great. However, considering that most western countries are going to need to import labor to fill the positions in the coming decades, perhaps providing for them is the real plan for this kind of housing. Lower quality, likely a lot of it investor owned, sectioned of communities. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of a vibrant city, it creates a city divided. It sounds a little like the labor camps in Dubai.
A bit dystopian.
But, maybe having a society where people don't want to be in relationships or have children is a bit dystopian from a human perspective anyway. After all, animals are designed to procreate and evolve the species for survival - yet we are not. We have created such terrible conditions for ourselves that many are choosing to end their lineage instead. If you think about it that way, it is kind of crazy, isn't it?
How did we get into this position?
Well at least from my perspective, it is pretty obvious. We have favored profit over well being and since we have been able to globalize activities, we can favor profit over wellbeing at scale. The economic model for businesses is to make profit at whatever cost and this comes in many forms, including influencing the trends of society. Single people pay more for living costs. Smaller apartments cost more per square meter. The maximization of profit will align over time to crush consumers so as to extract more, even if in doing so harms society, communities and individuals.
A lot of people think they are making a choice to not be in a relationship, or not have children, but I am not so sure the choice is as completely theirs as they believe it to be. We are driven by incentive and we are influenced by mechanisms that generate the highest wealth for the corporations.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence "our choices" always happen to make them the most money.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]