The U.S. birth rate fell to a historic low in 2024, continuing a decline that has persisted for about 20 years. Experts cite increasing housing prices as a significant factor in this trend.
This summer, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released newly updated birth statistics from the previous year, which revealed that the nation’s fertility rate decreased to beneath 1.6 children per woman—down from 2.1 in 2006, a level necessary to maintain the population size.
Over the past two decades, many women have increasingly postponed childbirth or opted out of it altogether. Various factors contribute to this shift, including personal and societal influences, with the rising cost of housing being highlighted by several analysts.
Research conducted by Realtor.com® economists indicates that between 2006 and 2024, the financial strain associated with home purchasing has surged significantly.
In 2006, the median price for single-family homes stood at $221,923, which, when adjusted for inflation, amounts to approximately $343,806 in 2024. In contrast, the median sale price in 2024 reached $410,100—a difference of over $66,000 compared to the 2006 equivalent.
During this same 18-year timeframe, the U.S. total fertility rate plummeted from around 2.1 births per woman to slightly less than 1.6 births.
Insights from Experts
According to Hannah Jones, a senior economic research analyst at Realtor.com, “Larger homes that can comfortably accommodate multiple children have become increasingly unaffordable for many families. As housing prices have dramatically exceeded wage growth, couples may postpone home purchases or remain in smaller residences for extended periods, limiting the available space for expanding families.”
An analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research published in 2012 also highlighted the substantial influence that housing prices exert on family planning.
In their study titled “House Prices and Birth Rates: The Impact of the Real Estate Market on the Decision to Have a Baby,” authors Lisa Dettling and Melissa Schettini Kearney note that a 10% increase in home prices results in a 1% decrease in births among non-homeowners in the average metropolitan area.
The researchers, including Dettling, who is a principal economist at the Federal Reserve Board, and Schettini Kearney, who was then associated with the University of Notre Dame’s economics department, analyzed fertility rates for women aged 20 to 44 across 66 metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2006.
Throughout that mid-1990s to early 2000s period, U.S. birth rates remained relatively stable while the average median home sale prices consistently increased.
According to the research, escalating housing costs exert downward pressure on birth rates as they constitute the most substantial expense linked to raising children, surpassing expenditures for food, childcare, and education. Consequently, as housing costs rise, so do the associated costs of raising children, leading some couples to reconsider or postpone parenthood or reduce the number of children they plan, with the paper highlighting that shifts in housing prices can be even more impactful than unemployment rates in determining birth rates.
“The cost of housing is a significant factor in couples’ decisions regarding having children,” the authors stressed.
Jones notes that for potential parents, the financial instability of competing for limited, costly housing can make the idea of expanding the family “seem less attainable or even risky.”
Conversely, rising home values can actually lead to a baby boom among current homeowners, as the augmentation of homeowners’ wealth through housing equity can encourage them to have children sooner and possibly more children altogether.
Furthermore, those families who own homes might leverage their equity to finance child-related expenses like education.
Other Influences on Birth Rates
However, it’s crucial to recognize that housing costs are just one among many factors affecting national fertility rates, which is why there have been times in recent memory when home prices and birth rates have both increased simultaneously.
Jones explains that in the early 2000s, increased credit accessibility and an expanding economy made larger homes more attainable. Many Americans, feeling financially secure, welcomed the opportunity to have more children, even amid rising home prices.
Conversely, between 2008 and 2011, both home values and birth rates declined sharply.
“The housing collapse and Great Recession not only devalued homes but also inflated unemployment rates, hindering families’ aspirations to buy homes and start families,” says Jones.
Following 2012, home prices began to rise again, while birth rates continued to plummet, suggesting that escalating costs and reduced availability in the housing market have increasingly obstructed family growth.
In essence, the financial challenges tied to acquiring larger homes for accommodating bigger families have forced many Americans to delay having children, opt for fewer children in total, or choose not to have any at all, thereby reinforcing the downward trend in U.S. birth rates.
“While this doesn’t imply that housing is the sole reason for declining birth rates, it is undoubtedly a crucial structural limitation affecting family size in the current economy,” Jones observes.
The Role of Geography in Fertility Rates
Geographic location is also an essential factor in family planning.
A 2012 study by Dr. William A. V. Clark, a geography research professor at UCLA, found that women residing in high-cost markets such as New York City or Boston tended to delay having their first child by three to four years.
Clark indicates that higher-cost metropolitan areas often have a larger percentage of women with advanced degrees who prioritize career pursuits, potentially leading to postponement of motherhood.
“High-cost housing markets seem to create a threshold affecting reproductive behavior,” claims Clark; however, it is essential to note that there is no evidence suggesting these markets experience lower completed fertility rates compared to more affordable areas.
Hence, while women might delay motherhood by a few years to concentrate on educational or professional aspirations, the researcher posits that they are likely to fulfill their fertility goals over time.
Concerns About Low Birth Rates
The record low fertility rate of less than 1.6 children per woman that was noted last year caused significant concern in Washington, D.C., leading the administration of President Donald Trump to sign an executive order aimed at improving couples’ access to in vitro fertilization, alongside proposing “baby bonuses” to incentivize higher birth rates, as reported by The Associated Press in July.
Despite these actions, Dr. Leslie Root, a researcher at University of Colorado Boulder, who studies fertility and population dynamics, asserts that there is not much to worry about.
“This appears to be part of the ongoing trend of delayed fertility. We recognize that the U.S. population is still on the rise, with a natural increase—more births than deaths,” she shared with the AP.
Ultimately, Americans are marrying later and women are postponing childbirth for a variety of factors, including economic pressures and job insecurities. Experts agree that this trend is unlikely to shift significantly in the near future.
