Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Musings on the Growing Sterility of Suburbia: Apr 29, 2017

Musings on the Growing Sterility of Suburbia: Apr 29, 2017

Let me begin this post by telling you that I first considered writing it about 2-3 years ago. However for a number of reasons, it got bumped down the list of what I ended up actually posting. It is based on a peculiar observation I have made over the years. However to explain the context of those observations, I have to first tell you where I live- very vaguely.

I live (rent) in a pretty affluent and nice but somewhat established suburb built in the late-1960s and 1970s. The time of its construction is important for three reasons relevant to this post. Firstly, unlike many suburbs built later on which contain only detached houses, this one does actually have a decent number of condos and apartment buildings. Secondly, it is within walking distance of multiple malls which are still busy and profitable. Thirdly, it has a much more balanced age structure than many other suburbs which are either predominately young or old. It is also worth mentioning that I lived in that area for over a decade.

So, what changes did I notice over those years which led me write this post. Well.. it is an observation about long-term changes in the number (or percentage) of people in that area who have children. It is also about the demographic characteristics of people who still have children.

Ever since the suburb in question was built, it has been one of the more desirable and affordable residential areas of that city. Consequently, it always had a fair number of younger couples with children. I noticed that on moving there almost 12 years ago- largely because of the noise of kids playing outside their houses, which could be a bit too much sometimes. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that younger couples with children had no problems being able to afford buying houses there from the time it was built up to 2007-2008.

Then something changed.. You see, house prices in that area increased by almost 300% in the 2006-2014 time span. Curiously, rents did not go by anything close to that percentage within the same time span. To make a long story short, it appears that many younger couples with children who owned their houses cashed out and moved further away from downtown. But houses can be sold only if somebody is willing to buy them and this brings me to issue of who bought them. Once again, to keep it brief, these houses were bought by somewhat older people and more affluent but often childless couples. The change in type of people buying houses in that area can account for a part of the decrease in percentage of people with kids in that area- but not most of it.

As I mentioned earlier, the area in question has a pretty decent number of renters- of both houses and condos. Also, many people renting houses and condos in that area had kids. So was there any change there? Well.. no and yes. The percentage of people renting in that area remained very constant, however the newer renters were far less likely to have kids in the first place. But why? Did they have less money than the previous groups of renters? As it turns out, that was not the case and the newer renters were just as affluent or more so than the group they gradually replaced. It is just that they did not have as many, if any, kids.

Curiously, there is an interesting exception to this general trend. It seems that younger non-white families (Asian, Indian, inter-racial etc) in that area still have kids. In other words, the general reduction in the number of kids per couple (if they have any in first place) is largely a white phenomena. To put it another way, over half the children in this relatively affluent and desirable area are now of non-white ancestry. Of course, nobody is having more than two kids but a majority who have any in that area are non-white. So what does that mean for the future? Well.. lets just say that it depends on what you consider desirable.

But coming back to the question of why the “majority” in that area now have far fewer kids than before- even when you adjust for age. In my opinion the answers are as follows: 1] The risk of getting ruined by divorce, alimony and child support is very relevant if you have enough money to lose. 2] Most people who lived in that area used to have stable and well-paying jobs. Now their jobs are just well-paying. 3] Perhaps it is getting even more expensive to raise children? I cannot be sure about that, but it appears to be the case. Let me know if you can think of any more reasons.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Wilson
    April 29, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    The age white women are waiting to have kids is reaching the final tipping point, also contraceptive methods have expanded in recent years, preventing a lot accidental families that would have naturally been formed

    • Jim
      April 30, 2017 at 2:48 am

      The culture of the USA is as toxic as it’s fake. That’s the irony of it all.

  2. Commentus Maximum
    April 30, 2017 at 9:34 am

    I know exactly one middle class white family with four kids. Mostly it’s one, or maybe two at the outside.

  3. Larry
    April 30, 2017 at 10:10 am

    Perhaps they don’t want any kids.
    Why have children?

  4. webej
    April 30, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    It seems to be the case that once the population pyramid flips, top heaviness turns it around in the water as it were, the species is headed to extinction. With robots and automation at the beginning of an S-curve, there will simply be no reason for masses of the population to be around. The next stage in human society after the service economy and automation is unemployment and uselessness.
    People from non-white backgrounds [1] are still closer to traditional values family structure, and [2] are on the outside trying to get into the main stream of modern culture — they have more ambition and are more amenable to the ego rewards of the system. This will quickly abate with new generations that are born into the main stream.

    • P Ray
      April 30, 2017 at 6:32 pm

      Might also have something to do with income and the media as well.
      Once the government is fully substituted for the for the man in the relationship,
      women can then cluck that they “don’t need no man”, and can fully indulge in hypergamy.

      Besides that, it’s interesting how when a woman cheats, the man “wasn’t meeting her needs”, but
      when a man cheats, we can’t say “she wasn’t meeting his needs”.

    • hoipolloi
      May 2, 2017 at 5:55 am

      May be the white families in the U.S. got the message that the world is overpopulated and automation in manufacturing, transportation and war is the future. It is smart in a way.

      • P Ray
        May 3, 2017 at 10:38 am

        May be the white families in the U.S. got the message that the world is overpopulated and automation in manufacturing, transportation and war is the future. It is smart in a way.
        That statement is puzzling in the light of the white man’s idea of MGTOW = “marry an Asian girl from Asia”.
        Actually, it seems the biggest racists who are white, are married to Asian women.

  5. April 30, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    Dickie Spencer supports abortion. His reasoning is that most white woman are on the pill working on their careers and it is mostly minority women who would have abortions and therefore be a form of eugenics.

    It’s funny, these alt-reich creeps wanna blame halfbreeds like myself for their inability to have white babies and therefore “white gen-0-cyde” ™ –but it is obvious they are blaming the wrong person.

    But isn’t it fun to watch them being unable to do anything worthwhile to change the situation.

    • May 1, 2017 at 1:08 am

      what are you half of (half breed) ?

      • May 1, 2017 at 8:01 pm

        let’s just say SPCA mutt, but even diritier and not as cute…

    • May 1, 2017 at 8:02 pm

      you will probably get a laugh outta this…

      white gen-0-cide ™ -Jack don-0-van and Dickie Spencer are turning nazism gay..

      I would not be surprised if that turned out to the case.

  6. P Ray
    June 6, 2018 at 2:54 am

    The interesting thing about “must have a house” (not apartment) and “earns a lot” that makes the regular/ugly guy attractive to modern women …
    is a clear attempt at “bait and switch”
    because she’ll bait him with sex, and become sterile after marriage.
    The kicker is, of course …
    her spending will go up AFTER marriage, but especially on things like handbags and dresses – which – at least according to Australian law – is seen directly as “woman’s property” and thus CANNOT be transferred to the man in any way.

    So one can reasonably say, when you marry a woman and she develops a “buying expensive handbag / dresses fetish” and some of these Birkin / Hermes handbags are actually INVESTMENT pieces … she doesn’t love you, and is planning to get rid of you.

    Men need to know the signs of a woman who is getting ready to check out of a marriage … but like to open their yaps to say that “money isn’t the reason they get into relationships” while only considering rich guys after they’ve had their fill of Chad Thundercock, and even better … after stopping all sex, if the guy goes looking elsewhere, he is “cheating”.

    You can’t “cheat on” a woman who isn’t delivering the sex that is part of a “loving” relationship.

    • P Ray
      June 6, 2018 at 11:53 am

      This woman “loved a guy as a friend with benefits” for 20+ years, so when she died she thoughtfully gave him “the most valuable thing: myself” (i.e. her ashes).
      The guy rightfully sued to get what he was owed. LEGENDARY!

      “I’m leaving you the most precious thing: me,” Mary Doyle wrote in a note for Moon that he received after her death with regard to her ashes. She went on to say she didn’t want them scattered anywhere, and that she’d always loved him. She also thanked him for “being there for me for all these years”.

      In his decision, Justice Powell was satisfied that despite Mary Doyle consistently describing Moon as a “friend,” Moon’s own view of the relationship was correct: they were in a de facto relationship.

      “Ultimately the picture that emerges is of two quite private people who formed a relationship that worked for them despite very considerable difficulties arising from Mary’s medical conditions,” Justice Powell said.

      “There can be no doubt whatsoever how important this relationship was, not just to Steven, but also to Mary.”

      The judge ordered that $276,000 be paid to Moon out of Mary Doyle’s estate. This payment would “almost certainly” require the sale of her house, which had been left to her older brother Patrick Doyle.

      Ya, women will even deny you were anything to her if she can get away with it!

  7. P Ray
    June 19, 2018 at 11:55 pm

    When a divorce occurs, both parties have to communicate. This guy made his feelings known. It’s an eye-opener about how to do things the right way.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: