Rising housing costs have caused fertility rates to fall

Home prices may be the real birth control. 

A new study by Benjamin K. Couillard, a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Toronto in Canada, finds that surging housing costs are responsible for more than half of the decline in US fertility rates since the early 2000s.

Couillard’s analysis, which draws on US Census Bureau data to track rent patterns nationwide, concludes that, had housing costs remained flat after 1990, roughly 13 million additional children would have been born by 2020. 

The research attributes 51% of the total fertility decline between the 2000s and 2010s to rising rents and home prices.

“That’s a surprising result,” Couillard said. “It suggests that housing costs are a major driver of fertility decline. Housing abundance is not just about affordability; it’s about long-term demographic sustainability.”

The study links the relentless rise in rents — up 149% between 1990 and 2020, according to US Bureau of Labor Statistics data — to a birth rate that has slid from 2.08 children per woman in 1990 to 1.64 by 2020. Last year, the number hit a record low of 1.599, far below the 2.1 replacement rate needed to maintain a stable population.

Couillard’s model separates housing costs from other economic pressures to show how affordability influences both timing and willingness to have children. 

“It’s actually more accurate to call it a living arrangement model, where fertility is a key component,” he said. 

People “can choose to start a family or remain with their parents, and the model captures dynamic considerations like life-cycle timing and long-term housing needs.”

Realtor.com senior economist Jake Krimmel, who reviewed the study, said the findings are striking for how precisely they quantify what many have long suspected. 

“It’s one of those rare findings that’s intuitive, important and has actionable implications for policy,” Krimmel said. 

“While it’s not surprising that high rents and housing costs curb fertility, it’s very difficult to ‘prove’ it in the data. Not only that, but the causal link needs to be quantified, so we know exactly how important the housing cost channel is relative to, say, the rising cost of child care or other economic and demographic shifts.”

The research suggests that the fallout extends well beyond housing markets. With fewer children born each year, economists warn that a shrinking workforce could strain federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which depend on a large base of younger taxpayers to support retirees.

Couillard argues that tackling housing costs could help reverse these demographic trends. 

“If we can get housing costs down, that’s good for affordability, but it also helps us avoid the demographic problems that come with aging populations and declining birth rates,” he said. 

“A maximalist housing policy, one that aggressively expanded supply to prevent costs from rising, could have solved the majority of the fertility problem.”

Krimmel agrees that the findings point to a policy gap. 

“To boost fertility, we not only need a larger housing stock, but a different housing stock,” he said. “We need to build more housing, particularly larger housing units and apartments that can accommodate growing young families.”