Latest news with #demography
Washington Post
a day ago
- General
- Washington Post
Is the American Dream still alive today?
Whether a person grew up in a crowded tenement building, at the end of a dusty road in farm country, or traveled over land and sea to get there, the promise of America was always a better life for its striving workers — and especially their children. That was the dream. Today there is widespread skepticism among the public that the American Dream — however they personally define it — is still possible. For many, the notion that hard work can reliably lift people up and that the next generation will be financially better off is simply a relic of the past. But what's the reality? Take our quiz and test your knowledge of the facts. ✓ Check Yourself The Post partnered with Gapminder, a Swedish nonprofit, to survey 600 people ages 18 to 65. The sample was balanced to reflect U.S. demography. 1 of 5 In the U.S. in 1970, around 90% of 30-year-olds earned more money than their parents had at about the same age. What is that number for the 30-year-olds of today? Around 30% Around 50% Around 70% Story continues below advertisement Advertisement 2 of 5 Around 40% of Black children born into poverty in the U.S. in 1978 remained in poverty as adults. What was this number for Black adults born in 1992? Around 30% Around 50% Around 70% 3 of 5 What factor do researchers think is the top predictor of whether a person who is born into a low-income family becomes middle class in the U.S.? Working close to home Having high-income friends More available jobs Two chairs in Hawthorne — a quiet, suburban-feeling neighborhood that sits north of Friendship Heights and Chevy Chase — on June 21, 2019, in D.C. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post) 4 of 5 What share of adults under 50 in the U.S. say they have either achieved the American Dream or on their way to achieving it? Around 25% Around 45% Around 65% 5 of 5 Where in the U.S. are children born into poor families more likely to be upwardly mobile and earn more than their parents as adults? Northeast (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) Midwest (Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska) Pacific West (California, Oregon, Washington) 0 of 5 Your score:
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Census scrapped
life and society politics 32 minutes ago The Census is to be scrapped, in the biggest change to how New Zealand counts its population in more than 70 years. Since 1951, the Census has gathered demographic data on every New Zealander every five years. But today Statistics Minister Shane Reti has confirmed from 2030, the Census will be replaced with a combination of administrative data from other government agencies, and smaller annual surveys that just a proportion of people will complete. Paul Spoonley is an emeritus professor at Massey University, with expertise in demography.
News.com.au
6 days ago
- General
- News.com.au
Vanishing kids: unexpected crisis hits key Sydney suburbs
Spiralling housing costs and the rampant construction of high-rise buildings dominated by one-bedroom units has turned parts of Sydney into children's deserts where kids are increasingly rare. Analysis of PropTrack and ABS data showed multiple suburbs where less than a tenth of residents were aged under 20, with kids under nine accounting for as little as 2 per cent of locals, in some instances. There were also multiple areas where the children population was close to half what it was at the start of the 2000s despite an increase in the population overall. This was a much faster decline than the drop in overall Aussie fertility rates over the period. Experts said a housing affordability crisis – especially during Covid – was behind the diminishing numbers of kids in some areas, with parents increasingly moving their families to cheaper suburbs. 'A key reason our birthrate is declining is because of poor housing affordability,' said demographer Mark McCrindle. 'That's especially pronounced in the more expensive parts of Sydney. 'An ageing population has been a long-term trend but it really got accelerated during Covid because of the tremendous home price rises pushing a lot more younger people out of many areas. Families are also having less kids.' He added that this was changing the fabric of Sydney. 'We will reach a point where the median age of residents in some areas will be very high and these areas will lack diversity of age.' Sydney as a whole was already ageing faster than the rest of the country and a continued exodus of families with young kids would exacerbate coming challenges, Mr McCrindle said. 'It means supporting an ageing population in Sydney will become an even bigger burden on the next generations,' Mr McCrindle said. ABS data showed most of the suburbs underdoing a juvenile drought had property prices hundreds of thousands of dollars above the city average, while rents were among the highest in the country. They included Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay, where less than 5 per cent of residents were under 20. The proportion in nearby Rushcutters Bay and Darlinghurst was close to 6 per cent. Low numbers of children and teens – making up less than 10 per cent of residents – were also observed in Waterloo, Wolli Creek, Surry Hills, Redfern and Kirribilli. But there were also emerging children deserts in areas that had historically been dominated by families. North Shore suburb St Leonards had a particularly notable shift. About 27 per cent of the St Leonards population were under the age of 15 in 2001, but by 2021 they made up just 11 per cent. There was a similar trend in inner west suburb Newtown: 20.5 per cent of residents were under 15 in 2001 but by the 2021 census this age group accounted for only 9.1 per cent of locals. Rising prices in once family dominated regions like the outer inner west, north shore and northern beaches had often coincided with increased high-rise construction. This led to the rapid transformation of local housing as detached houses were knocked down to make way for small units. Heavily developed Homebush was a case in point: those aged below 15 accounted for a fifth of residents in 2001 but following rapid unit construction this figure declined to 15 per cent. It was a similar story in Burwood, Rhodes, Zetland and Mascot. Ray White Northern Beaches agent Eddy Piddington said couples had always moved to further flung suburbs once they had children but the trend had accelerated in recent years. 'There's been a definite change at the higher end of the market,' Mr Piddington said. 'We have high-end buyers you only used to see in eastern Harbour suburbs before. They will call and say 'I want to spend $12m. What do you have?' That didn't happen before. 'It's become a lot harder for families to upgrade from a unit to a house in the same area, but it does depend on the family. Some value location above the property so they will stay, but for those who want a larger house they can afford, they usually have to move.' Fairlight resident Tom Norris is selling the Sydney Rd unit he and his partner bought prior to having their two kids. They're hoping to upsize to a larger house and said they will have to look further out. 'There are a lot of families in this area. You see kids all around the houses … but I know a lot of people who are in the same position. They're moving because they need more space and they can't afford a house unless they go further away.' The Sydney areas where kids were most abundant tended to be low-rise suburbs – often new estates in outer areas. The supply of freestanding houses in these areas was usually growing and home prices were lower than average. Suburbs where those aged below 20 made up more than 30 per cent of residents were Ropes Crossing, The Ponds, The Gables, Oran Park, Jordan Springs and Marsden Park. Most of these outer suburbs had houses about $300,000-$400,000 cheaper than the Greater Sydney median price and had a high supply of recently built housing. Mr Norris said he would miss aspects of the Fairlight lifestyle. 'We love the unit,' he said. 'We bought it just at the start of Covid and it really stood out. It's more like a townhouse or semi but it's time to move on.'
The National
11-06-2025
- General
- The National
An alarming UN report should prompt a rethink about global fertility
A report released on Tuesday by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) warns of 'tectonic population changes [that] will shape the future of humanity for generations to come'. The cause is a decline in global fertility rates 'at a breathtaking scale and pace'. The UN has, up until now, been loath to give a view on fertility, perhaps because it is such an explosive subject. The issue of whether our species should have fewer children or more is often tangled up in debates about climate change, feminism, resource scarcity and even racism. In his influential 'Essay on the Principle of Population', published in 1798, the demographer Thomas Malthus argued the human population would eventually outgrow the planet's resources. Although our numbers have increased eight-fold since then, Malthusian fears have proved largely unfounded. As countries became richer, their fertility levels fell. While birth rates remained high in much of the developing world over the past century, it was generally accepted that these, too, would fall as these societies became more prosperous. The theory behind this is that because wealthier societies enjoy greater life expectancy, lower child mortality, improved female literacy and independence, and more urbanised lifestyles, their adults are less likely to 'need' many children. Today, birth rates in much of the developing world are indeed falling – but, as the UN report explains, the reasons are complex, and not altogether positive. In many cases, financial difficulty – not prosperity – is the culprit. Moreover, this is the case in some wealthier countries, too. Across the 14 developed and developing countries the UNFPA surveyed, 39 per cent of people cited 'financial limitations' as a reason for not having a child despite wanting one. Today, birth rates in much of the developing world are indeed falling – but the reasons are complex, and not altogether positive Time is another issue. Modern life often demands several hours a day in commute time or employment in a second job. That leaves less time for child-rearing. The result is a kind of dark mirror of the refutation to Malthus. Development and modernity appear to have overcorrected in freeing us from the burden of unsustainably large families – they are now beginning to box us into unsustainably small ones. 'One in four people currently live in a country where the population size is estimated to have already peaked,' the UNFPA points out. 'The result will be societies as we have never seen them before: communities with larger proportions of elderly, smaller shares of young people, and, possibly, smaller workforces.' By the end of the century, the global population could shrink for the first time since the 1300s, when the Black Death ravaged Europe and Asia. In some wealthier countries where birth rates have already plummeted, the debate has become polarised. Some pro-natalists – advocates of more births – warn of native populations being 'replaced' by foreign immigrants, while others predict a collapse in pension systems as the workforce diminishes. Some of Malthus's intellectual descendants, meanwhile, point to climate change as a reason to welcome population decline. According to the UNFPA, however, these concerns are beside the point. The real crisis in this picture, it says, is the growing lack of reproductive agency. Millions of families around the world are unable to have as many children as they'd like, but millions of others are also having more than they intended. The former is fast overtaking the latter as the dominant trend, but in both cases the problem is that a huge number of couples feel they do not have control over the size of their families. This is a reminder that while it is, of course, important to have policy discussions that promote sustainable population growth, ultimately the guiding principle of fertility ought to be freedom – ensuring that couples are fully empowered to build the kind of family that works best for them. That is a very different – and much more fruitful – way of framing the matter.
