Rush Limbaugh yesterday made some excellent comments spring-boarding off this article in the New York Daily news: “Micro-apartments planned in NYC can lead to major psychological problems: report.”
Micro-apartments could lead to major psychological problems, a report shows. The city plans to build a residential tower of apartments between 250 and 370 square feet at 225 E. 27th St. in Manhattan.
But health experts say that placing people in their 30s and 40s living in such cramped spaces can increase rates of domestic violence and substance abuse, The Atlantic reported.
And studies have shown that children raised in tight spaces can end up withdrawn and struggle to study and concentrate, according to Susan Saegert, professor of environmental psychology at the CUNY Graduate Center.
The story is appropriately illustrated with former Mayor Michael Bloomberg standing in some kind of floor outline of a proposed rat-hole that we can trust he will never ever set foot in. New York City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, has some interesting plans for using the cities pensions to leverage new housing. I’m sure it is all safe and legal.
Rush and others think this is merely liberals dealing with the poverty they cause with impoverished “help” to pretend to care. Frankly, from what I know of the mental health system in this country, it is utterly plausible that the future need for drugs and counseling is considered “stimulative” for the local mental health care industry. Neurosis-inducing housing might be considered a net benefit.
But there is another reason why de Blasio would love insano-housing: His eugenics bloodlust. De Blasio wants to use his police power to make sure that women have fewer options and are therefore more likely to abort their babies. His “equality” rhetoric is simply cover for his designs.
Micro-apartments fit well in that agenda.
Jonathan Last, author of What To Expect When You’re Not Expecting, wrote about the world-wide demographic implosion into which we are heading. In the Weekly Standard story, “America’s One-Child Policy,” he wrote:
Fertility isn’t all about sex, of course. It also involves that other great American passion: real estate. Fertility rates vary widely across the 50 states. The states with the highest are found mostly in the West, while the states with the lowest fertility are found mostly in the industrialized Northeast. The more fertile states tend to be more rural; the less fertile more urban. And the more fertile states tend to have lower land costs and, hence, costs of living. The cultural demographer Steve Sailer refers to this phenomenon as the “dirt gap.”
Beyond even the cost of real estate, housing stock influences fertility. When dramatically falling fertility first appeared in Europe after World War I, demographers went into a panic. In Sweden, researchers noticed that the small, modernist apartment buildings which had sprung up across the country were pushing couples to have fewer children. Subsequent research has demonstrated the effects of housing stock on fertility across the globe. Studies show the same results over and over—all things being equal, women living in apartments or condominiums have fewer babies than women living in single-family homes. This phenomenon has been demonstrated everywhere from New Jersey to Colombia to Great Britain to Iran.
How much does housing type matter? A 1988 Canadian study showed that even when you control for education, income, and other factors, married couples who lived in apartment-type buildings had 0.42 fewer children over their lifetimes than married couples in single-family homes. From the 1940s until the 1960s, there was a boom in the construction of detached, single-family homes in America. Levittowns sprang up across the country and, by 1960, single-family homes represented their biggest share of American housing stock in modern times. This coincides perfectly with the Baby Boom. On the other hand, large-scale apartment and condominium complexes became more popular during the 1960s. Their percentage of the total U.S. housing stock increased by 40 percent from 1960 to 1970 and by another 23 percent from 1970 to 1980: the precise years during which America’s fertility numbers went into steep decline.
If Last can do the research, so can the social planners and city planners who think micro-apartments are a great idea. They are not unaware that this kind of living situation will discourage couples from having children.